The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label "Pants on Fire". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Pants on Fire". Show all posts

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Fox Business Hosts And Guest Goes Pure Gutter (Attacks John McCain)

Why does Fox News do this? The question is rhetorical; we know why Fox News broadcast over the top lies and false statements. 

If there is an American news network which practices that time-honored basis of business, it is Fox News.  "Give the customer what they want."  Now, supplant the word customers with the word: viewers

The network isn't a new network in the remotest of reality. It is a communication division of the GOP, RNC,  and a propaganda department for Donald Trump.

Watch something which transpired this morning.

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling

"Pants On Fire"

Says McCain was a "Hanoi Hilton songbird" who collaborated with the enemy.
— Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain on Tuesday, January 15th, 2008 in a flyer sent to news organizations in South Carolina
Pants on Fire!

See Politifact StumbleUpon

Monday, April 24, 2017

Trump AP Interview Bubbling Over With "FALSE"

Image result for false

Fortune has published a piece regarding Trump's AP interview of last Friday.  

The following video was an embed in the Fortune post and here is a link to the full interview transcript. Of course, you know Trump lies 81 plus percent of the time and I am convinced when not lying he spews whatever thoughts trickle through his brain and out of his mouth.  In simple terms, if you believe anything Trump says, it may serve a reflection on you.

While media sources are starting to publish lies and misstatement from the interview, we find the MSN Fact Check a great short read. 

Fact Check excerpt

TRUMP: "No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days." — Tuesday at the Kenosha, Wisconsin, headquarters of Snap-on tools 
THE FACTS: Trump's legislative victories are minor, surpassed by those of a variety of high achievers in the White House. 
Taking office in the Great Depression, Roosevelt quickly declared a banking holiday to quiet panic, called a special session of Congress and won passage of emergency legislation to stabilize the banking system. He came forward with a flurry of consequential legislation that set the pillars of the New Deal in place within his first 100 days, "the most concentrated period of U.S. reform in U.S. history," say Alan Brinkley and Davis Dyer in "The Reader's Companion to the American Presidency." No fewer than 14 historic laws were enacted in that time.
Trump's big agenda items, like his promised tax overhaul and infrastructure plan, have yet to reach Congress. His attempt to secure the borders from people from terrorism-prone regions is so far blocked by courts. His first attempt to repeal and replace President Barack Obama's health care law failed in Congress. 
Trump needn't look as far back as FDR to see a president who got off to a fast start. Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus package into law in his first month, while also achieving laws expanding health care for children and advancing equal pay for women in that time. 
Like Roosevelt, Obama came to office in an economic crisis, the worst since the Depression. Lawmakers from both parties were inclined to act quickly and did, even as they fought over the details of the big stimulus package that defined Obama's early days. 
President Ronald Reagan's 100 days were considered the hardest-driving since FDR's time, even though Reagan was shot March 30, 1981. He presented Congress with the most consequential tax, spending and government-overhaul plan it had seen in decades, a comprehensive package that exceeds in scope anything Trump has brought forward, including his first run at health care. Congressional approval came later.
Politifact also performed a review of Trump's 100 Days in Office.  
"No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days."
Our ruling
Trump said, "No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days." 
Trump has had some achievements in office, but at the very least, they are much less numerous and far-reaching than those of Roosevelt, the standard against whom all presidents are measured. In more recent years, other presidents, including Obama, have accomplished more in their first 100 days than Trump has, historians say. We rate the claim False.
Donald Trump

"No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days."

The Politifact Trump reviews are growing in number and skewering very much to the "False" and "Pants on Fire" portion the review graph.

We saved the best for last (excuse the cliche).  Herewith is a Star dot Com piece regarding the interview: Link.

Donald Trump has serious issues with credibility, character, and veracity. StumbleUpon

Sunday, August 28, 2016

And They Say Hillary Cannot Be Trusted?

Why the Lord of the Lies?  Despite the fact Hillary Clinton is (always) referred to as "they don't trust her, Trump is a far greater liar. In fact, the rational personal can assume the first utterance for trump will always be a lie, misinformation, or an exaggeration. 

Truth-o-meter 2016 Fact-checking-2016-Clinton-Trump

Bill Moyers dot com published a piece this past spring that pretty well sums-up Trump.

"This post was first published on" Staff.

Why Trump Can Lie and No One Seems to Care

The GOP candidate gets away with outrageous, contradictory statements because the mainstream media and the public let him.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gives a speech during a rally at the The Northwest Washington Fair and Event Center on May 7, 2016, in Lynden, Washington. (Photo by Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images)

Donald Trump is a serial liar. Okay, to be a bit less Trumpian about it, he has trouble with the truth. If you look at Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning site that examines candidates’ pronouncements for accuracy, 76 percent of Trump’s statements are rated either “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire,” which is to say off-the-charts false. By comparison, Hillary Clinton’s total is 29 percent.
But if Trump doesn’t cotton much to the truth, he doesn’t seem to cotton much to his own ideas, either. He waffles, flip-flops and obfuscates, sometimes changing positions from one press appearance to the next, as Peter Alexander reported on NBC Nightly News this past Monday — a rare television news critique of Trump.
I say “rare” because most of the time, as Glenn Kessler noted in The Washington Post this week, MSM — the mainstream media —  just sit back and let Trump unleash his whoppers without any pushback, even as they criticize his manners and attitude.
In an ordinary political season, perhaps Trump would be under fire for his habitual untruths, like the one that Ted Cruz’s father might have been involved with Lee Harvey Oswald. This time around, though, neither the media nor the public — least of all his supporters — seem to care. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that these days, as far as our political discourse goes, truth, logic, reason and consistency don’t seem to count for very much.
The question is why.
One simple explanation is that Trump has changed the rules. He is not a politician but a provocateur, and he isn’t held to the same standards as Clinton or Bernie Sanders or even Cruz, all of whom actually have policies. For Trump, policies are beside the point.
… Truth, logic, reason and consistency don’t seem to count for very much. The question is why.
Another explanation is that long before Trump, social scientists observed that truth matters less to people than reinforcement, and that most of us have the ability to reformulate misstatements into truth so long as they conform to our own biases. We believe what we believe, and we are not changing even in the face of opposing facts (without this capacity for self-deception there would be no Fox News).
There is, however, another and even more terrifying explanation as to why the truth doesn’t seem to matter. It has less to do with Trump or our own proclivities to reshape reality than it has to do with infotainment — with the idea that a lot of information isn’t primarily about education or elevation, where truth matters, but entertainment, where it doesn’t. You might call it “the Winchell Effect.”
US news commentator, drama critic and gossip columnist Walter Winchell (1897 - 1972), making a radio broadcast.  (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)
US news commentator, drama critic and gossip columnist Walter Winchell (1897 – 1972), making a radio broadcast. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)
Walter Winchell, about whom I wrote a 1994 biography, was a hugely popular New York-based gossip columnist for the Hearst newspaper chain and an equally popular radio personality, although saying that is a little like saying that Michael Jordan was a basketball player. Winchell was thegossip columnist, with an estimated daily audience of 50 million. He practically invented the form, and the form was a long chain of snippets — rumor, prediction, innuendo — racing down the page, separated by ellipses.
Some of these snippets were scarcely more than a noun, a verb and an object: Mr. So-and-so is “that way” about Miss So-and-so. Does her husband know? In this way, Winchell became not only the minimalist master of gossip but also, quite possibly, the first tweeter – before Twitter.
If you are wondering how this is relevant to the 2016 campaign, in time Winchell turned his roving eye from entertainment to politics, deploying exactly the same arsenal to the latter as he had to the former. Thus did gossip leap the tracks from Hollywood and Broadway to Washington. In this, Winchell’s approach was a precursor of modern election coverage. He was obsessed with letting readers in on what was going to happen — the clairvoyance of rumor — rather than with what was happening or what it actually meant. That is, he was a horse-race handicapper long before horse-race coverage became the dominant form of political journalism.
One prominent example: At the behest of the White House, Winchell spent months floating trial balloons for Franklin D. Roosevelt and his ambitions for a third term. Basically, it was presidentially endorsed gossip.
But Winchell’s influence didn’t stop at conflating entertainment with politics — and this is where the indifference to truth comes in. Winchell reported dozens of tidbits of gossip each day. Presumably, that’s why people read him or listened to him on the radio; they wanted to be ahead of the curve. But the vast majority of these tidbits were unverifiable, and nearly half of the flashes that were verifiable turned out to be false, according to a survey conducted for a six-part New Yorker profile of Winchell by St. Clair McKelway. Since there was always a passel of new scoops every day, no one seemed to notice — or care — that he was usually wrong.
One can only assume this was because readers seemed to relish the excitement of the “news” more than they desired its accuracy. Or, to put it another way, gossip was entertainment, not information. Thus the Winchell Effect.
The Winchell Effect is alive and well in today’s politics in two respects. First, candidates can get away with saying pretty much anything they want without being held accountable so long as what they say is entertaining and so long as they keep the comments coming. Trump has been the major beneficiary of this disinclination by the MSM to examine statements. The blast of his utterances always supersedes their substance. And the MSM plays along.
To wit: Trump announced his tax plan way back in September 2015. With kudos to the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, which did look at his plan, it is just this week that most of the MSM are getting around to examining it — even as he changes it. (I may have missed it, but I still have yet to see a single story delving into Trump’s tax policies on the network news.)
The blast of his utterances always supersedes their substance. And the MSM plays along.
Perhaps better late than never, but the fact that he could throw out wild schemes involving trillions of dollars without the media feeling the need to vet them means that primary voters had no way to understand his tax plan and see its flaws. Of course, from the MSM’s perspective, analyzing a plan would be tackling policy, not providing entertainment. And make no mistake, the candidate and the mainstream media are in the entertainment business.
And that is the second way in which the Winchell Effect changes our politics. If candidates are not accountable, neither are the political media. Like Winchell, they are not only besotted with strategies, polls, predictions, and — in the case of a few cable networks — wild, unverifiable charges, they are, like Winchell, seldom challenged when they get it all wrong.
They were wrong about Trump not being a serious candidate. They were wrong about Jeb Bush’s and Marco Rubio’s chances to get the nomination. They were wrong about the likelihood of a contested GOP convention. Since they won’t call one another out, no one calls them out. In effect, they are implicated in the Winchell Effect as much as Trump is, which may be one reason why they don’t challenge him. Neither Trump nor the press has to be right. They just have to keep ginning up the excitement.


Neal Gabler is an author of five books and the recipient of two LA Times Book Prizes, Timemagazine's non-fiction book of the year, USA Today's biography of the year and other awards. He is also a senior fellow at The Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, and is currently writing a biography of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Meme Tracker: "Obama has given 'no special recognition' to police killed in action"

Another Tampa Bay Times Politifact "Pants On Fire"

Pants on Fire!
Facebook posts
"794 law enforcement officers have fallen in the line of duty since B.H. Obama took office, with no special recognition from the White House."
— Facebook posts on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 in a meme on social media

Meme says Barack Obama has given 'no special recognition' to police killed in action

"794 law enforcement officers have fallen in the line of duty since B.H. Obama took office, with no special recognition from the White House.

"A man robs a convenience store and assaults a cop; the White House sends three representatives to his memorial service."

The meme appears to stem from the "Culture Crisis in America" Facebook community, which describes itself as "an e-magazine for Americans subscribing to the notion that the cultural deterioration of American values rests within the root of economic and social crises across our land, and indeed, the globe."

We’ll quickly note that, according to news reports, the White House did send three representatives to the service for Brown: Broderick Johnson, chairman of the My Brother's Keeper Task Force; Marlon Marshall, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; and Heather Foster, an adviser in the public engagement office. (Marshall had personal as well as professional reasons to attend; he’s a St. Louis native and attended high school with Brown's mother.)

Here, we'll focus on the meme's claim that Obama has been indifferent to law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, giving them "no special recognition." Is that correct?

Have 794 officers been killed in the line of duty since Obama was inaugurated?

The meme footnotes its figure to the website Officer Down Memorial Page, a privately run page that memorializes and keeps count of the number of police killed in action every year. Between 2009 and Dec. 2, 2014, the site counted 834 deaths. The lower number on the meme probably because the number of deaths has increased since its creator first looked up the number.

Due to differences in methodology, the Officer Down Memorial Page figure is somewhat higher than the official federal statistics, which are accessible in an FBI database known as "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted." 

The FBI figures show 521 deaths from 2009 to 2013, roughly half from felonious homicides and half from accidents in the line of duty. If you extrapolate the numbers to include 2014, that would work out to roughly 625 deaths.

That’s smaller than what was cited in the meme, but given the diversity of criteria that can be used to calculate this statistic, we’re not overly concerned about the meme’s number. (The Officer Down Memorial Page, for instance, counts deaths off-duty "while acting in an official capacity to prevent loss of property, injury, or death, or is targeted because of his/her duties as a law enforcement officer.")

One footnote: The numbers of fallen officers have been declining rather noticeably in recent years. According to the FBI statistics, the number of officers killed initially rose from 96 in 2009 to 128 in 2010, but then began falling, to 125, then 96 and finally to 76 in 2013. That’s a 41 percent decline in three years.
Has there been "no special recognition from the White House" for fallen officers?

This is where the meme is entirely off-base. We found many instances of White House "special recognition" for fallen officers.

Here’s a selection of events where Obama has appeared, all archived a few quick keystrokes away on the White House website:
Excerpt from proclamation:
"As a nation, we rely on law enforcement officers to keep our neighborhoods safe, enforce our laws, and respond in times of crisis. These men and women sustain peace and order across America, and we look to them as models of courage and integrity. This week, we honor their extraordinary service and sacrifice, and we remember the fallen heroes whose selfless acts have left behind safer streets and stronger communities."
Excerpt from Obama’s remarks:
"To the survivors of fallen law enforcement officers, our hearts go out to you for your loss. The husbands and wives, mothers and fathers you loved, they protected us all. And all Americans are grateful for the lives that they gave in the line of duty."
Excerpt from Obama’s remarks:
"Tomorrow we know that you and your fellow first responders will be back on your diligent duty -- looking out for us, looking out for one another, looking back at times with fallen partners, determined to make sure that their extraordinary sacrifices were not in vain. And we will be standing behind you, as one nation and one people, proud of your actions, awed by your courage, and grateful for your service on our behalf."
• May 15, 2012: Presidential remarks at the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service at the U.S. Capitol.
Excerpt from Obama’s remarks:

"Today, with heavy hearts, we honor those who gave their lives. 

 .... Their families are in our thoughts and prayers, as we remember the quiet courage of the men and women we have lost. 

 … The rest of us can never fully understand what you go through. 

 But please know that we hold you in our hearts -- not just today, but always. We are forever in your debt. And it is on behalf of all of us, the entire American people, that I offer my thoughts, my prayers, and my thanks. May God shine a light upon the fallen and comfort the mourning. May he protect the peacemakers who protect us every day."
Excerpt from Obama’s remarks:
"Scripture tells us, ‘None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.’ The brave officers we gather to remember today devoted themselves so fully to others -- to serve and to protect others -- that in the process they were willing to give their lives. And so, today, let us not remember them just for how they died, but also for how they lived. … We can never repay our debt to these officers and their families, but we must do what we can, with all that we have, to live our lives in a way that pays tribute to their memory."
Excerpt from proclamation:
"During Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week, we celebrate those who protect and serve us every minute of every day, and we honor the courageous officers who devoted themselves so fully to others that in the process they laid down their lives. As we mourn the fallen, let us also remember how they lived."
Our ruling
The Facebook meme said that "794 law enforcement officers have fallen in the line of duty since B.H. Obama took office, with no special recognition from the White House."

While the meme offered a reasonable approximation for the number of fallen officers, the meat of its accusation -- that Obama has ignored the suffering of law enforcement officers killed in action -- is demonstrably wrong. We found at least six instances in which Obama honored the lives of fallen officers in writing or in speeches.

Archived information about these events was easily available to the public on the White House website, meaning that the meme’s creator was reckless in not taking them into account. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Rick Perry" Ooops! The Numbers Show Perry's Penchant for Fallacy

Rick Perry still aspires an office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.   Is this how he plans to secure the nomination as a prelude to the 2016 election?

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Rick Perry: 'Historic record highs' of people from terrorists states being apprehended at border

Texas Gov. Rick Perry says the border needs more protection against a record-high number of illegal immigrants coming from terrorist havens, but the figures don’t match Perry’s rhetoric.
With Congress scrambling to address illegal immigration before the start of their summer recess this past Friday, it’s no surprise that the issue was a main topic on the Aug. 3, 2014, talk shows.
Perry, who is considering a 2016 presidential run, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union to talk about President Barack Obama’s response to the crisis in Israel and the situation along the U.S.-Mexico border. Perry defended his recent decision to ramp up state spending on border operations following a massive influx of children from Central American countries.
"I'm the governor of the state of Texas. My citizens' safety is what is foremost here. And it hasn't got anything to do with anything other than those numbers of individuals who are coming across the border. And when you think about the idea that some of them are from countries that have substantial terrorist ties, whether it's Pakistan or Afghanistan or Syria, we are at historic record highs with individuals being apprehended from those countries," Perry said.

Conservatives politicians and lying are synonymous. I have grown to expect comment from their mouths as material for fact-checking. My quests (to the fact-check) have been consistently validated. 

From Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, Paul Ryan and of course, the King of "Misrepresentation, Mitt Romney, one should question the words and expect the words to check as "misrepresentation."

If we stick strictly with Tamba Bay Times Politifact, and the Time's more recent "Pants on Fire" rulings, a quick calculation supports my assertion of "LIAR, LIAR" from the Right. The Time's "Pants on Fire" link shows 14 rulings per page. There are three pages. The math indicates 42 rulings. Three of the 42 rulings were awards to the Left. Specifically, all three were related to MSNBC news segments, and two of the three were awarded to Ed Schultz, The Ed Show. If we take 42 rulings minus out three of the 42 that leaves us with a dire picture. A dire picture and confirmation of my earlier assertion of Right/conservative disregard for the truth and strategic use of the lie. (42-3-39; 39/42 yields 93% RD).

My math may have failed me there, but we can assume three from the 42 leaves "Pants on Fires" over the 90 percent level. I also find it ironic that 92.8 % almost mirrors the race and ethnic composition of the GOP. A simply observation with no inference beyond the ironic nature of the numbers. 

Politifact of The National Memo, published:
Republicans Lie More Than Democrats, Study Finds
In 2013, Meenal Vamburkar wrote for Mediate:

Politifact's work is not based on scientific study. Nonetheless, the results seem accurate and irrefutable (based on their analysis and repeated validation of their findings over time). Often a reliable means of study in its own right. There are other studies that take a different approach to an imbalance of lies and misinformation from the Right. Studies show conservatives seem to expect the lie and some actual prefer the lie to the truth.

Huffington Post published a piece this past March with reference to evidence supporting the conservative psyche and mindset is ripe for lies. The Huffington Post piece and those linked above via Politifact explain why Fox News is such a cash cow?