On Jan. 16, 2019, Zebra Fact Check sent an email to PolitiFact alerting the IFCN-certified fact checkers that their fact check of President Trump on Jan 10, 2019 (our email incorrectly says 2018) failed to produce adequate evidence of an alleged contradiction.
As of Sept. 15, 2019 we could detect no action on PolitiFact’s part to explain or correct the deficiency.A .pdf image of the email follows:
PolitiFact has taken no discernable [sic] action regarding a complaint of error in its Jan. 10, 2019 fact check of President Trump.
The fact check alleges that Trump contradicted himself by claiming he never said Mexico would directly pay for Trump’s proposed border wall, as by a check. PolitiFact’s fact check claims to have found multiple instances where Trump contradicted that claim. The fact check chiefly used a campaign document as its evidence supporting its claim, but distorted that evidence through misinterpretation, quoting out of context and highly dubious paraphrasing.
I wrote to PolitiFact on Jan. 16, 2019 using the email address it recommends for pointing out mistakes. The text of that message follows:
Dear Truth-O-Meter,
A PolitiFact story from Jan. 10, 2018 claims to have found multiple instances where President Trump contradicted his claim that he never said Mexico would pay for the border wall using a check worth billions.
Spoiler: Would =/= Could
The story based the bulk of its case on a campaign document. The document said Mexico would be happy to pay $5 billion to $10 billion once to help ensure $24 billion annually. Apparently PolitiFact took that as Trump's assurance that Mexico would make a lump sum payment for the wall. That interpretation doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That sentence in the introductory portion of the policy document states the bargaining position of the would-be Trump administration. Saying Mexico would be happy to pay to ensure $24 billion annually is not the same as saying Mexico would pay (let alone in a lump sum).
The fact check later apparently uses that misinterpretation to place new meaning on a line later in the same campaign document.
The document says (bold emphasis added, showing the part PolitiFact quotes):
On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.
The fact check employs a creative paraphrase next to a portion of the above quotation to end up with this:
Then, the memo says, if and when the Mexican government protested, they would be told to pay a lump sum "to the United States to pay for the wall, theTrump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect."
There's nothing in the campaign document about paying via a lump sum. The article invents that notion based on creative interpretation.
The campaign document suggests a plan for making Mexico pay directly for the wall, but does not specify a lump sum. Moreover, the document describes means for recouping the costs of the wall should Mexico balk at making a direct payment.
It should go without saying that a document that describes multiple options for obtaining payment is not guaranteeing that one of the options "would" occur in the future. If a document promises one method "would" occur then that makes other options superfluous.
Though the article cites via hotlink three other supposed examples of Trump contradicting his statement, none of those examples work to support the point of the fact check. And it is not a close question.
A fact check suggesting that Trump contradicted himself should offer airtight evidence of a contradiction. Lacking that, a fact check should not suggest that Trump contradicted himself.
Though we received PolitiFact’s standard automated reply in response to the above message, I have detected no attempt by PolitiFact to address the concerns expressed in it.
If a person vows that an entity would pay for something directly then later claims that the vow was not that the entity would pay for something directly, then a contradiction would result. But that isn’t what we have here.
In this case we have a person claiming an entity would pay for something but without specifying whether directly or indirectly. To later claim the vow did not promise direct payment is consistent with the original claim. Statements that are consistent with one another are not contradictory.
PolitiFact reported falsely and apparently stands by its false reporting, seeing no need to address the concern and no need to correct the mistake.
Sincerely,
Bryan W. White
Editor, Zebra Fact Check