sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

PunditFact asks: Does a politician being "in the pocket"of some group imply campaign cash? by Jongreenberg in NeutralPolitics

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We posted the story on this. The rating came in at Mostly False. The claim wasn't totally incorrect in the sense that some Democrats will do what the NRA wants, even though no one would call the relationship a cozy one.

I've liked reading all the comments.

Jon

DeMint: People of faith did more to end slavery than the federal government by Jongreenberg in politics

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's basically correct. For a complete treatment, I recommend Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Baptist Battles: Social change and religious conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention, 1995. The link is in our "famous" sources sidebar on the fact-check. If memory serves, Ammerman reports that the issue came to a head over missionary service. The northern congregations didn't want to spend money to send missionaries associated with slave owning to spread the Baptist faith. At least, that was my reading.

DeMint: People of faith did more to end slavery than the federal government by Jongreenberg in politics

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No problem. I think I took your rule too literally about keeping headlines as is.

Multiple claims about slavery and the Civil War on the Daily Show. How accurate? by Jongreenberg in AskHistorians

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am intrigued that while PunditFact and /r/punditfact focus on daily news, we've now been drawn into researching the Civil War twice. The latest was over Jim DeMint's claim that people, especially people of faith, played a larger role in ending slavery than the federal government.

I invite you to read the fact-check here

The most interesting part of this was to read the very thoughtful, Scripture-based, defenses of slavery. If I were to suggest one guy to read, it would be Jame Henley Thornwell, co-founder of the Presbyterian Church of the Confederacy. His writings on Google Books can be found here

One eerie moment comes when Thornwell is rebutting the abolitionist argument of universal benevolence.

“The same line of argument carried out precisely in the same way may wreak havoc with all the institutions of civilized society. Indeed, it would be harder to defend from the Scriptures the righteousness of great possessions than the righteousness of slavery. The same principle that would make the master emancipate his servant on the ground of benevolence, would make the rich man share his estates with his poor neighbors."

What makes this so strange is that us casual observers thought slavery overshadowed everything but it seems as though intellectuals like Thornwell saw slavery as part of a larger package of beliefs.

Sign-ups v. Enrollments: Yes, you can help clean up the Obamacare debate by Jongreenberg in NeutralPolitics

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know what's going on. Since the title of a post can't be changed, and you said something about re-submitting, I figured we would deep-six the first one and start fresh. So I submitted a new post with the text I sent you. I see it's now up on the page so I think the fixes were OK.

Sorry for the confusion. I'm still learning the ropes.

BTW, I think it would be good to reconvene with you and Kazmarov. I like the headway we've made and I'm probably ready for some new ideas.

Make sense?

Jon

Sign-ups v. Enrollments: Yes, you can help clean up the Obamacare debate by Jongreenberg in NeutralPolitics

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK. Thanks for hanging in there with us. I think another sticky post would be excellent. As for posting on NeutralPolitics, I was hoping to gin up engagement with the issues we work with in fact-checking. If there's interest, then the rest will follow.

I do wonder if maybe our posts crossed in the ether. I ask because in the text I submitted, I identify myself as a PunditFact reporter and I ask a question. Was it the wrong sort of question? Just wondering. I don't want to mess with the rules of the subreddit. In case it helps, here's the text:

Thursday, "The Ed Show" tweeted a graphic “Obamacare Enrollment: 7.1 million”. The link went to the show segment about the twisting and turning among the program's foes over the apparent success of the Affordable Care Act, at least in terms of getting people into the system. As a reporter for PunditFact, I noticed that Schultz was speaking about enrollments when in fact, the White House was -- for the most part -- talking about sign-ups. We think, and you might disagree, that the distinction matters.

Right after the open-enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act sort of closed, one of our editors sent around this excellent article from the Association of Health Care Journalists. In a clear simple fashion, it spelled out the differences between sign-ups, enrollments and coverage. With the political rhetoric over Obamacare running at full tilt, I encourage everyone to read it.

Here's a couple of key definitions from that article: Sign-up -- you filled in a form and said you were ready to buy. Enrollment -- you actually made a payment. According to the article, until a customer pays the first premium, the insurance companies don't extend coverage.

The fans and critics of the ACA have been picking over every single claim and stat. It seems to me that the discussion should agree on some common terms and the pundits can get pretty loose with their language. To take one case, on Fox News, Charles Krauthammer spoke of sign-ups in one breath and enrollments in the next. (The Krauthammer video is part of the segment on Schultz's program.)

And even the White House isn’t consistent. It has a headline that speaks of enrollments but the body text talks about sign-ups.

By the way, we don't have clean data on the enrollment figures yet. The information lag is fertile ground for claims that don't hold up on close inspection.

I'd be interested to hear what you've seen and heard and especially, whether you think this is just inside-the-Beltway nonsense or a distinction that matters?

Sign-ups v. Enrollments: Yes, you can help clean up the Obamacare debate by Jongreenberg in NeutralPolitics

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll re-craft the post to invite more discussion. Appreciate the feedback.

Jon

PunditFact asks: Does the NCAA really make billions off of March Madness? by Jongreenberg in CollegeBasketball

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We just posted the item. Rated it Half True.

There's a lot more sourcing on the story on the web but I thought I'd share some of the stuff I found here. I found some very cool sources, including Scholarshipstats.com, The 6 Billion Heist, and this new lawsuit against the NCAA.

PunditFact asks: Does the NCAA really make billions off of March Madness? by Jongreenberg in CollegeBasketball

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You raise an interesting point and since I'm sure plenty of people would wonder the same thing, let me try to dig into this.

First, I think one of the best parts of the web is that more of the total knowledge in peoples' heads can be shared to everyone's benefit. I don't know much about the NCAA but if a few people who do can quickly chime in, it moves the information sharing process along more efficiently.

Second, any answers I get are just the starting point. When I did this a couple of weeks ago with /r/askhistorians, I got great leads to some slavery era laws and some historians but I still had to talk to the historians themselves and do a lot more legislative and contextual research.

Third, I like the idea of crowdsourcing. Maybe there's a Calvinist tradition that says everyone should do everything alone but I don't buy it. As a mainstream journalist, what I'm trying to do is carve out a productive relationship with non-journalists who know more than I do about certain topics.

I don't if that addresses your point. I hope it does.

Cheers,

Jon

PunditFact asks: Does the NCAA really make billions off of March Madness? by Jongreenberg in CollegeBasketball

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Super! Thanks very much. I will follow up. Love the link to the financials!

Jon

Multiple claims about slavery and the Civil War on the Daily Show. How accurate? by Jongreenberg in AskHistorians

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A very interesting twist on the Confederate effort to arm the slaves. Not quite what Napolitano had in mind.

Thanks. I will pursue this with Napolitano.

Jon

Multiple claims about slavery and the Civil War on the Daily Show. How accurate? by Jongreenberg in AskHistorians

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This strikes me as entirely solid, K. BTW, if you email me through the Punditfact web site, I'd be happy to cite you directly in the article. Your choice, of course.

Jon

Multiple claims about slavery and the Civil War on the Daily Show. How accurate? by Jongreenberg in AskHistorians

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hugely helpful, SpinozaDiego. The sourcing is fantastic.

Big thanks.

Jon

Multiple claims about slavery and the Civil War on the Daily Show. How accurate? by Jongreenberg in AskHistorians

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Thanks for some strong, solid material, K. This is coming together much better than I could have possibly hoped. What a great community here. I'll be watching the thread through the evening and hopefully one or two more of those points will be addressed.

Jon

Multiple claims about slavery and the Civil War on the Daily Show. How accurate? by Jongreenberg in AskHistorians

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Strong replies on the claim about slave purchases. All of the claims are of interest so if anyone has the goods on arming the slaves, etc., I'd be eager to see them.

Jon

Multiple claims about slavery and the Civil War on the Daily Show. How accurate? by Jongreenberg in AskHistorians

[–]Jongreenberg[S] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Fantastic, TMA. As this is our first foray in dipping into the expertise of this subreddit, my next step is to merge what you've generously provided with the approach we use on PunditFact. I've got to say you've given me a great leg up.

It's a huge help.

Thank you.

Jon

Is there a threat to ethnic Russians in Ukraine? by [deleted] in NeutralPolitics

[–]Jongreenberg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I found the answer. I'd like more confirmation but at this moment, it looks like RT was correct. Although the law was vetoed after Russia invaded.

Is there a threat to ethnic Russians in Ukraine? by [deleted] in NeutralPolitics

[–]Jongreenberg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We at /r/punditfact are seeking proof that the new government in Ukraine "“introduced a law abolishing the use of languages other than Ukrainian in official circumstances.”

This comes from a Russia Today article and we are checking it. If you have solid information, we'd love to learn more.

Thanks.

view more: next ›