Is Sarah Palin misinformed? Fact checker discusses.

I have some sympathy for Van Susteren because it is difficult to "fact check" someone in the middle of an interview unless you have the information right at your fingertips. At some points, she tried to offer a counterargument or at least present what Obama might have said in response. 

What I really would like to see an interviwer do is take Palin (or any politician for that matter) through some of their previous statements and get them to explain themselves.  Part of the problem in our business is that there is little follow-up, so politicians are not held accountable for what they say. 

Thank you! I am really enjoying writing this column. I hope that it is part of a trend to hold people accountable for their claims. Certainly, local papers could take the idea and start doing it for local and state politicians. 

For people wondering, this refers to my article on Wednesday.

If you read the plan, as presented by the Republicans, insurance companies will be required to offer insurance to everyone who applies, and the less well-off would receive additional support. She asserted, without evidence (and contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office said), that it would "allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions."

So I do not think this is semantics at all. She could have said she was predicting horrible things would happen, but she should not have asserted a fact that was not in the plan.

Incidently, PolitiFact.com, Factcheck.org and the Associated Press all reached the same conclusion as I did.

I'm not sure I would say Palin is deliberately trying to mislead people. She appears to have only a surface knowledge about major national issues, and yet speaks very confidently about them. 

Good question. I used to cover diplomacy, and obfuscation was often used to smooth difficult situations between nations. In Congress, people also like to speak in code, in part because it might make some of the legislation less of a target if people don't understand what they are doing. 

Yes, I find the responses fascinating. I guarantee you that over a period of time, you will not be able to discern a political bias one way or the other. In my many years in Washington, I have been lied to by politicians in both parties, and so I have no illusions about either side. Thank you for recognizing that I treat both sides equally!

I usually try to pick a claim that is in the news that day. Often, I get up in the morning and start looking at what's been said on the morning news, or who is giving a speech, and then hope I find something interesting. Sometimes, I pick a claim if I think the issue illuminates a larger point. Usually, I have no idea what I will write about when I arrive in the office. But I try to write five times a week. 

I try to keep my eye on having the right mix over a period of weeks--ie, equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, a reasonable number on Obama, some foreign policy in addition to budget, health care and domestic policy. Lots of Republicans are making announcement speeches, so I have to look at those and still keep up the right mix. 

I also rely on readers to flag interesting comments and things they are wondering about. The best way to get my attention is to send it to factchecker@washpost.com.  It might get lost in the comment section below the articles. 

See the previous answer above. It mostly depends on who or what is in the news, but I try to keep up a mix over time, so it's pretty much equal between the parties. But it could be five days of Democrats followed by five days of Republicans.

The hardest part of the job is deciding how many Pinocchios to award. I try to be consistent, but in all but in all but the most extreme cases it is a bit subjective. But it is also a very useful tool for helping me keep all of these claims in perspective. 

You could be correct. I worry that with the fragmentation of the media, people are now less likely to get out of their political comfort zone. It is important to regularly read people who you may vehemently disagree with, because, you know, you might find that they have a point. 

Thanks!

Leadership, of course, is not just about knowledge, but about setting priorities and knowing how manage people and policies toward a particular objective. A good leader attracts people who are deeply knowledgeable about certain issues, and relies on them to provide advice. Then he/she makes decisions.

Some people obviously consider Sarah Palin to be an inspirational figure, and her lack of knowledge on issues is less important to them.  

This is more a question for The Post political writers. I personally think she will not run for president this time around, but I may be in the minority on that. But I doubt she will fade away!

You know, I had completely missed that! I just looked it up, and I guess it has been well-documented. I think I will take a pass, but it is an amusing mistake. 

Here's what she said about Paul Revere:

"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed." As most school children know, Paul Revere actually warned the rebels that "The British are coming!

Here are a few of the recent articles I have written on Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-rare-geppetto-for-paul-ryans-assertion-on-obamas-hidden-top-marginal-tax-rate/2011/05/20/AFr1V27G_blog.html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/understanding-obamas-shift-on-israel-and-the-1967-lines/2011/05/19/AFPRaT7G_blog.html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-administration-boasting-about-border-security/2011/05/10/AFj71ZkG_blog.html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/was-osama-bin-laden-not-a-muslim-leader/2011/05/03/AFdVDUjF_blog.html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-obama-administrations-odd-claims-on-export-growth/2011/05/01/AFt2N1XF_blog.html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/how-effective-are-sanctions-in-changing-behavior/2011/04/26/AFCwRktE_blog.html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-missing-context-in-obamas-speech-on-libya/2011/03/29/AF0MkIxB_blog.html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/on-libya-where-you-stand-depends-on-where-you-sit/2011/03/28/AFBONgrB_blog.

html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/libya-obama-and-the-tragedy-in-darfur/2011/03/23/ABlu34KB_blog.html 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-and-the-white-houses-halfway-fixation-with-the-budget/2011/03/07/ABgKO0O_blog.html 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_misleading_language_on.html 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/a_guide_to_budget_gimmicks_in.html 

I usually give a heads up about where my conclusions are heading and am always willing to provide a response by a spokesman. That's what I did in the Wasserman Schultz case. And I have also sometimes added updates with additional responses.

Sometimes, people try to pleabargain on the Pinocchios, trying to argue me down. In other words, they admit they made a mistake but don't think it is as bad as I think it is. (Sometimes the argument has persuaded me.)

Once, a lawmaker called me after the column ran and said I had nailed him. 

Eventually, it catches up to you. At least I hope so. 

You are right that this can be difficult. I try to focus on claims that are based on a real number--ie, whether the debt has increased more under Obama than the previous 43 presidents. (Not so.) This is a number that can be looked up in the historical record.

I try not to fact check economic beliefs, ie, whether raising taxes is always bad. That's a political philosophy. Sometimes, however, I might try to explore the economic context of such beliefs, but in that case, I do not award Pinocchios. I think providing context is also an important part of my job and I do not always have to play a game of "gotcha!"

Point taken!

Hmm, I doubt anyone likes being the butt of jokes but then she is an unusual politician.

I don't think I will fact check my colleagues, though I did write a column in which I said The Post and other news organizations had misled readers about the size of the recent budget deal. Not sure everyone was happy about that!