As you all know, it is a bad idea to believe anything the candidates or the media says without verifying it personally. The internet is rich with information sources that cut though the campaign rhetoric and the media spin and give the raw facts. Of these sources, perhaps the most interesting and useful is factcheck.org. I know that many people on this forum are already familiar with the reliable and bipartisan reporting done by Factcheck, but I would like to once again draw attention to this invaluble resource for those who have yet to discover it. For those of you that do not have time to look through all the content in depth, I have found that virtually all of the entries fall into one of two catagories which I will now summarize for you.
Type 1:
"Recently (Kerry/MoveOn/DNC) claimed in an (ad/campaign speech/email) that the (Bush administration/economy/Iraq war) is (specific claim). This claim is based upon information from (specific source). We have reviewed this information and find that the claim is (slightly exaggerated/loaded with political spin/debated by conservative think tanks). In conclusion, we find that although the claim based on solid fact, we leave the relevance for the reader to determine.
Type 2:
The (Bush campaign/SBVFT/RNC) have accused Kerry in their latest (ad/campaign speech/email) of (specific claim) during (Vietnam/his time in Senate). They have based this claim on (specific event). We have reviewed this event and found that the republican claims are so (distorted/out of context/unsubstantiated) that in any other forum they would constitute slander. In fact, we will stop writing now before we give the republicans something else they can misquote.
(Seriously though, I am having a bit of fun here, but Factcheck does go to great efforts to present all the information in the most unbiased way possible. They are truely non-partisan, and have equally harst things to say about both sides. But I think it speaks volumes that the vast majority of their articles fit into the two catagories I have listed.)
Type 1:
"Recently (Kerry/MoveOn/DNC) claimed in an (ad/campaign speech/email) that the (Bush administration/economy/Iraq war) is (specific claim). This claim is based upon information from (specific source). We have reviewed this information and find that the claim is (slightly exaggerated/loaded with political spin/debated by conservative think tanks). In conclusion, we find that although the claim based on solid fact, we leave the relevance for the reader to determine.
Type 2:
The (Bush campaign/SBVFT/RNC) have accused Kerry in their latest (ad/campaign speech/email) of (specific claim) during (Vietnam/his time in Senate). They have based this claim on (specific event). We have reviewed this event and found that the republican claims are so (distorted/out of context/unsubstantiated) that in any other forum they would constitute slander. In fact, we will stop writing now before we give the republicans something else they can misquote.
(Seriously though, I am having a bit of fun here, but Factcheck does go to great efforts to present all the information in the most unbiased way possible. They are truely non-partisan, and have equally harst things to say about both sides. But I think it speaks volumes that the vast majority of their articles fit into the two catagories I have listed.)
