Former state Rep. John Loughlin received a dreaded “Pants on Fire” rating from PolitiFact last summer during his unsuccessful campaign against David Cicilline for Patrick Kennedy’s 1st District seat. PolitiFact said Loughlin was wrong to describe it as common for people illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to do so carrying drugs.
Loughlin fired back in Anchor Rising’s comments section over the weekend, saying subsequent events offered further proof for his claim but he couldn’t get a new hearing:
I presented all of this exculpatory evidence to Politi-Fact and was told “well, we already covered that story so we don’t want to go back and re-hash it.” These low-lifes called me a liar and didn’t have the guts to go back and correct their error. I can only conclude it was because Politi-Fact is agenda driven journalism at its very worst.
That seems like a serious charge. I don’t know if Loughlin is right in this case , but new facts come to light all the time, and PolitiFact prides itself on weighing all the facts and providing an unbiased judgment – and has already gained considerably clout by doing so.
I asked Tim Murphy, PolitiFact’s editor and a widely respected journalist in his own right, if he would respond to Loughlin’s claims or shed some light on whether there is an appeals process in the PolitiFact system. Murphy was good enough to call me back, but he declined to comment, citing a general policy against doing so.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think PolitiFact’s judgments are agenda-driven (and yes, I know AR’s contributors will disagree and say that’s because I’m part of the MSM). I also think the site is doing some terrific work – see, for example, Pete Lord’s Feb. 27 piece on pension law. Still, perhaps the project could use a bit more transparency – maybe a blog to tackle critiques of its rulings?
(Double disclosure: Loughlin is a WPRI-TV contributor, and Projo/PolitiFact is a WPRI news partner. So I guess they cancel each other out.)