When an outlet claims that it is victim, this shows how absurd the fact-checking arm of the media can be.
It is inevitable to encounter fact-checkers when covering journalism and the media. The importance of this additional division has increased over time, even though there is an inherent contradiction. If the news was being covered accurately and truthfully, then no need to add a component for verifying facts.
It’s apparent that, instead, these media truth detectors are used as a tool to hinder political targets. Those rest a majority of the time on the right, and lately, conservatives have become more willing – and more vocal – in defending themselves from these pieces. These efforts have been used many times and in multiple ways. I’ve done this at Politifact (the fact-checking wing of The Poynter Institute).
Politifact is a company I regularly take on for their two main issues: inaccuracies and the focal point of their work. A claim was made that Politifact is unable to verify. Stacey Abrams was not supportive Last year, the MLB All-Star Game was moved from Atlanta. Her previous calls for corporations to respond to Georgia’s voting law were ignored. The MLB Commissioner stated that the decision had been made after consultation with Abrams. Politifact writer Louis Jacobson used an edited-after-the-fact, USA Today column–written by Abrams–to ‘prove’ she was against the idea, but ignores her lobbying for boycotts, before her 180 on the issue.
It is total and utter rubbish.
She not only lobbied for boycotts at first, but MLB later pulled the game and credited Stacey Abrams as the reason they made that decision.
It is pure gaslighting from the supposed Fact Check authority. Even for the outfit, this is an unacceptable level of behavior. https://t.co/VOd3DBCvX9 pic.twitter.com/xIynb8zEJk— Brad Slager 🍸🥃🍺🎙 Lifetime Subscriber to CNN+ (@MartiniShark) May 26, 2022
On the other matter of what it concerns itself with checking, Politifact frequently gives the Biden administration a pass on their regular factual dodges and manipulations, while the site’s verifiers busy themselves with trivialities. It can seem a bit pedantic to highlight what isn’t being covered. However, when I consider the vast amount of content available from the Biden White House I find it difficult to understand the significance of coverage of a man. Who claimed?His imaginary friend was killed.
Is this a needed item that required the truth detectors–a satirical post From 2015What if you are on social media but rooted in an outlet for gags? I’m certain, as part of the partnership to oversee social media, this meets some kind of requirement to police content, but is this really productive? Unless I am focusing too much on the “Politi” portion of Politifact, it seems time spent fact-checking jokes posted on Facebook could be better applied to the raft of inaccuracies and lies spewing from the White House.
A self-defense column was published by the website this week. written by Editor In Chief, Angie Drobnic Holan, in which she rises up to protect the honor of her staff from critics’ slings and arrows. Our source tells us that while they were able to take understandable criticism, their beleaguered correction corpsmen have been subject to far more severe attacks. Holan writes
These disagreements and critiques aren’t unreasonable. However, recent times have seen reasonable disagreements and hard-charging criticism evolve into something more sinister: Personal criticism of PolitiFact journalists which can be described only as intimidation and harassment online.
As someone not prone to quivering and being rendered by those online who deliver harsh comments, it is, with some amusement, I look over Holan’s list of harassment and intimidation. Although some of these comments are extremely hostile and crude, they can also be dealt with by adults. Sometimes, however, it’s quite revelatory.
Going into greater detail, the EIC actually name-checks some of PolitiFact’s noteworthy critics. Dan Bongino is mentioned, and he is labeled as “He loathes fact-checkers.” This is a common defense tactic by these viscounts of verite’ when they are called out. They will not accept your challenge of their results. HATEFacts, and people who verify facts. Holan lets it slip that the conservative pundit was right as well.
He’s also falsely described corrections we’ve made after publication as proof of the illegitimacy of our work. In reality, corrections are a part of every reliable news source in order for their stories to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible.
This explanation is easy to grasp. Bongino pointing out that they incorrectly report information is an attack. The editor however, admits to their error. Their soleExecuting a fact check is about confirming all the facts and declaring a story to be complete. A fact-check acts as an approval seal. Once it has been completed, the story becomes definitive. Holan admits that even though they are assumed to be complete, these fact reports can change. Holan explains that these presumptive, complete fact reports are fluid.
Christina Pushaw (Press Secretary for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis) is another named target. (He’s a preferred target for the site of late, with 34 fact-checks made on the Governor, with 75% rated False Half of the time Take note Biden’s press secretary Jen Psaki only garnered two fact-checks during her tenure.)
Pushaw is well-known for her ability to not only resist biased reporting in the media, but also to expose to the public those instances in which journalists act in bad faith.

The editor seems particularly annoyed by this second tactic. Holan continues to say that Pushaw’s willingness to defend the record shows government pressure on independent journalism, and is in violation of the Constitution. The editor says this is anti-journalism. Then she makes a rather sweeping comment– one that, itself, demanded a fact-check.
Rather than responding to journalists’ press inquiries in a standard manner, Pushaw will attack them on Twitter, urging online mobs to vilify things that are legitimate practices of journalism. She tells others not to respond to our requests for comment and has falsely suggested that reporters said things they didn’t.
Being familiar with the press secretary’s work I suspected this was a dose of fabulism. To verify this, I reached for Christina Pushaw’s impression. This is at the risk that Holan might be accused of attacking the Constitution and I’ll admit it. Pushaw was not able to respond to Politifact’s media outreach.
Pushaw tells RedState that “[yes, she has] All of their questions were answered via email.”
To support her claim, she even shared receipts. She explained that she exposes ethically questionable tactics on social media.
“In general, I only use Twitter”, she details, “after an inaccurate fact-check has been published. I’ll do that when a reporter either failed to contact our office for input or simply ignored the information we shared with them.”
Mai was a great examplePushaw asked DeSantis about the numbers regarding almost 60 percent student loan recipients. She replied that it was Poynter. It was Poynter that had provided the 56 per cent number. Easily predictedHis comment would be considered as Most False
What gets revealed in Holan’s column is something she unintentionally exposes. All of these accusations are made by Holan, who defends the writers and names critics. We can see this is only one side. It is more than curious that we do not see examples of these “attacks” coming from Democrats, liberal media members, or anyone on the Left.
This indicates either approval from the other side or acceptance. Politifact also pays a lot of attention to this. This can be seen easily in Holan’s most recent fact-checks, before she ascended to her position. These are the facts. False Ratings for Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo and Rick Scott. There is one check on Joe Biden – a Statement incidentally, rated as True..
When all of your criticism is coming from only one side, this would indicate that maybe your website’s focus is somewhat in conflict with the claim that your only agenda is to publish the truth–so readers can be informed participants in democracy.