Politifact says 'Pants on Fire' doesn't mean 'lied'

[ProSense]

Politifact says 'Pants on Fire' doesn't mean 'lied'

by Hunter

Why Politifact has lost all credibility, episode whatever:

@mattyglesias We never said "lie." We said Reid provided no evidence and our reporting found no evidence.
— @politifact via TweetDeck

What Politifact actually said yesterday:

We find no evidence for Reid's claim that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. Pants on Fire! http://t.co/Bsa9j8CT
— @politifact via TweetDeck

So they shouted "Pants on Fire!" but they didn't technically say the word lie? That's quite the parsing from a fact-check organization. What was "Pants on Fire!" supposed to mean, then? (Then again, they re-parsed Reid's original statement so that they could fact-check something he didn't actually say, rather than what he did say, so they're not exactly strangers to creatively re-parsing things.)

Sorry, but we've got to rate Politifact's defense here as "Pantaloons Ablaze." That's different from both lying and pants-on-fire lying, but only in that pantaloons is a pretty cool word and needs to be used more often.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/07/1117676/-Politifact-says-Pants-on-Fire-doesn-t-mean-lied

Maybe these factchecking organizations need to stop carrying water for Romney and Republicans.

Washington Post fact-checker calls Harry Reid a liar just 'cause
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021088275

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Especially ...

What was "Pants on Fire!" supposed to mean, then?

When the preceding line of the nursery rhyme is:

Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!

Come on, mannnn!

[RedStateLiberal]

2. LOL @ "Pantaloons Ablaze."

---> "Always fact-check the fact-checkers."

[rustydog]

3. Liar, Liar, pants on fire does not necessarily mean one lied? Really??

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Okay, so lets give them the benefit of the doubt.

That means that "no evidence" = "pants on fire" which is more sensationalistic than seeing photographic "evidence" of bat boy saddling up the Loch Ness Monster for a ride across the lake.

Either way, credibility shot.

Works for me.

[yardwork]

5. "We find no evidence...that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years."

There's no evidence that he did, either. No evidence either way until Romney releases his tax forms.

So what Politifact is doing is not exactly a lie but it's close. It's a misrepresentation.

[freshwest]

7. Well stated.

[yardwork]

8. Yeah, I think their pants are on fire. Or at least smoldering.

[CJCRANE]

10. By Politifact's logic then Romney is also lying.

They didn't really think it through did they...

[JBoy]

6. So they have just one category

to cover "no evidence" as well as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary"?

Only one of those is a "lie".

[CJCRANE]

9. Um...I found no evidence for Romney's claim that he paid taxes for 10 years. Pants on Fire! nt