Just The Facts Ma'am

"Ladies and gentlemen: the story you are about to hear is true.

 Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent." 

Dragnet Opening

"Just the Facts Ma'am"

Joe Friday?

_________________________________________________________________

Historically One of my "go to" websites on "fact checking" is Snopes.com.   If you "check the facts" on the opening quotes above on Snopes you will find this.

________________________________________________________________________________

CLAIM

Dragnet's Sgt. Joe Friday character frequently implored female informants to provide "Just the facts, ma'am."

RATING

 FALSE

 Jack Webb’s ‘Joe Friday’ character typically used the phrase “All we want are the facts, ma’am” (and sometimes “All we know are the facts ma’am”) when questioning women in the course of police investigations. Freberg’s “Little Blue Riding Hood” spoof changed the line slightly, and it was Freberg’s alteration — rather than anything Joe Friday said — that would enter the roll of immortal catch phrases:

___________________________________________





I am sure Snopes is factually correct on the issue.  But I must ask: Does knowing this "slight" nuance really change the general "myth" it perpetuates about Joe Friday? 

His persona was for most  (including me!) a “Just the Facts Guy” who was looking for "truth". 

Now I admit that in the great scheme of things this is really a meaningless "fact check", but it does help introduce my topic rather nicely.

On my last post I pointed out that seeing things with one's own eyes is believing and that "Observation" leads into today's rather lengthy post.  It was first "sparked" by a NY Times "fact check" that I looked at and dismissed, it was so insignificant it is not even a part of this post.  But it did stimulate my memory of a few fact checks from the past.  To those shortly.

Most of you know by know that I am obsessed with "statistics" (You may remember my post on "Life Expectancy by County" a while back) particularly financial ones.

I regularly produce data on our personal finances from "Quicken" and hand a copy to my Faithful and Obedient Companion. She dutifully glances at it and proceeds to toss it in the "circular file" under our kitchen sink.  However, I still get some perverse pleasure in looking at such data and reflecting on it.

Here is a recent little graph I put together and it tells a story which I will now burden you with. 

During our first several years in Vermont I smoked a cigar daily. (A quick side story about this: When Barb's mom used to visit we often played dominoes after I had my daily cigar.  Whenever her Mom complained about having to wait "while I had my smelly cigar" I would show her a longer cigar and gently suggested I could start smoking the longer ones if she continued to complain.  That always took care of that issue!)

I eventually made a personal decision to go to a cigar every 2 or 3 days, based on health consideration and not my Mother-in-Laws dislike of cigars.  That decision resulted in the drop off in spending as shown in my graph.  Any other explanation would be untrue certainly one claiming my Mother-in Law had talked me into it.  While the data (facts) confirm and verify the action it could never by itself verify the exact "reason" for reduced cigar consumption.   Similarly third parties can only offer an "opinion" on the underlying reasons for data presentations. 

Now here is another "fun" graph that is more meaningful:

The graph shows our monthly "Medical" costs "per person" since 2011 (year 1 on graph and it was our first full year off AIG's plan). The total includes both out of Pocket Expenses for Doctors Etc. and health insurance premiums.  Note the last year increase is small, but this includes my move to Medicare.  

Now these costs are "facts".  Here is my opinion on the "facts" as I see them.

When the Affordable Care Act hit in 2014 we were among the "lucky" ones who had our own Medical Insurance with Blue Cross of Vermont.  Under Obamacare we were required to purchase new coverage through the exchange and our year one our premiums went up about 25% and our coverage remained about the same. 

At the time we realized that to make Obamacare work those of us who now had to purchase individual coverage on the "Exchange" marketplace were now a part of that "select group" who would end up bearing a disproportionate share of the costs for covering those who now got subsidized coverage. When we shared this observation at the time a few of our friends indicated "maybe but now we as a country were insuring millions more.  Of course my response of "how much are you out of pocket"?  invariably got a shrug(most were on employer plans and or medicare) and a couple even said "hey it's only a few bucks more per month' of course that was only year one.

 When we moved to Utah in 2015 our premiums actually went down slightly, in exchange for a 6,000 per person "deductible".  There was no coverage available in Utah that did not carry a large deductible unless we wanted a huge premium increase.  Since Utah  we had to keep that 6,000 per person deductible but we now we pay 176% MORE of the monthly premium PER PERSON than we did in Vermont before Obamacare.  Not really shown on the graph is our 2018 Obamacare Policy which is now for just Barbara and costs us $1800 per month.  That is 4 times what paid for our combined coverage cost in Vermont prior to the Affordable Care Act. This is a 350% increase on her since 2014.  

To me (and I would suggest to millions of others) it has been a health insurance debacle.

Fast forward to this fact check from the NY Times

(my apologies on giving you a link, The Times does not like cut and paste!).

NY Times March 2017 Fact Check Trump and Obamacare

Now some third party (like the NY Times) can quote "facts" about how the Affordable Care Act has been wonderful for millions, but I can assure you that my own opinion and my own voting behavior will be impacted by my personal view of the "facts".  

Does all that make me an evil person or ignorant if I disagree with the NY Times about a fact check that the Trump was not "Truthful" about the Affordable Care Acts effect on premiums??  No it makes me pragmatic.

From my perspective, Donald Trump generally told the "truth" about the Affordable Care Acts effect on premiums. The "Fact Checkers" at the NY Times discussed how they saw the benefits to society and favorability polls that included millions of people who now get coverage for "free".  They told "the truth" I suppose based on how they see the Affordable Care Act.  The Fact is that the act had winners and losers.  I was a "loser".  Trump was appealing to all of us "losers" since politically that works for him and his objectives.  The fact is premiums for several million self insured individuals-like us went up big time.  Of course the Republican Platform of repealing and fixing Obamacare never happened either, we got only higher premiums.  Oh well just another  piece of "Political" BS.

Which brings me to political "dishonesty" in general.

 I am sure Trump was dishonest when he espoused the "Birther Controversy"  in that case he simply defied some very convincing facts-period (yet I realize some still cling to this goofy theory).

I also believe he was dishonest when he joined the Bush Lied People Died Movement which for me defied the facts as I understood them (and he ticked me off with that as well).  While I remain confident that Bush did not lie to get us in a war a good many Americans, including some of my friends (and my own mother god rest her soul) still disagree with me on that, despite an intelligence commission that looked at "the facts".

I have no qualms stating Donald Trump is very often less than truthful, sometimes in very outlandish ways (and in most cases by design-which the media falls for day in and day out).

But when politicians lie the Media should hold ALL politicians accountable.

Remember this one (speaking of Health Care):

"If You Like Health Plan You Can Keep Your Health Plan."

I suggest you read

Columbia School Of Journalism. "The failure to fact check You Can Keep it."

My point "fact checking" is most often an exercise in some“counter” editorial posturing based on the checkers bias.

Here are two favorite examples.  Both from "Politifact" and both prior to the election of Trump.  I saw these when they were first published and saved them soon after they canned Trump about it.  I think they clearly reveal how the media is predisposed to do fact checks based on who is spouting "facts".  This is a cut and paste from two articles 11 months apart from the SAME “fact check” site “Politifact”

________________________________________________________________________________

For African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent."

— Bernie Sanders on Monday, July 6th, 2015 in a rally in Portland, Maine

Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent

Our ruling

Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent." His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.  (Underline is mine)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump misleadingly puts black youth unemployment rate at 59 percent

 Monday, June 20th, 2016 at 12:00 a.m.

Donald Trump recently told Richmonders that he was amending his campaign theme, "Make America Great Again," to strike an inclusive note.

"I’ve added a couple of things," he said during a June 11 rally at the Richmond Coliseum. "I’m adding ‘Make America Great Again,’ and I’m adding ‘For Everyone,’ because it’s really going to be for everyone. It’s not going to be for a group of people; it’s going to be for everyone.

"If you look at what’s going on in this country, African-American youth is an example: 59 percent unemployment rate; 59 percent," Trump said.

Our ruling June 26th, 2016

Trump says the unemployment rate for black youths is 59 percent.

The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim.

Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to our question about where the candidate got his 59 percent figure. But it appears likely it comes from a computation of all 16- to 24-year-old blacks who aren’t working and may not even want a job, including high school and college students.

Clearly, black youths have a harder time finding work than whites. But Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics.

We rate his statement Mostly False. (Underline is mine)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Now I loved this example because this fact check is so BLATANTLY biased.  Two virtually identical statements, made by two different politicians are fact checked as mostly true for one mostly false for the other, by the same fact checker.  I can only conclude it is based on an obvious desire to deliberately skew opinion on the veracity of the two candidates.  By the way it might even show that this fact checker was perhaps "rooting" for Bernie over Hillary!

By the way….speaking of Opinion Pieces

From the Washington Post this year…same topic.

_________________________________________________________________________________

7:20 PM

January 30 by Glenn Kessler

Fact Check: African-American unemployment

“African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history.”
–Trump

THE FACT CHECKER | This is a flip-flop by Trump. During the 2016 campaign, Trump used to claim a Four-Pinocchio statistic that 58 percent of African-American youth was unemployed. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rate for black youth at the time was 19.2 percent — about one-third of the rate used by Trump. Now that he’s president, Trump appears all too happy to cite the unemployment rate for African Americans, bragging that it’s the best since the turn of the century.

The African American unemployment rate has been on a relatively steady decline since it hit a peak of 16.8 percent in March, 2010, during the Great Recession. The rate had already fallen to 7.7 percent when Trump took the oath of office, so Trump taking credit for this is like a rooster thinking the sun came up because he crowed.

________________________________________________________ 
I Love the reference to the 59%(58?) unemployment referenced by the Politico Fact Check I cited.  Bernie told the truth, Trump lied.  Now based on a biased fact check  from 2 years earlier, Trump is somehow lying again by quoting a fact that is essentially true now...got it???

________________________________________________________________________________

Now a couple months later an “opinion piece” from Bloomberg News.  Same topic.

Black Unemployment Is at an All-Time Low, But ...

The employment-population ratio among black Americans (and other groups) still isn’t setting any records.

By 

Justin Fox

May 4, 2018, 10:50 AM MDT

The unemployment rate among black Americans fell to 6.6 percent in April, according to today’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the lowest such rate on record.

The record in this case only goes back to 1972, and the overall unemployment rate(available back to 1948) was lower in the late 1960s and early 1950s than it is now. But the gap between the black unemployment rate and the overall rate has been shrinking, so 6.6 percent may well be the lowest rate ever for black people.

________________________________________________________________________________

The Bloomberg article goes on to say that while the number is  probably “correct” (a fact) and might well be lowest ever, Trump was not the cause (an Opinion).  

For millions no matter how you spin it, or the actual reason(s) for it the fact is in historical terms our economy is doing well now.

OK I will end with these two points.

1. I find most "fact checking" akin to the "Snopes" evaluation of Joe Friday's "just the facts"-easily "shaped" to suit the checkers bias just as much as a President (or any politician for that matter) can ignore, or bullshit facts any which way from Sunday.  

2.  In the end most of the voting public (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) will evaluate issues that affect them not so much on Politicians Statements, or Media Fact Checks but rather on their own internal facts or biases based on personal experiences or, as in my case on health care, by their own  "charts and graphs". 

With that "Lengthy Observation" I bid you: 

Adieu.