Who Will Fact Check The Fact Checkers?

True Statements By Democrats Causing Critical Pinocchio Shortage At WaPo’s ‘Fact Checker’

Who or what is Disney?Hello Glenn Kessler, Mr. Dr. The Fact Checker of Washington Post “fame,” into what pretzels of tortured hermeneutics and fussiness are you twisting yourself today, because you are pathologically obsessed with appearing nonpartisan? Will it be three out of four “Pinocchios” for White House Man Dan Pfeiffer, who correctly stated that Republicans “doctored” the emails they leaked about Hillary’s Benghina, and how the State Department wanted to “cover it up”? Of course it will, because Dan Pfeiffer said a thing that is Factually True in Reality, meaning it contains “Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions,” and it shall be thrice Pinocchioed. This one is especially good though, because the Fact Check ITSELF relies on a provable falsehood!

Check it: The Fact Checker’s “Grand Conclusion” is: “Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.”

Excuse us, “imprecise wordsmithing”? “Editing errors by journalists”? No, Glenn Kessler. We KNOW, factually, that the misquoted/fabricated emails came directly from Republican sources. What Kessler’s referring to here is probably this story, by Jon Karl, which now bears an Editor’s Note that reads:

There were differences between ABC News’ original reporting on an email by Ben Rhodes, below, and the actual wording of that email which have now been corrected. ABC News should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a Congressional source. We regret that error.

We are sure you do, Editor! But let’s look at what this this note does NOT say:

The self-interested Republican scandal-mongering source never in a million years identified these as accurate quotes, and he was totally saying the whole time that he just pretty much made them up based on some shitty notes he took, and he was totally honest about how he also tried to make them look worse than they actually were for the Administration he hates.

For the love of, Glenn even says “Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report.”

Clearly! Of course! But clearly of course it is NOT OK when Dan Pfeiffer puts his own “spin” on the fact that, somehow, emails “paraphrased” by Republicans were markedly different than the actual emails — like, the only words shared in common between the two versions are one, that, the, at, tomorrow, morning, and deputies, out of 68 total words. We counted.

Glenn Kessler, it is okay to liberally award Pinocchios for liberal falsehoods, such as, for example, “I will close Guantanamo yesterday.” It is a service to us all! However, could you please refrain from trying so very hard to appear “above it all” by doing shit like this? And this, which is in some ways even worse? Really, four out of four Pinocchios because Obama said “an act of terror” and not “terrorism”? That’s two strikes, Fact Checker. One more and it’s a touchdown.

[WaPo]

 

What Others Are Reading

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.