I just knew that "fact-checking" would end up being like this. I ran into this when I called out Politifact with regard to Romney's welfare ad. I found out that because I had actually read the law and parsed the provisions, I knew WAY more than the flack who wrote for Politifact. She admitted that she didn't read the law in detail, but just took Romney to task for saying 'they just cut you a check', even though the maneuver by the Obama administration is completely illegal, and paves the way for the Secretary to just 'cut you a check'. And I don't say 'illegal' lightly; again, I read the law and know exactly how it is supposed to work, as well as the fact that Congress, to my great surprise, actually saw this maneuver coming and wrote the law specifically to prohibit what Obama is doing, but Obama is above the law, and the media dutifully ignores any suggestion to the contrary.So, in my experience, the so-called 'fact checkers' look at things very superficially, and when they get the answer they want or expect, they report it, and expect never to actually be checked themselves.In this case, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that IPAB has way more authority than the 'fact checkers' understand. They are impressed by flowery language, even (and maybe especially) when it has no legal effect.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<