It seems that even if people like Bill O'Reilly believe PolitiFact has some kind of illegitimacy by slobbering over their 'Pinocchio Awards' for lies and untruths, there are a lot more of us that can see them for what they are, progressive Democrats then the narrow and ignorant view of some taking head . They are biased and therefor can not be considered as a legitimate source of truth.
PolitiFact attacking Scott Walker on his college years is just another sign of their bias among their many other failing to report the truth about untruth. They have an agenda and it is liberal left and they really make no bones about hiding it.
The old saying comes into play here in a big way in that on can only believe 10% of what they see and nothing of what they read.
This fabrication about Scott Walkers college years is like the 'Lie of the Year' award that PolitiFact gave out for Mr Obama's 'If you like your doctor, you can keep him. Period' last week, but they were all on board last year never awarding a Pinocchio status for Mr Obama's ObamaCare lies, but gave them a pass by saying it might not be completely true but no 'pants on fire'.
PolitiFact has no legitimate standing as a 'point' institution for digging out lies of others. PolitiFact is biased and, like nearly all media in this day and age, owned and influenced by a liberal agenda.
PolitiFact Invents a Mystery
Did you know there is a "mystery" involving Scott Walker’s "college years" and his "entry into politics"?
Maybe the crack PolitiFact team can "sort through" and "solve" it. That’s the claim, anyway, that the paper makes today in a lengthy (2,800 words) and prominent page one story.
Two headlines from the paper’s online edition and a picture caption (I don’t have a hard copy) set the story up. The headlines are as follows:
"Sorting through the 'mystery’ of Scott Walker’s college years"and"Solving the "mystery" of Scott Walker's college years and entry into politics"
The caption on a nearby picture of Walker when he was a student at Marquette teases a potentially damaging question: "Was he kicked out, as the Democratic Party of Wisconsin suggests?" Or, "Did he leave school just short of a degree for a great career opportunity, as he says?"
So, Journal Sentinel readers explicitly are led to believe that one "mystery" involves whether Walker was kicked out of Marquette.
Four paragraphs into the story reporter David Umhoefer writes, "State Democrats cry the governor was 'kicked out’ of student elections at the Jesuit university in Milwaukee -- and maybe booted from Marquette altogether." Umhoefer thus reinforces the legitimacy of the question in the caption, namely, "Was he kicked out, as the Democratic Party of Wisconsin suggests?"
Several hundred words later, Umhoefer again introduces the issue by quoting the state Democratic Party’s website as alleging that "Walker either dropped out or was forced out" of Marquette.
Umhoefer then quotes party chair Mike Tate, "The allegation is defensible, said Tate, because the party is trying to raise questions about the 'mystery’ of Walker’s departure."
Ah, the word "mystery" turns out to originate with the Democratic Party.
Even though the entire article ends up refuting the claims Walker was forced out for some sort of academic or behavior misconduct, this is how Umhoefer choses to frame his story:
That’s a flimsy case, at best. At worst, it suggests a possible fictional smear.
The "fact checker" just can’t call the left out on their lies.
Amazingly, not until 1,000 words into the story do readers finally hear Walker’s side (for readers who are still reading Umhoefer’s piece).
Writes Umhoefer: "We asked Walker if he was 'forced out’ of Marquette for any reason. 'I can say unequivocally that isn’t true,’ Walker said." Another four paragraphs later, Umhoefer quotes a Marquette spokesman: "Gov. Scott Walker was a student at Marquette from fall of 1986 until spring 1990 and was a senior in good standing when he voluntarily withdrew from Marquette."
In other words, there is no mystery whatsoever about whether Walker was kicked out.
As Umhoefer finally states, more than 1,000 words into the story, "We heard nothing -- and found no evidence -- suggesting Walker was pushed out of the university."
So, a story that could have — and should have — been headlined "Democrats Make False Claims About Walker Leaving Marquette" becomes instead a convoluted hash that takes more than 1,000 words to definitely disprove the claim.
And what about the rest of the piece, ambiguously framed by Umhoefer claim that "Walker’s formative political years -- the student activism, his early exit from Marquette University and campaign debut at 22 -- remains surprisingly disputed"?
"Surprisingly disputed" by whom? It turns out that much of the "dispute" is nothing but a laundry list of claims by some who disagreed with Walker about campus politics. What is "surprising" about this "he said, they said" dispute? Nothing.
Umhoefer is left with one "mystery" for readers and voters to evaluate. Did Walker leave school with a semester to go — as he claims — or longer?
University records, released with Walker’s permission, show that he had a year to go before earning a degree. By that measure, Walker was incorrect. The simple way to put that matter to rest is to correct the record going forward.
In sum, a 2,800-word article leaves only one remaining mystery: is there a chance Mary Burke’s past will be similarly examined?
No comments:
Post a Comment