PolitiFact

[cherry*135]

This independent website looks interesting for people wanting to check out claims made by political leaders and politcians

PolitiFact Australia is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and other influential people in the Australian political debate.

It is the first international licensee of the Pulitzer-prize winning US site, PolitiFact.com.

PolitiFact Australia is a non-partisan, independent journalistic venture run by Peter Fray, the former editor-in-chief of the Sydney Morning Herald, and staffed by experienced reporters and researchers.

Our goal is to bring greater accountability to the federal election campaign.

We want to help Australian voters make better-informed decisions.

We want to help keep our politicians honest.

...Funding for PolitiFact Australia comes from a variety of sources, including media partnerships, advertising, donations and sponsorships. We will not receive political funding.

Some examples:

Tony Abbott: 

1. The red tape burden has increased exponentially... Under this government we have seen 21,000 new regulations and just 300 regulations go out."

2. 

"Whether it’s a fixed tax or a floating tax, (Rudd's floating-price emissions trading scheme) is still a tax."

Mostly false

Kevin Rudd:

1.The primary reason for the hike in electricity prices appears to be the current system of national electricity regulation." 

2. "Average families will be $380 a year better off" under Labor and "$1200 a year worse off" under Abbott.

Half true

HALF TRUE - The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

[carls*world]

Lost all credibility in my mind from the outset.

"

2. 

"Whether it’s a fixed tax or a floating tax, (Rudd's floating-price emissions trading scheme) is still a tax."

Mostly false"

So, how is this "mostly false" simply stating that if it's a tax (either fixed or floating) it's still a tax. Just what is it then? A bunch of coconuts?

[cherry*135]

Although PolitiFact is extremely popular — the site had 42 million page views last year — it has no shortage of critics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman last year argued:

“Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage … The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/04/29/fact-off-abc-and-frays-politifact-dig-into-pollies-spin/

Commenting on the US version not the Aust version (even though they are probably in the same format, not the same ball park.

I find posts, like posts 5, 16 & 17 (that one not so bad)  hard to read. The large font, some bold, blue links here and there scattered through them.

Is that because they have been cut and paste and when posted here show in larger font.?

If so it is easy enough to change that in the reply box... highlight all the text and choose a smaller font.

[i-need-a-martini]

I am wondering what the heck the michaelsmith.com rant has to do with the OP??

And I am also wondering who the heck reads michael smith?

[cherry*135]

Abbott's statements by ruling

Click on the ruling to see all of Abbott's statements for that ruling.

• True2 (13%)(2)
• Mostly True4 (25%)(4)
• Half True3 (19%)(3)
• Mostly False6 (38%)(6)
• False1 (6%)(1)
• Pants on Fire

Rudd's statements by ruling

Click on the ruling to see all of Rudd's statements for that ruling.

• True2 (33%)(2)
• Mostly True1 (17%)(1)
• Half True2 (33%)(2)
• Mostly False0(0)
• False1 (17%)(1)
• Pants on Fire

[cherry*135]

I thought the same martini. Perhaps that person just likes to spam any political thread with those type of posts?

Carl.. you opinon is valid, I am not disputing that. I only noticed this website today, so haven't read a lot on there yet, myself.

They do give further explanation. Some bedtime reading for you.

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/19/tony-abbott/tax-tax-tax-emissions-...

[just_me_karen]

I've been following them on twitter for a month or so. I think they're as bipartisan as they can be, and I suspect most of the complaints are from people not satisfied that the outcomes differ from their political leanings.

The outcomes are explained comprehensively, it's not just a score or rating.

The main reason I like that site is because it provides both sides of the story when they research an issue.