{"id":388291,"date":"2018-12-08T07:52:08","date_gmt":"2018-12-08T06:52:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/factcheck-false-equivalence-wapo-rates-ocasio-cortezs-misconstrued-pentagon-study-as-bad-as-trumps-biggest-lies\/"},"modified":"2018-12-08T07:52:08","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T06:52:08","slug":"factcheck-false-equivalence-wapo-rates-ocasio-cortezs-misconstrued-pentagon-study-as-bad-as-trumps-biggest-lies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/factcheck-false-equivalence-wapo-rates-ocasio-cortezs-misconstrued-pentagon-study-as-bad-as-trumps-biggest-lies\/","title":{"rendered":"Factcheck False Equivalence – WaPo rates Ocasio-Cortez's misconstrued Pentagon study as bad as Trump's biggest lies"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

In an era when the president of the United States is an inveterate, habitual, daily liar, about all things great and small, and especially about himself, factchecking sites can provide an invaluable\u2014if increasingly overwhelmed\u2014public service. Though the siloing off of this core function of journalism still presents, I\u2019d submit, something of a moral hazard\u2014the implication being that the existence of a distinct factcheck team alleviates political beat reporters from the responsibility of meticulously calling out spin and falsehoods on a routine basis\u2014there are resource benefits to having a dedicated team focused on separating fact from fiction.<\/p>\n

This does not mean, however, that factcheck journalism in the corporate press is free from the institutional pressures of \u201cboth sides\u201d<\/a> objectivity. Precisely because of President Trump\u2019s unprecedented propensity to lie, there can be a latent urge among factcheckers to find similar examples of dishonesty among the left, to provide some semblance<\/a> of \u201cfairness.\u201d And, at times, these efforts can devolve into obtuse, bad-faith examples of nitpicking and false equivalence.<\/p>\n

\"WaPo:<\/p>\n

For the Washington Post<\/strong> (12\/4\/18<\/a>), misconstruing Pentagon accounting errors is akin to making up millions of illegal voters, or denying the deaths of thousands of\u00a0 Puerto Rican hurricane victims, or asserting that “white genocide” is happening in South Africa.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Such was the case earlier this week, when the Washington Post<\/b> (12\/4\/18<\/a>) ran a lengthy factcheck about a Sunday tweet (12\/2\/18<\/a>) from Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her tweet, which highlighted an academic study in an exclusive story at The Nation <\/b>(11\/27\/18<\/a>), drew a direct comparison between $21 trillion in unsupported Defense Department budget adjustments over an 18-year period and the projected $32 trillion cost of implementing Medicare for All over the next decade. Roughly 10 hours later\u2014after the post went viral, racking up thousands of retweets (which is common for her)\u2014she replied to the initial tweet with a quote from The Nation <\/b>story (12\/2\/18<\/a>) and a clarification: \u201cthis is to say that we only demand fiscal details w\/ health+edu, rarely elsewhere.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Post<\/b>\u2019s factcheck headline (12\/4\/18<\/a>) \u00a0two days later was unquestioningly blunt: \u201cAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez\u2019s $21 Trillion Mistake.\u201d So had Ocasio-Cortez simply made up the $21 trillion number? No. Invented the study? Unfairly singled out the Pentagon? Bungled the math, inaccurately dividing 21 into 36? No, no and no.<\/p>\n

Instead, in her tweet, she had failed to properly capture the fact that the missing Pentagon money included both inputs and outlays and, therefore, wasn\u2019t a tranche of lost funds that could\u2019ve been re-allocated to pay for Medicare for All, as she suggested. In fact, the Pentagon\u2019s total budget over those 18 years was $9 trillion. It\u2019s a key distinction, but that missing nuance led the Post <\/b>to award this \u201c$21 trillion mistake\u201d its worst rating for dishonesty: \u201cFour Pinocchios.\u201d<\/p>\n

A bit of important context: Ocasio-Cortez has drawn an extreme level of scrutiny from conservatives of late. Scouring her Twitter<\/b> feed or informal video chats to single out any slip of the tongue<\/a> is now a favorite past-time of her right-wing critics. (They do so at their own online peril<\/a>.) With her massive social media presence and ability to influence online trends, the mainstream press has taken notice as well.<\/p>\n

In fact, this latest Post <\/b>factcheck is the second time the paper has singled her out in the past six months. The first time was back in August (8\/10\/18)<\/a>, before she was even a member of Congress, and the pedantry was strong. Among its very literal factchecks, the paper judiciously rated it as \u201cfalse\u201d when Ocasio-Cortez said in an on-air interview about unemployment: \u201cEveryone has two jobs.\u201d Great catch, guys.<\/p>\n

\"Twitter:<\/p>\n

The Ocasio-Cortez tweet (12\/2\/18<\/a>) in question.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

To read the Post<\/b>\u2019s own explanation in this latest factcheck of Ocasio-Cortez is to realize how wishy-washy and over-the-top its \u201cFour Pinocchios\u201d verdict was. To bolster its claim of egregious dishonesty, the factcheck quotes a passage about the study from the Nation <\/b>piece (emphasis FAIR’s):<\/p>\n

\n

And indeed, the plugs are found on both the positive and the negative sides of the ledger, thus potentially<\/b> netting each other out. But the Pentagon\u2019s bookkeeping is so obtuse<\/b>, Skidmore and Fitts added, that it is impossible to trace the actual sources and destinations<\/b> of the $21 trillion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Post <\/b>then holds up this passage as a damning indictment of Ocasio-Cortez, saying:<\/p>\n

\n

But it did not appear in her tweet, which clearly implied that the $21 trillion could have been used to pay for 66 percent of the $32 trillion in estimated Medicare for All costs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

To recap, Ocasio-Cortez did not think to include an somewhat intricate, detailed disclaimer about the unaccounted for Defense spending\u2014of which, again, no one knows how much was really lost\u2014in her initial 280-character tweet (though she did reference the Nation <\/b>article that explains those details). And her follow-up tweet, which sought to clarify and expand the point that she was talking about broad fiscal-policy priorities, did not lessen the damage in the Post<\/b>\u2019s eyes, because the initial tweet still stands.<\/p>\n

The Post<\/b>\u2019s factcheck further criticizes her claim by pointing out that the two amounts aren\u2019t apples-to-apples comparisons anyway, since they cover different time periods. This is, simply put, pure pedantry; the federal government routinely reallocates monies from one project to another over varying, different timelines. To claim this as another kind of \u201cgotcha\u201d is just silly. But then, the Post <\/b>Fact Checker already tipped its hand earlier this summer in its stubbornly pessimistic take on Medicare for All (8\/7\/18<\/a>), which joined a broader math-challenged disdain for it among the mainstream press, as FAIR (7\/31\/18<\/a>) has noted previously.<\/p>\n

But perhaps most noticeable about the Post <\/b>factcheck of Ocasio-Cortez is its damning verdict. \u201cFour Pinocchios\u201d was warranted, the column concluded, because her \u201cbadly flawed\u201d tweet is still up, \u201cprobably causing confusion.\u201d Probably<\/i>. And the Post <\/b>even acknowledges that Ocasio-Cortez references in her tweet the actual article that gives the missing details and context. No matter.<\/p>\n

So does all this really rise to being ranked among the worst of the worst political statements? For comparison, here are a few other claims by President Trump the Post <\/b>has also rated with \u201cFour Pinocchios\u201d:<\/p>\n

\"Comparison<\/p>\n

Trump’s insistence that the top crowd was bigger than the bottom crowd got the same rating as Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n