I've been pointing out how inaccurate newspaper articles are and I wanted to take moment and marvel that the Republic actually has the audacity to run a "fact check" section on statements by elected officials. It's been my experience that elected officials are much more informed and accurate than journalists.
Here's a great example. Rep. Terri Proud made this point in a redistricting hearing.
"The IRC is costing our citizens almost $10 million when we can really least afford it."
The fact that we can "least afford it" is obvious, so the Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl focused on the $10 million claim. Let's see the facts that Mary Jo had to work with. First, the previous commission spent $9.6 million--mostly on legal bills. Then factor in that the current commission is off to a much worse start than the previous commission and finally, take into consideration that the cost of legal services has risen substrantially in the last decade.
So how would you asess Rep. Proud's statement? I would say that it's "true". You might say that it looks like it's true, and the current commission is on track to spend that much money, but we won't actually know until the law suits are over. That would be fair.
What did Mary Jo say? She declared Rep. Proud's statement to be "False."
Bottom line: Proud's claim that the commission is costing nearly $10 million is incorrect based on money appropriated to date, and it is hard to speculate on future spending.
Hard to sepculate? So she declares it false? Proud will obviously be vindicated...in ten years. Meanwhile, the Republic gets this free shot at declaring her statement to be false. When in fact, it's pretty clearly correct.
This is the same Mary Jo Pitzl who misquoted the grounds for removal in her story about Brewer's removal of the IRC Chair.
The Republic's "fact check" is a joke. The paper advocates positions on nearly everything and expects us to believe that if someone says something that is counter to their position that they will check the "facts" and present them in an honest way. Pure fantasy.
Posted by: RonJ | November 17, 2011 at 01:53 PM
What multiplies the joke of a "fact check" is there is no one to "fact check" the supposed "fact checkers".
Posted by: chick | November 17, 2011 at 08:10 PM
Mr. Fact Check says:
Mary Jo Pitzl is a competent reporter. False
Mary Jo Pitzl is a competent "fact checker." False
Mary Jo Pitzl is an EEO poster girl. TRUE
Posted by: Dave72 | November 18, 2011 at 12:37 AM
The facts are the facts. There is no appropriation close to $10 million. After the Republicans continue with the sham removal we will have much much more than that on legal bills.
Posted by: Truther | November 18, 2011 at 01:02 PM
The mission of fact checker is to slam Republican candidates. Total up all of the Republicans fact checked and compare it to democrats.
Posted by: Falcon9 | November 18, 2011 at 07:48 PM
Greg: "It's been my experience that elected officials are much more informed and accurate than journalists."
Really? Then when I write an elected official about a bill I am concerned about, do they call and ask me what the bill is about?
Posted by: Ron | November 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Falcon9, Did you see AZ Republic (11/27/11) fact check (B-3)?
Posted by: ron | November 27, 2011 at 10:20 PM