Wyatt Andrews of CBS has this little political hit job disguised as 'fact checking.' I'll pick on Wyatt here, and this one is egregious. But 'fact checking' in the format trad med uses these days, is inherently baloney.
Follow me for a moment.
Paragraph one -
he seems blind to the concept his numbers don't add up.
Strong claim. What does Wyatt say that "proves" this?
Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.
Notice, " very few,' Not none. Very Few....no mention of how many did or did not agree with the math. And of course even if 90% of the "independent economists" (Note CBS' idea of an independent economist is photographer Declan McCullagh who channels right wing nuttery of totally discredited theories that FDR created the depression), the fact that there are independent economists that DO agree means that the numbers do "add up." Whether the numbers will play out is an OPINION.
Wyatt goes on:
Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care...
Remember, this is 'fact checking.' The very start of his paragraph on health care is a scoffing "even if you believe..." as if no sensible person could believe that Obama even wants to fix health care.
Next fact:
The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union,
The National Taxpayers Union is NOT a non-partisan group. It is an anti-tax advocacy group with almost NO professional economists on its staff. But Wyatt doesn't mention this. But even if we accept this figure, which by the way doesn't include the revenue gains of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire (the whole thing is a net gain, but you wouldn't know it here), what covers or doesn't cover the cost? Nary a word. Notice Wyatt Andrews doesn't point to the Military budget, or the cost of the Iraq War and say "the numbers don't add up' just because it costs something. Note to Wyatt, that something is 'expensive' doesn't mean it can't be or isn't budgeted for. Obama publicly lists the offset revenue, but Wyatt is paid to type right wing talking points, not to fiddle with "elitist" web browsers.
Next "fact:"
Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he's addressing.
Notice a couple of problems here? He mentions the CBO 'vouching' for the $90bill figure but by placing it where he does he could lead the unwary reader with the impression that the CBO has said he has promised it many times over - not true. The only person saying he has promised it many times over is....Wyatt Andrews. Wyatt Andrews seems to believe that $90bill won't pay for quite a lot of roads AND scholarships AND schools. Wyatt, $90billion dollars may be just a drop in the bucket of golden parachutes for your corporate masters, but it could pay for a LOT of real things without even coming close to spending it twice. And further - what's with this $90 billion? In the 5 and 1/2 years we've been in Iraq we've spent or committed between double and 6 times that much every year.
Complete hit piece - one of the worst I have seen. But CBS is just one of the 'fact checkers.'
As I have commented before the same "facts" can lead to totally different conclusions from different fact checking shows. Leaving aside Faux, the same facts will show up as false, misleading and true when you see them reviewed on ABC/NBC/CNN/CBS. See my sig line here...it's NOT possible. If you are fact checking, the facts will remain the same. If you are interpreting or saying, as Wyatt Andrews and John McCain do that what Obama says is true and confirmed by some economists, but they just don;t believe it, then it seems fraudulent to call it 'fact checking.'
Further. The whole idea of fact checking as practiced is preposterous. CBS could have fact checked McCains ridiculous asserions on Khalidi (never a PLO spokesman, he's an American professor and Obama has publicly disagreed with him on Israel and so on). But they didn't do it (at least not prominently), instead they linked Wyatt Andrews "-I-don't-believe-Obama- fact check" piece on the front page of CBS.com. By choosing to fact check something, they are editorializing that something needs to be fact checked. By fact checking one side and not the other, they are taking sides. Of course one could create a fair format to actually be no bias, no bull...but that would take work and a bit of integrity.