Article: https://fullfact.org/news/express-trump-election-voter-fraud/
1. Ms Allen-Kinross says 'We do know that many polls that predicted a landslide for President elect Joe Biden were out in their predictions.' Mr Biden is NOT yet 'President-elect' and should not be described as such; a Congressional committee woman wrote on 13 November to the General Services Administration to correct this error and explain why the claim is factually incorrect; text reproduced in this article: https://www.politicalite.com/usa/exclusive-us-congress-officially-tells-biden-campaign-hes-not-president-elect/ and transcribed as attached:
2. Ms Allen-Kinross says 'He also repeatedly speaks of “ballot fraud”, which there is no evidence of.' A fact-checker should know the difference between 'evidence' - and I understand there are over 200 sworn statements - and 'conclusive proof.'
This is sloppy work echoing the radio news reports e.g. from Global News (Classic fm etc) that immediately qualified Trump's claims as 'without foundation.' I can't imagine that Full Fact would wish to be written off as partisan activists.
Please amend - I would appreciate the courtesy of your advising me when you have done so.
Let's see how whether these independents are. Quis custodiet etc.
Reply from Full Fact (today, 09:00):
Regardless, the term "president-elect" has no constitutional definition and so the GSA does not have authority over how that term is used. The GSA does have a legal role in determining the winner of the election, but that doesn't mean we are wrong to use the term "president-elect" with justification.
On your second point, I think again you're claiming that certain words have undeniable definitions which I don't accept. In my eyes, unsubstantiated claims do not deserve the label of "evidence", irrespective of whether they are sworn to be true or not.
To which I reply:
Dear Xxxxx
1. Preparation for handover is 'just in case'; there has been no concession of victory. My point is therefore not irrelevant and to date, still stands.
2. Everyone (I would have said) understands that evidence is what is presented to put a case whether in court or elsewhere, and is not the same thing as proof. Mr Trump made 'claims', but that is not what I am referring to - there is lots of 'evidence' (whether reliable or not).
Your ripostes therefore fail.
The news media have already failed to be accurate and impartial.
If your organisation is to fulfil the role of independent fact-checker, your claims and language need to be particularly scrupulous; unless you are simply a referee who has joined one team to play against the other.
So I still say that your writer's piece needs a degree of amendment, or a statement of correction.
__________________________
FURTHER COMMENTS:
However the article was also reproduced here and remains up:
https://democracyinstitute.org/patrick-bashams-sunday-express-article-assesses-us-election-pollingtemp/
and a piece by him on the same theme appears in the American Spectator for 27 November:
At this juncture I have to stress that I don't know what to think about the claims, but surely there is enough 'evidence' to raise the issue. Why, among other things, does there seem to have been a coordinated suspension of vote-counting in several swing constituencies? Has this happened in previous Presidential elections?
Returning to Full Fact's reply to me from the team editor I would further comment:
1. When he says 'The letter you cite is now irrelevant' I see no evidence that he has read it, for if he had he would see that to use the term 'President-elect' implies either a formal concession by the opponent, which has not yet happened, or a decision by the Electoral College, not due until next month. Further, the 'it's too late' argument could be read as an admission by 'Ed.' that at the time Allen-Kinross originally published her piece, she was in fact using the term inappropriately, or in other words, the implication of her usage was in fact untrue.
2, In a manner reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty*, the team editor wishes the English language to mean what he wants it to mean, but however shaky, there is indeed evidence for the claims about ballot fraud - see Basham's 27 November article linked above - and the courts have not finished their consideration. So I think I could be justified in saying that on this point the piece was misleading, if not positively untrue.
Now both those two assertions have been echoed in many places across the media; the reason for my criticism is that when public feeling is so febrile, we should be able to depend on fact-checking organisations like Full Fact to deliver cool, accurate, objective and politically unbiased assessments. Otherwise, they risk becoming 'media influencers' themselves, both by
(a) the targets they select (do they do this more to the 'right-wing' than to the 'left-wing', and if so, are 'right-wing' articles - in mainstream news such as the Express, we are not talking about social media here - more frequently wrong or inaccurate?)
(b) the sloppy and tendentious way that they attack those targets.
'Untrue'... 'misleading'... Just the things that fact-checkers are there to find and correct. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
Who funds fact-checkers? Who recruits their staff, and how? Are they members of political parties or organisations that have links with political factions?
______________________
* 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'
No comments:
Post a Comment