The Washington Post's Fact Checker column has a good column on the controversy about casualty figures. Unfortunately, the conclusion blinked: "This issue is too complex for a snap Pinocchio rating. In this case, our goal is to shed light on a complicated statistical debate, rather than slap Pinocchio or Geppetto labels on either Petraeus or Clinton."
Oddly enough, they don't seem to have any trouble with complicated statistical debates on polling. They recently did a post on John Edwards' claim to be most electable:
"While the Edwards campaign can certainly produce polls showing that their candidate is ahead in head-to-head matchups with individual Republicans, so can Clinton and Obama. The polling data is all over the map at this point. We award Edwards two Pinocchios for wild exaggeration.
Rewording that a bit:
"While [General Petraeus] can certainly produce [casualty figures] showing that [casualty figures support his judgment of the surge], so can Clinton and Obama. The [casualty figures are] all over the map at this point. We award [General Petraeus] two Pinocchios for wild exaggeration.
I don't think this was a partisan blinking, but for the Fact Checker column to really elevate the level of accuracy in political reporting, they're going to need to apply the same scale to highly controversial calls as you do to easier statements.
Presenting only the data most supportive of your cause without explaining yourself or acknowledging opposing data is no different than what the Edwards campaign did.
In fairness you could also say that Hillary Clinton was cherry picking her figures. That said, General Petreaus, much like John Edwards' pollsters, is not a disinterested third party. He is making a case defending his own performance. The burden of proof is on him.
Recent Comments