The sky is green – true or false?
The answer, as we often find both in politics and in real life, depends on the context of the statement.
I can say “the sky is green,” and it’s false if I’m standing outside on a sunny day. I can say “the sky is green” and it’s true if I’m standing outside right before a tornado hits. Context always matters when you’re trying to determine whether a statement made is true. It’s especially important when you’re trying to determine if a candidate for office is being truthful or not.
That’s one of my biggest gripes with Politifact Virginia. Besides the fact that you’ve got reporters with little legal, economic, or government experience sitting as judge and jury over what is true or not, it’s far too easy to play games with context in an effort to influence the final decision.
This is one of the reasons why RPV argues Politifact is biased – not only do they ignore context when it’s convenient, they’re inconsistent about when they do so, and those inconsistencies tend to favor Democrats.
Here’s a perfect example – a few days ago, Politifact rated Tim Kaine’s statement that his general fund budget was smaller when he left office than when he started as Governor. They rated this statement as “True.” Their reasoning was that the statement is true if you look strictly at the raw numbers and only at the General Fund budget itself at the beginning of his term and at the end.
Here’s the problem – Politifact ignores the context. Tim Kaine’s statement was not made in a vacuum. It was made during a debate with George Allen, and it was made to bolster Kaine’s claim that he’s a much stronger budget hawk than Allen is. “Just look – the General Fund budget was smaller when I left office than when I took office! I’m a budget hawk!”
Yet, the article itself goes on to demonstrate that while the General Fund budget may have been smaller when Kaine left office than when he began, actual spending increased 7.9% during his term in office, thanks to $1.5 billion in federal stimulus money Virginia received. If my budget says one thing but what I spend is different because I got a windfall I wasn’t looking for, can I still claim to be a budget hawk? I don’t think so. Even though that stimulus money was temporary, it should count against Kaine’s claim. Why does it matter that his general fund budget was smaller if, in reality, government spending went up on his watch? Isn’t that the more important indicator as to whether someone is a budget hawk or not?
The article does note, thankfully, that Virginia slid into a national recession that reduced tax revenues while Kaine was in office. But the article then ignores the fact that Virginia’s balanced budget amendment required spending cuts or tax increases to make up the difference. Kaine didn’t have a choice – he couldn’t get tax increases through the legislature (despite multiple attempts to do so – even Politifact admits that), so he had to accept cuts. It wasn’t because he’s some kind of a budget hawk at all. He was stuck between the rock of General Assembly Republicans refusing tax increases and the hard place of the Virginia Constitution demanding a balanced budget.
So, in that context, claiming that because he ended his term with a smaller general fund budget – just the budget, not actual spending – that he’s some kind of budget hawk is a serious stretch of the truth. And I’ll be generous and leave the concept that forced virtue is not virtue for another discussion.
The Politifact article gives Kaine way too much slack, considering the point on spending. This is the same lack of slack that they gave Governor McDonnell when they rated his statement that he’d cut $6 billion from the budget since he took office “Mostly False.” In that piece, they did mention the balanced budget requirement, noted stimulus funds had made up the difference, and then tried to give Tim Kaine credit for some of what McDonnell did. Their main point was “yeah, McDonnell did cut some spending, but he didn’t have a choice, it was mostly gimmicks, and Tim Kaine deserves credit, too.”
As an aside, they also claimed in that article they’d rate Kaine’s repeated similar statements about his record, which they’ve never followed up and actually done. McDonnell also just announced the third straight budget surplus for Virginia since he took office – we’ll see how long it will take Politifact to rate this as “Mostly True” like they did last time.
In a similar situation with another politician trying to use facts to bolster a claim of being a budget hawk, they hit back hard. Here, for Tim Kaine, they pulled their punches. They ignore the balanced budget requirements which they noted when bashing McDonnell, they ignore that spending actually went up to focus on the inane statement that the budget itself was smaller, and they ignore the political reality that Kaine couldn’t get tax increases passed even if he wanted to, which forced the smaller budget to begin with.
For whatever reason, Politifact seems to be in the tank for Tim Kaine. By ignoring the context of Kaine’s statement and by not being consistent in how they deal with ratings determinations, they are demonstrating why folks like me don’t want a biased news media pretending to objectively fact-check political statements. RPV’s complaints about Politifact are ringing more true every day.
My colleague Chris Saxman put it perfectly: Tim Kaine says the sky is blue and he’s responsible for it. Politifact determines sky is blue, but can’t determine if Kaine was responsible, rates the statement “Mostly True.”
Fortunately for us, we can hold both Kaine and Politifact to a higher standard. So while what Kaine said was technically true, the conclusion he was trying to draw was nonsense, and the statement discusses a worthless metric that has little impact on reality. Politifact ignores the context in which the statement was made and the conclusion Kaine was trying to draw so they could give him a “True” rating.
As a result, Bearing Drift rates Politifact’s rating as “Mostly Spin.”
