::::::::
“42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.”Also .”
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.” --Comedian Steve Wright.
McCain says Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a pig, while an internet email includes, “The List of Books Sarah Palin Tried to have Banned.” In reality, both statements were inaccurate. (See [1].) So how is the average voter going to tell which side spends less time lying and more time telling the truth? In fact, with McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden flinging charges back and forth in ads, on the news, and by internet, it’s easier to just give up and conclude both sides are lying. Fortunately, there are three very good, non-partisan, websites that will let you know the truth behind the claims. Each website spends its time disputing internet old wives tales and Democratic and Republican “spin”—and telling us when folks are “truthin’.”
The broadest site is http://www.snopes.com. Snopes is dedicated to squashing urban legends in their tracks. So, the next time someone’s email breathlessly tells you that Bill Gates and AOL are begging to give you lots of money, go to Snopes before you pass it along. It’ll save you endless embarrassment and apologetic rounds of emails. Snopes also has a nice section on political internet emails that sorts truth from fiction. For instance, one email that says Obama will create a 28% tax on the profits from all home sales is false, (http://snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp/), while the email that lists many of Cindy McCain’s admirable charitable works is true. (http://snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp/ )
On a little more political level, FactCheck.org, sponsored by the Annenburg Foundation does a good job of dissecting the truth behind political claims. It doesn’t say who’s most truthful, but it does let you know if a claim from either side is 1) accurate, 2) not accurate—or, as is often the case, 3) somewhere in the middle.
A joint project of the Congressional Quarterly and the St. Petersburg Times, Politifacts.com is the liveliest of the three sites, since it does decide the level of truth contained 1) in a campaign’s claims; 2) in their attacks on the other side, 3) in their flip flops (or not) and 4) in the chain emails that often make such sensational claims. Their attack ratings go from True to Pants on Fire, and their new flip-flop meter rates candidates’ changing positions all the way from No Flip to Full Flop.
OTHER SITES
Unbiased News. Hundreds of stories to choose from – http://www.news.google.com
Progressive News Consolidator – http://www.RawStory.com
Conservative News Consolidator – http://www.newser.com
McCain Anti-Smear Site – http://mccainblogs.com
Obama Anti-Smear Site – http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome
[1] Politifact gave McCain’s campaign its Pants on Fire Award for the assertion that Obama called Palin a pig. Here’s Obama’s quote:
"John McCain says he's about change, too," Obama said. "And so I guess...(McCain’s)...whole angle is, 'Watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington.'" "That's not change," Obama said. "That's just calling something, the same thing, something different. But, you know, you can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing."
[1] Re. Palin’s “attempt” to ban books, PolitiFacts gives the email (which is NOT from Obama’s campaign) a Pants on Fire Award saying,
“So we can say for certain that no book was ever banned. Nor is there any record that Palin ever initiated a formal process to censor any books, as the e-mail suggests.” (Apparently, according to the librarian, Palin did ask the librarian what would happen if Palin wanted to ban a book.)
