Ever since she blasted Planned Parenthood in the second debate Carly Fiorina has been targeted by the Lamestream (Democrat) Media. First they said she lied about the PP video, then last week The Fact Checker at the Washington Post claimed she was lying about her personal story.
The latter claim drew quite a bit of negative reaction, so Glenn Kessler posted a reaction to the reaction wherein he claims that facts are subjective:
Our recent fact check on Carly Fiorina’s claim that she went “from secretary to CEO” generated heavy criticism from readers. The fact check was either a thoughtful analysis or shoddy hit piece — which is not an uncommon range of responses to our fact checks. But the brunt of reaction came from readers in the latter camp.
The majority of readers who responded via e-mail, social media and article comments particularly objected to the Three Pinocchio rating. They said her claim was factual — at most worth Two Pinocchios — because the two pieces of fact (that she did work as a secretary, that she did become a CEO) were, indeed, accurate.
Pinocchio ratings inherently are subjective, and we often find it difficult to reach a decision. (We frequently second-guess ourselves in the morning.) Our One Pinocchio rating may be another reader’s Three Pinocchio rating, and vice versa. So we aim for consistency in how we apply ratings. It is especially difficult to decide between a Two or a Three, since a Three is a tipping point that indicates a claim is mostly false as opposed to being half-true.
In our minds, the Fiorina case was similar. The “secretary to CEO” line is a central part of her campaign; it even merited its own Web site. She frequently pitched it as an “only-in-America” story. Yet her career really started after she earned her business degree and began working at AT&T as a sales representative. (Some readers, such as John Sexton of Breitbart, pointed to a line in a biography that “perhaps Fiorina’s first taste of business came when she worked for real estate broker Marcus & Millichap for a few months that year” as a sign that the secretary’s job is really the start of her career. But even if one accepts that, it does not mitigate the other advantages she had.)
At this point, we do not see a reason to change the rating. We are comfortable with the analytic process we used to reach the final result. We can certainly see the case for Two Pinocchios or even One, but believe that would not have been consistent with the way we had applied the Three Pinocchio rating in the past. If Obama got Three, then the thinking was that Fiorina deserved Three as well.
No rating is set in stone, and many readers have asked us to revise the rating. We generally revise ratings if we receive new information that changes our understanding of the facts. In this case, there is no new information — except maybe for the fact that many readers believe our reasoning is idiotic. But, as noted above, the rating appears consistent with how we have applied it previously. Thus, lacking additional information, we will retain the rating. We realize that will be disappointing to many who have complained.
The truth is NOT subjective. The media’s belief that truth is subjective helps explain this: