Does anyone else notice the bias in fact-checkers online?

Tweet

I'm curious about this. Let me start by saying that these fact checkers are not typically lying, but they do seem to target politicians on the right a bit more harshly than those on the left. On politifact that's often represented by a lower rating than the person deserves. Take this statement by Ron Paul for example. "The Arab and the Muslim nations get twice as much money as Israel." http://politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/may/21/ron-paul/us-rep-ron-paul-says-arab-and-muslim-nations-get-t/ No matter how it's dressed up he actually understated the amount of money. Typically when something said to make a point is understated, it gets a rating of "true". In this case, they gave it "Mostly True" because they didn't think it was fair to compare Israel to multiple countries. Then we have Paul Ryan who said "On taxes, President Barack Obama wants to raise "the top rate to 44.8 percent." http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/18/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-says-barack-obama-wants-top-tax-rate-448/ He too only got a "Mostly True" rating because they said the number could be between 42.8 and 44.8 depending on how you dress it up. In other words, they really struggled to find a way to NOT call his statement true. My personal favorite involved Texas Republican Ted Poe who said "The U.S. gives foreign aid to Cuba and Venezuela, even though those countries are our enemies. " http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/23/ted-poe/ted-poe-decries-us-aid-venezuela-cuba/ This statement is clearly true. In their evaluation they acknowledged that it was true saying "Poe is correct that U.S. foreign aid flows into both countries. In fiscal year 2010, the Venezuela account showed $6 million, while the Cuba account showed $20 million. For fiscal year 2012, the administration has requested a little less for Venezuela -- $5 million -- and the same $20 million amount for Cuba." There was nothing factually incorrect about his statement. However, they rated it as FALSE because they felt the money was going to the "people" of those countries rather than the regimes ruling them. On the other hand, blatant lies by democrats can get much kinder treatment. Take for example when Obama claimed "Regime change (in Iraq) took eight years" http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-regime-change-iraq-took-eight-ye/ Since the war started in 2003, that would mean regime change JUST happened. As anyone not living under a rock knows, Sadaam and his government have been out of power for many years. Even while Bush was still president they had a completely different government and Bush was there visiting their leader when that moron threw a shoe at him. Then we have Nancy Pelosi and her trademark demagoguery. She said "Under a House Republican appropriations bill, "6 million seniors are deprived of meals." http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/06/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-gop-bill-would-deprive-six-milli/ Again, this was a blatant lie. Even when her office was contacted by politifact they admitted that it was 6 million MEALS that would be cut, not 6 million SENIORS that would be forced to starve so they're starting with a lie even before they check her math. Of course even for that there was nothing in the bill that said meals would be cut, only that there would be a cut in the money spent which could be offset with smaller or less expensive meals. So what was she rated? "Half True". A blatant lie, which her office admitted, and she gets a rating of "Half True". So while factcheckers do good research, and are a valuable source, don't think for a minute that there isn't any bias in their fact-checking. You really have to read the fine print since their basic ratings often reflect what they WANT to rate statements.