Posted: 02/11/11 15:01
by Dave Mindeman
Eric Ostermeier, over at the Smart Politics blog, generally puts together a fact based composite for any premise that he asserts. And his stats are compelling to his point.
However, sometimes he just needs to apply Occam's razor...(a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories.)
In one of his recent examinations he wonders if there is a "left" leaning bias to the St. Petersburg Times, Politifact. The column that rates politician statements for accuracy.
Ostermeier outlines what bothers him:
A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts.
One of the legitimate questions that Ostermeiers asks is in regards to the criteria of how Politifact decides which statements to examine. Which would be a legitimate question if there is supposed to be a concrete method for selecting statements. There isn't. The same question could be asked of Ostermeier as to his own selection process for the statistical data he analyzes.
You might also ask if they simply select GOP politicians more than Democrats but the answer there is that the selection is split nearly down the middle...50-50.
For those current or former political officeholders, PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent), with a handful of stories tracking statements by independents (9 stories, 2.4 percent).
Yet, as Ostermeier points out, the GOP statements get the worst ratings the most often.
Occam's razor. The GOP get the worst ratings because they make the worst statements.
Ostermeier concentrates on making Politifact defend their selection process, but overlooks the facts about the statements themselves. Could it be possible that the Republicans make more outrageous and indefensible assertions?
Politifact is certainly going to be drawn to statements that get the most attention and the more outrageous the statement, the more attention it gets.
Maybe Ostermeier should try another analysis. Maybe he should put Michele Bachmann into a separate category. If you remove her statements from the Republican side of the ledger, the balance will shift heavily to the left.
Occam's razor. Michele Bachmann can't tell the truth.
Hmmm. Why bother with the study since you have already framed your conclusion. Seems like a lot of bother to have to spend time searching for corroborrating evidence. You missed your calling buddy. You should be working for the pharmaceutical industry. They pay big money for that type of reasoning.