Ammo For Sale

« « Arrival | Home | How can such a sexy rifle have an image problem » »

How many facts could FactCheck check if FactCheck could check facts?

Apparently, not many. I discussed it yesterday but here’s a round up of what others have to say:

Joe on their bias:

There’s another possible explanation behind FactCheck’s positions. Just last year, FactCheck’s primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for “efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry.” Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005.

Also, didn’t Obama actually, you know, head up Annenberg?

NRA issues a presser:

FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician?s claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called ?FactCheckers? use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA?s research of vote records and review of legislative language.

Xrlqy Wrlqy:

That has got to be the most disingenuous use of the word ?however? I?ve seen in any screed not written by Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan.

David Kopel:

The September 22, 2008, FactCheck on the NRA criticism of Obama is marred by the omission of crucial facts, one-sided and misleading presentations of issues, and thinly-concealed political advocacy.

Basically, FactCheck’s response seems to be Nuh uh, because Obama said so.

20 Responses to “How many facts could FactCheck check if FactCheck could check facts?”

  1. Linoge Says:

    Unfortunately, it is time to widen the aim – PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter) is proclaiming the same nonsense.

  2. Bruce Says:

    That mirrors nicely Obama’s “fact-checking” strategy of “Nuh uh, because I said so.”

    The Circlejerk of Hopenchange.

  3. Guav Says:

    That post title rules πŸ™‚

  4. Manish Says:

    Also, didn?t Obama actually, you know, head up Annenberg?

    I love it how the Annenberg name is suddenly synonymous with communism these days. Here is Walter Annenberg’s wikipedia entry. Not the bit about being appointed Ambassador by NIXON and his friendship with REAGAN. Does this guy sound like a leftist loon to you guys?

    For the record, Obama was the chairman of the board of one of Annenberg’s many charitable projects focused on education. Read the guy’s bio and ask yourself if Walter Annenberg would fund what the WSJ claims the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was.

    Annenberg also created the Annenberg school of communication at the University of Pennsylvania which is where factcheck.org is based out of.

  5. SayUncle Says:

    I love it how the Annenberg name is suddenly synonymous with communism these days.

    It is? No one brought it up but you πŸ™‚

  6. #9 Says:

    Fact checking appears to be quite subjective.

  7. Manish Says:

    Hey SU: well, I guess its now a true statement that commenters on a right wing blog are equating Annenberg with communism. πŸ™‚

  8. SayUncle Says:

    that assertion would pass factchecks standards of review!

    πŸ˜‰

  9. ParatrooperJJ Says:

    Mannish – Annenburg is dead and his foundation has been taken over by liberals. This happens often to big foundations. Any organization that gives a leadership to a domestic terrorist like Ayers, is extremely left wing. IMHO YMMV

  10. Manish Says:

    paratrooper…do some math. Annenberg died in 2002 and the Chicago Annenburg Challenge was in 1996 when he was still alive.

  11. Joe Huffman Says:

    Just to be clear, the section Uncle quoted from my blog post was actually written by and in my post credited to the NRA.

  12. DirtCrashr Says:

    WIN: Blog Post Title Ultra.
    Foundations often get subverted just about as soon as a Board of Directors is named and some pointy-headed grant proposals roll in.

  13. Manish Says:

    DirtCrashr..do you have any proof of what you are writing or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass? Use the google and find out who is on the Board of the Annenburg Foundation and you will find that it is Walt Annenburg’s family still running the thing. Further the WSJ article specifically notes Ambassador Annenburg’s involvement in setting up the Chicago Annenburg Challenge.

  14. DirtCrashr Says:

    Manny – HAave you ever worked in fund-raising with major donors? Are you saying the Annenberg family is a bunch of pro-gun Republicans – like lovely SoCal Wallis? Once things get away from an individual Donor’s personal sphere of interest, the function of the Foundation is to simply keep operating and funding grants that fulfill their mission – which very often have a fairly liberal tilt – but the most notable thing is the setup that awards Society Points to the Great Benefactor – not the operational details.
    FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a subgroup of the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg foundation gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, they are a big foundation devoted to liberal causes, and have lots of money to spend on them, maybe they need to issue some proof.
    In early 1995, Mr. Barak Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which handled fiscal matters. Former Wewatherman Bill Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the “Collaborative,” which shaped education policy. Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.
    Instead of funding schools directly, CAC required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

  15. Manish Says:

    DC..do you having any reading comprehension abilities whatsoever? The WSJ article clearly states:

    The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg

    Yes..the Ambassador himself was involved with this. An Ambassador appointed by Nixon, who also introduced Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher. Does this guy sound like a liberal to you? Do you really think that he would start an education initiative with Bill Ayers if he didn’t think it would have merit?

    And your proof that the Annenburg Foundation is liberal is their donation to the Brady Campaign? Can you please remind me who this Brady guy is who’s running this campaign? Can you answer the following multiple choice test…Mr. Brady was the press secretary of a _______ icon.

    Is the answer:
    a)conservative
    b)liberal

    Thank you for playing, better luck next time.

  16. DirtCrashr Says:

    Manny – it’s Annenb_e_rg. Do you really think Jim Brady is running the day-to-day operations of the Campaign??? Paul Helmke does that. My opinion on the direction of Wally’s philanthropic leanings is irrelevant: they fund the main anti-gun campaign (maybe because they’re old friends? who cares) and use a proxy of their own making to cover for Obama – whether they’re conservative or not doesn’t matter.
    You’re winning your own game it seems, whatever it is.

  17. Math_Mage Says:

    Manish, regardless of who started the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and what the supposed aims were, William Ayers twisted them out of all recognition. See Stanley Kurtz’s article in the WSJ if you haven’t already:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

    You can’t deflect all criticism of the CAC by saying, “Well, this conservative dude was involved in starting it!”

  18. Math_Mage Says:

    Oops, my bad, Manish, I see you quote from the same article. Which leaves me curious as to why you think Mr. Annenberg is so significant.

  19. Xrlq Says:

    Manish’s argument, such as it is, appears to be that if one nominally Republican individual got in bed with William Ayers, that must mean it’s OK for Democrats seeking the Presidency to do so, as well. If you ask me, that’s a pretty weak argument, but it’s all the Obamabots got.

  20. SteveM Says:

    It seems that both the Annenberg Foundation and the Brady Center have, to borrow the jargon-jive, a “win-win going”: If Obama wins, they may have a friend for their gun policies; if Obama loses, well hell, we still have a Republican, more or less like us (McCain does favor closing the “gun show loop hole).