Politifact Founder Reveals Bias in Fact-Checking During Book Tour

Fact-checking has become a cornerstone of modern journalism, claiming to hold politicians accountable by evaluating their statements for accuracy. However, the integrity of this process is now under scrutiny following remarks by Politifact founder Bill Adair during his book promotion tour for Beyond the Big Lie. The book, which critiques the Republican Party’s supposed culture of dishonesty, has reignited debates about whether the media and fact-checking outlets unfairly target conservatives while sparing liberals.

Adair’s statements during interviews with NPR’s David Folkenflik and MSNBC’s Katie Phang inadvertently shed light on biases that critics argue are baked into the methodology of many fact-checking organizations. His assertion that “Republicans lie more and lie worse than Democrats” exemplifies the partisan slant that has drawn increasing skepticism toward fact-checking enterprises like Politifact.

In his discussion with NPR, Adair confidently declared that Republicans have a more substantial propensity for dishonesty than Democrats, a claim he suggests is widely accepted among fact-checkers. This assertion underscores what critics see as the inherent subjectivity in how organizations like Politifact evaluate statements. For example:

• During his book tour, Adair highlighted that Politifact logged over 800 falsehoods from Donald Trump while Kamala Harris, the current Vice President, had zero statements rated as “Pants on Fire.”
• CNN’s fact-checker Daniel Dale similarly tabulated only one alleged falsehood from Harris during a debate with Trump, despite critics noting multiple inaccuracies in her statements.

These discrepancies highlight a selective process of measurement. Republicans’ statements are often parsed down to opinions or predictions labeled as lies, while similar conduct from Democrats is frequently overlooked or categorized differently.

Fact-checking outlets employ methods that critics claim artificially inflate the perception of dishonesty among Republicans. These include:

1. Selective Evaluation: Statements by Republicans are more frequently scrutinized, while Democrats’ remarks are given less attention. For instance, Kamala Harris’s numerous contested statements during debates have rarely been categorized as false by Politifact or other major outlets.
2. Aggregation Practices: When Democrats are caught distorting the truth, their inaccuracies are sometimes grouped into single articles, diluting the overall tally. Meanwhile, Republicans’ statements are often analyzed and published individually, boosting their numbers.
3. Lack of Ratings: Even when Democrats’ statements are flagged for inaccuracies, fact-checkers may refrain from issuing a “False” or “Pants on Fire” rating.

In Beyond the Big Lie, Adair proposes using fact-checking as a form of political accountability. He suggests that politicians’ scores with fact-checkers should hold as much weight as their legislative voting records, with their ratings mentioned in debates, town halls, and campaign profiles.

Critics argue that Adair’s proposal weaponizes a flawed and biased system. By his own admission, fact-checkers like Politifact disproportionately target Republicans, creating an uneven playing field. His methodology not only undermines public trust in fact-checking but also turns these outlets into tools of political partisanship rather than arbiters of truth.

The controversy over Adair’s comments comes amid broader criticism of media practices in 2024. High-profile cases of misinformation have plagued major outlets, many of which have gone unaddressed by fact-checkers:

• Joe Biden’s Pardon of His Son: After months of denying that President Biden would pardon his son Hunter, the media’s narrative shifted abruptly when the pardon was issued. Despite Biden’s clear reversal, fact-checkers avoided labeling his earlier promises as lies.
• Kamala Harris’s Record: Despite public disputes over Harris’s role as “Border Czar,” media outlets frequently downplay or misrepresent her responsibilities and performance.
• Debunked Trump Stories: From accusations of groping a model tied to Jeffrey Epstein to false claims about Trump’s handling of military funerals, numerous stories about Trump have been widely disseminated despite lacking credibility.

These instances point to a broader issue: the press’s reluctance to hold itself accountable. Fact-checkers like Politifact remain silent on inaccuracies perpetuated by their own industry, further undermining their credibility.

In a column for Time, Adair suggested that politicians sign a “truth pledge” promising not to lie in campaign materials or media appearances. While seemingly noble, this idea raises concerns about who would enforce such a pledge and the biases of those tasked with evaluating compliance. Given the demonstrated partisanship of fact-checking organizations, critics fear that such a pledge would become another tool for selectively targeting Republicans.

The revelations surrounding Bill Adair’s comments and the practices of Politifact underscore a troubling trend in modern journalism. Far from being impartial guardians of truth, many fact-checking organizations appear to operate with inherent biases that undermine their credibility.

As the 2024 election looms, the public is left questioning the integrity of the very institutions tasked with keeping politicians honest. If fact-checkers like Adair wish to regain trust, they must confront their own biases and hold themselves to the same standard they demand of others. Without this introspection, their role in shaping political discourse will remain tainted by partisanship.