AP's "fact check" of the Obama speech: Fact-checking or goalpost-moving?

[alp227]

So the AP issued its usual post-speech "fact check" of Obama's immigration speech. Suffice to say, this isn't as much fact check as psychic reading.

For instance:

OBAMA: "It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive - only Congress can do that. All we're saying is we're not going to deport you."

THE FACTS: He's saying, and doing, more than that. The changes also will make those covered eligible for work permits, allowing them to be employed in the country legally and compete with citizens and legal residents for better-paying jobs.

Do the editors even read what their reporters write? Work permits != permanent residency. And by "benefits" - even if those immigrants have the legal right to work in the US, they cannot receive any public benefits like Social Security for themselves (but if they have kids who are citizens or legal residents it's a whole other story). It sucks that the myth about "immigrants receiving welfare" persists in the nation. But even "liberal media" like the AP isn't helpful.

OBAMA: "Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it's been in nearly two years."

THE FACTS: The numbers certainly surged this year, but it was more than a "brief spike." The number of unaccompanied children apprehended at the border has been on the rise since the 2011 budget year. That year about 16,000 children were found crossing the border alone. In 2012, the Border Patrol reported more than 24,000 children, followed by more than 38,800 in 2013. In the last budget year, more than 68,361 children were apprehended.

The 2013-2014 increase in unaccompanied kids crossing the border is the largest among the increases shown by AP. But I'm slightly convinced that Obama made a mistake saying "the number of such children is now actually lower than it's been in nearly two years."

OBAMA: "Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts."

THE FACTS: Indeed, in the 2014 budget year the Border Patrol made 486,651 arrests of border crossers, among the fewest since the early 1970s. But border arrests have been on the rise since 2011.

The decline in crossings is not purely, or perhaps even primarily, due to the Obama administration. The deep economic recession early in his presidency and the shaky aftermath made the U.S. a less attractive place to come for work. The increase in arrests since 2011 also can be traced in part to the economy — as the recovery improved, more people came in search of opportunity.

So the AP doesn't show how Obama is wrong but rather moves the goalposts in providing perspective in # of border arrests.

OBAMA: "When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders."

THE FACTS: He overlooked the fact that he promised as a candidate for president in 2008 to have an immigration bill during his first year in office and move forward on it quickly. He never kept that promise to the Latino community.

Uhh...what?

And the AP is getting roasted in its comments section, with the second-most-upvoted comment:

This is not a fact check article this is an opinion check article. I thought the AP was unbiased- came here for facts. You can do better.

Followed with this reply:

Virtually every one of "The Facts" goes well beyond the point Obama made. Whether or not his executive action is good policy can be the subject of editorial analysis, biased for or against him as such might be, but this article poses as objective journalism, and it most decidedly is otherwise.

And the AP remark about the 2011 decline in crossing had this response in comments: "...all pure conjecture in its purest form with no cited sources for any opinion you're sharing."

[olddots]

1. most AP personnel should be working retail

[Scuba]

3. They already are. They're selling Republican talking points.

[merrily]

2. I don't think the fact check is 100% wrong, but I do think it is more of an opinion piece than a

fact check. And, we have to remember that AP once had Ron Fournier in a powerful position.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/07/22/the-ap-has-a-ron-fournier-problem/144113

Without detracting from that, I will say that a lot of fact checkers will point to silly things to show that the statement they are supposed to be fact-checking is not 1000% accurate. I mean, what would be the point of even employing fact checkers if the fact check doesn't find many "discrepancies?"