FactCheck Sex-Ed Ad Response - Correction Still Needed
September 19th, 2008 at 09:22am KMorrison
FactCheck.org has followed up on emails rebuking their article on the McCain ad ‘Education’ with a statement that says in part,
‘We also never wrote that Obama said class material about ‘inappropriate touching’ was the main purpose of the bill. Our article said that ‘Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ and that Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles.”
Factcheck also categorizes the ad as false because it states that it was Senator Obama’s ‘one achievement’ in education. It is true that Senator Obama did not achieve the passage of this legislation, and may be able to account for other education successes. Also, the previous article should have been more clear in stating that it was Senator Obama that stated the bill was about ‘inappropriate touching’ not FactCheck. However, there are still major problems in FactCheck’s story.
They state outright in their response. “Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’.” The ad does not state that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ that is solely Factcheck’s own interpretation. Yet this is repeated as proof that the ad is false as they later refute their own interpretation by saying, “But Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.” That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the McCain ad.
Second, as they state in their rebuttal and in their original article, “Obama ‘made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles.” Again, this has nothing to do with the McCain ad. Motive was never discussed in the ad and Factcheck misleads about the content of the ad by refutiating a claim not made in the ad.
Finally, Factcheck refutes the ad as having cherry picked quotes about Obama’s record. Well, welcome to politics. The statements are all verified, but FactCheck explains that those sources frequently did not have glowing reviews of McCain’s education plan either. Certainly that is fair to point out, but that does no make the ad false.
The one claim they are able to back up is the statement in the ad saying that this bill is Senator Obama’s ‘only accomplishment’ in education. They cite three ammendments to a bill that Senator Obama worked on that were aproved by unanimous consent. As Factcheck states, “Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they’re accomplishments nonetheless.” Point taken.
I appreciate that FactCheck has responded to complaints about their article. However, I am still disappointed in the lack of actual fact checking within their article. Please read their response and email them at Editor@Factcheck.org if you agree that their article is still off base.
For clarity here are the basic complaints:
1. The statement, “Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’.” is an interpretation by Factcheck of the McCain ad, the ad itself does not claim that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’
2. The reason Senator Obama supported this bill is irrelevant. The ad never states the reason for Senator Obama’s support, and this makes Factcheck’s article misleading.
3. Cherry picked quotes do not make an ad false. Certainly fair to point out context, but the quotes were not false, and they do not make the ad false.
4. If Factcheck wants to claim the article is false because it was not Senator Obama’s only educational accomplishment than that is a legitimate complaint. However, in that case the article needs extensive editing as that is the only argument where they have provided any real evidence.
FactCheck Sex-Ed Ad Response - Correction Still Needed
Entry Filed under: Media Bias
10 Comments Add your own
1. Joe | September 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
KM,
First off… I can’t believe this topic has come up again.
Factcheck acknowledges that people have sent in items to rebuke their piece, but they shoot them down too.
1. ”The statement, “Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’.” is an interpretation by Factcheck of the McCain ad, the ad itself does not claim that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’”
The McCain ad says:
That (to most people) would make it sound like Obama wants to teach kindergarteners all about sex. It doesn’t say what it was really meant to do. That is to teach kids how to recognize inappropriate behavior.
2. “The reason Senator Obama supported this bill is irrelevant. The ad never states the reason for Senator Obama’s support, and this makes Factcheck’s article misleading.”
The McCain ad says:
Again, to MOST people, saying this was his “accomplishment” would mean he didn’t just support the bill, he authored or sponsored it.
3. “Cherry picked quotes do not make an ad false. Certainly fair to point out context, but the quotes were not false, and they do not make the ad false.”
I don’t think Factcheck said the ad is “false” because of the quotes. Factcheck is pointing out that the quotes used, while yes… they were talking about Obama’s education record, those same people turned around and spoke of John McCain’s record in less than flattering ways.
So you can complain about this one, but this really isn’t the point of the factcheck article and is rather nitpicky.
3. “If Factcheck wants to claim the article is false because it was not Senator Obama’s only educational accomplishment than that is a legitimate complaint. However, in that case the article needs extensive editing as that is the only argument where they have provided any real evidence”
Yes… debunking that it was his only accomplishment is pretty weak as that is rather debatable. My problem with your comment is that they haven’t provided any other real evidence of anything.
There aren’t a whole lot of facts in McCain’s ad to prove one way or the other. The ad makes factless points like “Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners.”. That is a statement that implies one thing to the rational person and that insinuation is what was debunked.
The ad says Obama is “elusive” on accountability. First off, that came from an editotial. Second, Factcheck is pointing out that that same newspaper had another editorial that shot down McCain’s record on Education.
So the whole thing is debunking innuendo. Seriously though, does anyone really, honestly believe that Obama believes Sex as you, me and every adult knows it, should be taught to kindergarteners? No. Nobody in their right mind could seriously believe that.
Time for Eric to chime in on teaching kids how to be gay!
By the way KM… I couldn’t post to that CNN article today or yesterday.
2. Joe | September 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
able to post on that CNN thread now.
3. KMorrison | September 20th, 2008 at 7:46 am
If they want to call themselves interpretation check then that’s fine, but if they want to say they are an objective fact checker then stick to facts.
Again, I understand if people don’t like the ad, but outrage grand misinterpretations from organizations that claim objectivity is ridiculous.
4. Joe | September 20th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Fair enough KM. I guess you could say they are fact checking what is “implied”. To me, what the ad implied is as much as saying it as fact.
We can agree to disagree.
5. js | September 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
if you read the bill…you would know that it “requires” the teaching about aids prevention and a long list of “shall be included”’s in its language…if “any” sex-ed is introduced in to all classes grades K up…so…effectively…the idea that obama was citing a need to educate young children about touchy feely issues so common already….is a farse…because the explicit language of the bill requires the educators to go far deeper than that…
so it is a lie…and its context is its own proof…
6. js | September 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 am
(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
(b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually.
so its not optional….its a requirement…
7. Joe | September 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 am
so its not optional….its a requirement
Where do you see it is a requirement?
You even quoted this part of the bill…
No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil
Damn people… read the bill.
And those of you all up in arms over teaching sex in kindergarten, the bill clearly says…
Plus it says that it will “STRESS” abstinence as the only sure prevention. Isn’t that what you people want?
8. Joe | September 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
By the way…
You people are getting your panties in a twist over something ridiculous.
People are losing their freaking homes. The financial markets in a mess. The Fed spending BILLIONS bailing out Wall St sticking us with the bill while the fat cats walk away with millions. Gas is still $3.70 a gallon and the winter heating crisis is on the way. Healthcare is still costing a fortune and thousands are uninsured.
Oh… and by the way… we are still spending $12 BILLION a month in Iraq as Afghanastan slowly becomes more and more of an issue.
But hey… keep worrying about an Illinois bill that didn’t even pass the state Senate BACK IN 2003!
9. Joe | September 24th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Speaking of Factcheck.org…
This regarding McCain most recent
liead.The great thing about Factcheck is that they will tell you if something is wrong regardless of who the candidate is saying it. They bring up plenty of things that Obama has said as well.
What I find funny is that Obama’s falsehoods are things like saying McCain took $2mil from “big oil” and Factcheck says that isn’t true, he only took $1.3 mil.
Meanwhile McCain’s are flat out lies.
It would be good to at least have some semblence of truth in your ads. The more blatant the lie, the more people that are going to distrust you.
This “straight talk express” ain’t too freakin straight.
10. ObamaWonAlready | October 12th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Oh well……
Half of you people don’t even know what Acorn really is, or who Ayers really is. Just keep getting your talking points from Bill Orally, and Rush “Oxycontin” Limbaugh. It’s helping the Obama campaign more than you know.. hahha
Educate yourselves on how the GOP deceived you in the last two elections on the Acorn issue. And how A.G. Gonzales fired attorneys because they wouldn’t lie to cover up the GOP’s false claims of voter fraud and voter manipulation in ‘04. And yet, the GOP continues this tactic.
I find it hilarious… You people nitpick over NON-FACTS, NON-ISSUES and not the REAL issues… Because, it’s all you have. Because you know McCain is a major failure when it comes to real issues. Or is it you don’t want to talk about your Messiah #2 Palin doing (and being charged by a bi-partisan review) in exactly what she is campaigning against? Some change there.. haha.
Oh….And what is that coming around the corner, you ask?
Obama at the finish line!
Your Neo-Con days of ruining this country are OVER!
But don’t worry, we still love you. We will still give you affordable health care, jobs in this country, and benefits if you are ever down on your luck.
They won’t be taken away from you, like they have been to 95% of Americans currently.. Just this time around, it will be for all - and not just the few rich neo-cons. Nothing to be scared of my neo-con friends.
Please, all my neo-con friends. Take the fancy bed-linen off of your heads, put away your stuffed toy monkeys with Obama stickers on them and go home. A true patriot will soon be in the White House.. Don’t fear him, even your Messiah #1 McCain says he’s an upstanding man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_HcBQfPDto
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed