We see you, Politifact.
To be fair, we’ve always seen them, but when there are two threads like these that take apart their process we see them even more clearly. For example, they’ve been desperately trying to save the Democratic talking points trashing the voting bill in Georgia:
PolitiFact is a misinformation site that churns out garbage like this to save Democratic talking points.
I’ll explain how it works. https://t.co/Ym3wsqkx2u
— Michael Duncan (@MichaelDuncan) March 29, 2021
So Holmes says the bill doesn’t stop giving people water, it stops political organizers from doing it.
Fact-checker: we’re going to fact-check whether it stops people from giving people water. pic.twitter.com/LXl6uU9IHi
— Michael Duncan (@MichaelDuncan) March 29, 2021
Ooooh boy.
You see that sleight of hand?
It’s a semantics trick. She isn’t going to actually argue what he said.
She’s going to be willfully obtuse to come to the outcome she wants.
— Michael Duncan (@MichaelDuncan) March 29, 2021
She’s going to fact-check a fact that wasn’t even stated.
Sort of like people who pick fights with you on Twitter over an argument you didn’t even make.
Wait I thought we were fact-checking whether water was banned?
So the statement is Mostly False because the law doesn’t REQUIRE water?
You see how when PolitiFact can move the goalposts they can come up with any outcome?
It’s a neat trick, you gotta give them that. pic.twitter.com/EXgyi1fXG8
— Michael Duncan (@MichaelDuncan) March 29, 2021
What’s an even neater trick is when the Left pretends Politifact is GOSPEL.
Last thing I’ll say here. PolitiFact is not only wrong, but based on this “fact-check”, they very clearly operate in bad faith.
The people who rely upon them as arbiters of truth should seriously reconsider it.
— Michael Duncan (@MichaelDuncan) March 29, 2021
Bad faith. Perfect phrasing for what they do at Politifact.
Holmes has a thread that explains how an inquiry from PolitiFact works.
When they have nothing, they try to entrap you with other bullshit lol. https://t.co/UHDLdsnBYg
— Michael Duncan (@MichaelDuncan) March 30, 2021
It’s rare when one thread leads to another but here we are.
Keep reading.
Here’s how the inquiry works: So they came at me with the same omission of the specific language in the statute that speaks to water being provided at a polling place, as if I’m some idiot who doesn’t do his homework. When I cite their omission all of a sudden the goalposts move.
— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) March 30, 2021
So they can claim it’s mostly false.
Then the queries shifted to whether I believed people who were not electioneering would be criminally prosecuted for providing water. I said it was an interesting question but not one I weighed in upon.
— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) March 30, 2021
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
In other words, they were stretching for something.
When that didn’t stick she shifted to whether water was mandated by the statute. Again not one that I discussed on the show. My point was that providing water wasn’t outlawed – a talking point originated by Biden.
— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) March 30, 2021
Seems pretty simple.
The reason it’s important is the intent of the law. If the provision outlawed water at the polls it could easily be construed as intending to deter waiting to vote. Instead, the statute specifically referenced the manner in which it could be provided. *not by political operatives
— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) March 30, 2021
BUT THAT’S RACIST AND STUFF.
It also speaks to lines and early voting but we won’t get into that here. The point is these fact checks are anything but. If you’re a GOP communicator don’t bother responding. You’re just wasting your time.
— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) March 30, 2021
Sneaky shiznit, right?
***
Related: