A “fact check” by the Washington Post of a recent tweet by Donald Trump on Amazon and the United States Postal Service has come under fire by the editor of National Journal.
First up, here’s the tweet that started it:
I am right about Amazon costing the United States Post Office massive amounts of money for being their Delivery Boy. Amazon should pay these costs (plus) and not have them bourne by the American Taxpayer. Many billions of dollars. P.O. leaders don’t have a clue (or do they?)!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 3, 2018
Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s “fact checker” then responded with this “Three Pinocchios” review:
Reminder: This is false. Fact check here—> https://t.co/i9Cre47xCc https://t.co/E5ZgrB1hlr
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) April 3, 2018
Kessler’s conclusion:
Amazon’s tax strategies have rankled the president, but you would know this only from his tweets and comments because the tax bill he signed in 2017 gives the online retailer a $789 million windfall.
Trump says Amazon pays “little or no taxes” to state and local governments, but the facts say otherwise. The online retail giant clearly leverages many tools to keep the taxman at bay. That doesn’t erase its state and local tax bills. These are larger than Trump allows.
The president says the United States loses money because Amazon relies on the Postal Service for the last leg of its package deliveries. The Postal Service reported a net loss in 2017, and it does offer Amazon cut rates. But that’s not the whole story. In fact, e-commerce deliveries are one of the post office’s few thriving lines of business.
Amazon is one of the biggest companies in the world, and its financials are fair game for critics, but Trump’s distortions don’t add up and are worthy of Three Pinocchios.
But not so fast…
Here’s National Journal editor Ben Pershing calling out Kessler as the agreement between the USPS and Amazon is secret, making it impossible to rule on this one way or the other:
Isn't it more accurate to say the public doesn't have enough information to know either way? The Postal Regulatory Commission reportedly says the contracts are profitable but the details are non-public, and there's no way to know whether USPS could/should negotiate better terms. https://t.co/YskaIPhdlU
— Ben Pershing (@benpershing) April 3, 2018
This is a problem for every fact check, too:
I've read other fact-checks this week and they all basically rely on the same (thin) info. We don't know anything about how the postal commission does its analyses.
— Ben Pershing (@benpershing) April 3, 2018
He’s right. Time for some corrections, media.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member