Skip to main content

UPDATE: I changed the title and prose to increase readability. Thanks constructively critical commenter! I kept the snarky post-script gibe at naysayers of blog off-linking.

Recently, I got into a slap fight with (PFB). The self-proclaimed PolitiFact whistle blower bristled at my claim that my estimate of the partisan bias among two leading fact checkers is superior to theirs. A recurring theme in the debate surrounded PFB's finding that's "Pants on Fire" category, which PolitiFact reserves for egregious statements, occurs much more often for Republicans than for Democrats. Because the "Pants on Fire" category is the most subjective of the categories in PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter, PFB believes the comparison is evidence of PolitiFact's liberal bias.

I agree with PFB that the "Pants on Fire" category is highly subjective. That's why, when I calculate my factuality scores, I treat the the category the same as I treat the "False" category. Yet treating the two categories the same doesn't account for selection bias. Perhaps PolitiFact is more likely to choose ridiculous statements that Republicans make so that they can rate them as "Pants on Fire", rather than because Republicans tend to make ridiculous statements more often than Democrats.

One way to adjust for selection bias on ridiculous statements is to pretend that "Pants on Fire" rulings ever happened. Presumably, the rest of the Truth-O-Meter categories are less susceptible to partisan bias in the selection and rating of statements. Therefore, the malarkey scores calculated from a report card excluding "Pants on Fire" statements might be a cleaner estimate of the factuality of an individual or group.

To examine the effect of excluding the "Pants on Fire" category on the comparison of malarkey scores between Republican and Democrats, I used Malark-O-Meter's simulation methods to statistically compare the collated malarkey scores of Rymney and Obiden after excluding the "Pants on Fire" statements from the observed Politi-Fact report cards. The collated malarkey score adds up the statements in each category across all the individuals in a certain group (such as a campaign ticket), and then calculates a malarkey score from the collated ticket. I examine the range of values of the modified comparison in which we have 95% statistical confidence. I chose the collated malarkey score comparison because it is one of the comparisons that my original analysis was most certain about, and because the collated malarkey score is a summary measure of the falsehood in statements made collectively by a campaign ticket.

To see the analysis, go to my blog. I'm off-linking because I work hard on my web page, and syndicate here to increase my audience in a shameless plug. If that offends you, then don't read the rest of the analysis. If you don't give a damn about inane bullshit and instead want to read the analysis, then read the analysis

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (0+ / 0-)

    Brash Equilibrium /brASH ēkwəˈLIBrēəm/ Noun: a state in which the opposing forces of snark and information are balanced

    by Brash Equilibrium on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 08:30:43 PM PDT

  •  It's been my experience (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brash Equilibrium

    that most bloggers who actually have something to say that's actually worth reading do re-post their content here. The snippets of your posts that you've published don't entice me to push past that predisposition and view your blog.

    I don't say this maliciously; I say it on the chance that it might help you re-think your strategy and/or your writing.

    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

    by Nowhere Man on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 08:53:21 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nowhere Man

      ...good advice. I'll take it!

      Brash Equilibrium /brASH ēkwəˈLIBrēəm/ Noun: a state in which the opposing forces of snark and information are balanced

      by Brash Equilibrium on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 08:56:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Although... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I've gotten a bit of traffic from DailyKos. So maybe my writing needs work, but maybe it's not absolutely terrible! LOL.

      Also, my snarky sidenote at the bottom was mainly a gibe at some people who've given me shit about off-linking to my website, as it is really a big deal to click a link and scroll down a smidge.

      Brash Equilibrium /brASH ēkwəˈLIBrēəm/ Noun: a state in which the opposing forces of snark and information are balanced

      by Brash Equilibrium on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 09:03:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site