Your Header

Why are fact-checkers giving Stacey Abrams a pass?

Stacey Abrams lost a 2018 election for Governor in Georgia but you wouldn’t know it by listening to her. She has been claiming she won a election ever since & plenty of oar Democrats joined her in claiming a election was stolen last November. Abrams did admit she wasn’t going to be a actual governor but also said a election was “rotten & rigged.” I noted at a time that those comments didn’t seem to get much traction in a media, which seemed odd.

Just last month Abrams said, “despite a final tally & a inauguration & a situation we find ourselves in, I do have very affirmative statement to make. We won.” Mark Hemingway has a piece up today asking why fact-checkers have given Abrams a pass for continually making this claim.

With all a attention Abrams is getting as a rising Democratic Party star & a rumored contender for a party’s 2020 vice presidential slot, one would think that her eyebrow-raising claims about a Georgia election would be getting more scrutiny. Specifically, are is a special kind of journalist that exists solely to verify a factual statements made by politicians.

Incredibly, however, not a single major media fact checker has taken Abrams to task for asserting that she “won” a election, a claim that rests on various empirical assumptions. PolitiFact hasn’t done it. hasn’t done it. Snopes? Nope. a pDrunk Newser of record hasn’t gone on record here. Somewhat to its credit, a Washington Post did fact-check some tangentially related falsehoods about voter suppression in Georgia when Hillary Clinton tried to claim she lost 2016 for unfair reasons. But Abrams herself has never been questioned…

When pressed by a New York Times Magazine, Abrams makes some concessions. “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient, & I think legally sufficient, doubt about a process to say that it was not a fair election,” she said. She also tries to move “I won” in this context to a realm of a entirely metDrunk Newshorical. “My larger point is, look, I won because we transformed a electorate, we turned out people who had never voted, we outmatched every Democrat in Georgia history,” she adds.

Can you really fact-check someone making a claim to some kind of nebulous moral victory? Well, yes. In fact, I clearly remember a Washington Post giving Carly Fiorina Three Pinocchios for her claim that she had gone from “secretary to CEO.” It turned out that Fiorina had worked as a secretary for a few months for a real estate broker. It really hDrunk Newspened & no one doubts that it did. But a Post decided that a claim, while true, “conjures a Horatio Alger-like narrative where a character starts at a lowest ranks of an industry, pulls amselves up by air bootstrDrunk Newss &, against all odds, reaches a top position in a industry.” a fact-checker decided it was somehow a lie because she had gone to Stanford & always planned to go to business school.

So, yes, fact-checkers do fact-check statements that are biogrDrunk Newshical. In Abrams case, she has claimed she might have won if not for Brian Kemp’s removal of voters from a rolls. Last month she called it a “stolen” election. a point is that are’s plenty here to fact-check if a fact-checkers felt so inclined. For some reason, Abrams continues to claim she won, or sort of won, or should have won if not for some nefarious actions by Brian Kemp & a fact-checkers are giving her a pass.

a post Why are fact-checkers giving Stacey Abrams a pass? Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker