Showing posts with label factcheck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label factcheck. Show all posts

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Check. . .


(taken from http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/ by Viveca Novak on Friday, April 10, 2009)
A widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship.

One issue prompting the tirade was a sign Gregg posted last summer outside his office in Mandeville, La. It said, "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." Snopes.com wrote it up in an article headlined "Chicken Hawked." The e-mail writer says that "they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place." But that’s exactly what did happen, according a company representative.

In her article, Barbara Mikkelson didn’t actually use the word "pressured" as the e-mail claims. What she said was:  "A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg’s office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm’s policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns."

And State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk-Kirby confirmed in a letter to us the same thing she had told Snopes.com earlier: "Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns." The e-mail’s author says the Mikkelsons didn’t call Gregg, and David says that’s true. He says he sent the insurance agent an e-mail, but did not receive a response.

The e-mail goes on: "Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal," adding: "There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings."  The author cites no evidence and no sources for either of these propositions.

We asked David. He told us that Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn’t allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates. As for him, "My sole involvement in politics is on Election Day to go out and vote. I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign or donated money to a candidate. . . You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson said. . ."

The e-mail also accuses the Mikkelsons of "hiding" their identities. "Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it," the message claims. That’s nonsense. It may well be that the author of this e-mail was ignorant of the Mikkelsons until recently, but it’s never been a secret who is behind Snopes.com. We even dug up a reference to David Mikkelson from 1995, a year when the Internet was in its infancy. A collection of short items under the headline "A Special Report: The Virtual Valley" in the  Los Angeles Times included a photo of him.

The e-mail’s last paragraph advises that everyone who goes to Snopes.com for "the bottom line facts" should "proceed with caution." We think that’s terrific advice, not just in connection with material on Snopes but for practically anything a reader finds online — including articles on FactCheck.org. The very reason we list our sources (as does Snopes.com) and provide links is so that readers can check things out for themselves. . .

The mistakes (in the email) could have been avoided if the authors had contacted the couple. "None of them did," Mikkelson said.





What do you think?
Tell me at  
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

My latest release, Black & White Then Back,
can be downloaded digitally at:
Ray Jozwiak: Black & White Then Back

(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser:  http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak3)

Also, be sure to visit:
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

PIANOGONZOLOGY - Blogged My 
Zimbio
blog search directory Blog Directory











Wednesday, July 13, 2011

The apple doesn't fall. . .

. . . far from the tree.

from Factcheck.org. . .

". . . Liz (daughter of former U.S. Non-Apologetic, Vice Torture-Monger & Marksman, Dick Cheney) Cheney's group quotes U.S. military leaders out of context to attack President Obama's Afghanistan policy. Keep America Safe, which is headed by the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, is airing a TV ad that uses brief video clips of congressional testimony given by Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen to support its claim that Obama's plan to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan will put U.S. soldiers at greater risk. It's true that both military leaders recommended maintaining higher troop levels. But they supported the president's decision, and their full congressional testimony shows they believe the risk is manageable and won't jeopardize the mission.

The title of the ad — "More Risk" — comes from Mullen's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on June 23. Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, was asked about the president's decision to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer, including 10,000 of them by the end of this year. The ad quotes Mullen as saying, "It was more aggressive and it has more risk than I recommended." But the full context of his remarks shows that Mullen also said the plan is "well within reason."

Mullen, June 23: I think it’s well within reason for us to be able to do this. As I said in my opening statement, it was more aggressive and it has more risk than, you know, I was originally prepared to — than I — than I recommended. That said, in totality, it’s within the ability to sustain the mission, focus on the objectives and execute. "



download your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray Jozwiak
Ray Jozwiak: Another Shot


Please Visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com


Sunday, July 10, 2011

An honest candidate. . .

. . . is an educated candidate, who desires to SERVE her/his constituency. . . so I conclude there's no need to worry about this candidate becoming president. IS THERE????

On Republican candidate Michele Bachmann, factcheck.org reported:

"Bachmann falsely claimed that she and her husband "have never gotten a penny" from a family farm that received federal subsidies. But she reported income from the farm in 2006, 2008 and 2009 — the most recent year available — on her congressional financial disclosure statements.

She claimed she had been "faithful" to her pledge not to request federal earmarks. But she requested $40 million in transportation earmarks in the 2009 fiscal year budget after taking the pledge, later claiming such projects should not be subjected to her promise. She withdrew her requests after the House Republicans took a party position in 2010 not to seek earmarks.

Bachmann wrongly blamed President Obama for increasing the number of federal transportation workers who earn more than $170,000 from one to 1,690 during the recession. At least two-thirds of those employees were receiving more than $170,000 before Obama took office.

She criticized the president for a 73 percent increase in government "limousines." But one department accounted for the increase, and it had a long-term plan, pre-dating Obama, to add armored vehicles. The term "limousine" includes armored vehicles and sedans, not just actual limos.

She claimed government money received by her husband's counseling clinics did not benefit the business, because the funds paid for employee training. It's true the clinics received $24,041 for training, but the business received thousands more in government funds, including money for treating crime victims.

The three-term congresswoman repeated — on two Sunday shows — the false claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the federal health care law will "cost the economy 800,000 jobs." The CBO never said that. It said there will be a "small" impact on jobs."




download your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray Jozwiak
Ray Jozwiak: Another Shot


Please Visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com