Talk for Article "Fact check: Jill Stein’s claim about third party popularity"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    The problem with this fact check is that it ignores what Jill is communicating in favor of analyzing the words she said. What she is communicating is “this is a great time for the Green Party and that’s why we should continue to try to be on the ballot.” The words she said were “this is a great time for some third party.” The disconnect is that the third party that those 60% want isn’t one party. It’s a fragmented pile of different parties, of which Jill’s is one.

    Framing the discussion this way is highly problematic, because it doesn’t lead us to make useful decisions. If the country needs “a third party” and the Green Party is “a third party,” then a poor logician would conclude that the country needs the Green Party. But the results in the polls show that this is very clearly not the case.

    So in fact, Jill’s message is completely false, even though the words she said were true. I don’t think it is useful journalism to fact check her words if you don’t address what she is actually communicating.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
      DU
      Deleted User

      I don’t think that’s accurate. The GP has sued for ballot access for all third parties, not just for the GP in the past. Obviously she wants more people to be interested in the GP but that is irrelevant to this fact check. Fact checks checks…facts, not what you presume to be an unsaid intent. I’m all for using context to judge a fact check but her tweet does not suggest what you said it does at all.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        You’re agreeing with me. My point is that Jill is quoting the poll as saying that the public is ready for “a” third major party, but what she’s not saying is that the party that the public would agree on doesn’t exist. Implicitly, she is saying that the Green Party is that party, but it’s not. The purpose of this message is to get those people who _do_ support the Green Party to redouble their futile efforts to get the party to fill the demand she is pointing to.

        As for whether this is a valid fact check, my point is that it’s not a fact check that should be in the news. The poll should be in the news, sure, but not with Jill’s face on it. The poll has nothing whatever to do with Jill.

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
          DU
          Deleted User

          We don;t check what people don’t say, we check what people say so I’m not sure what you are complaining about. If you are implying that she only meant that people want GP to be thought of as 3rd party, that burden of proof is on you. On the surface it’s a ridiculous claim because she fully acknowledges many third parties and have had fruitful dialogues and debates with some (such as libertarians and socialists)

          1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

            What I am complaining about is that you are just fact-checking a tweet. How is this news?

            1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
              DU
              Deleted User

              All fact checking sites check tweets. Were you born yesterday? Twitter is a massive platform that influences millions if not billions of people.

              1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                Nan, please avoid insulting language like “Were you born yesterday?” You’ll be blocked if you keep up that kind of hostility.

                To weigh in on the substantive points, I think Ted is raising an interesting point that deserves further chewing on.

                As a side note, before I begin, I think “just fact checking a tweet” isn’t a compelling objection, so on that point I agree with Nan (other than the rudeness!). We are a community and people can fact check things that are quite small and obscure, why not? The important thing is that the fact check be done well.

                In this case, the only direct factual claim is that over 60% of Americans think a new major party is needed. That claim is true, and this fact check does a good job of showing that by linking to and quoting a perfectly relevant poll.

                But Ted’s interesting question deserves some thought. The second part of the tweet suggests that Stein thinks or hopes that the Green Party could be that new major party. I agree with Ted that this is unlikely to be correct. If she said “Over 60% of Americans think the Green Party should be the next major party” I think we’d have to say that’s false – or evidence-free perhaps as there are no polls saying it, and more detailed polls about why people are unhappy with the major parties don’t point in that direction, really.

                So while Nan is 100% right to say that we can’t fact check things people haven’t said, the point is – she did say or strongly suggest something, and I think we can say a bit about that. Not necessarily to come to a formal rating of “true” or “false” for something she didn’t say, but to add context.

                I’d recommend – and I’m only holding off because I’m more interested in a good discussion of the principle rather than doing something about this particular article – that we add a paragraph addressing the second half of the tweet. “In the second part of her tweet, Stein suggests that the Green Party could be that third major party. She faces an uphill battle for that to happen, given that found that only xx% of Americans are interested in voting for the Green Party.”

                (Note: I haven’t done the research so I don’t actually know what evidence there exists.)

                I hope this is helpful, and I hope, Nan, that you take to heart my words about being nice to other people here. There are literally millions of websites where people can go to insult each other about political thoughts – WikiTribune should be better than that.

                1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
                  DU
                  Deleted User

                  “In the second part of her tweet, Stein suggests that the Green Party could be that third major party. ”

                  I think this is 100% false. She said no such thing in the tweet nor did she suggest it. That may be her ultimate hope for the long term but I think she fully realizes that not all the 60% will turn to the GP. Some might of course turn to the GP but I think her words are rather clear. She got 1.4% of the vote in 2016. She would have to be pretty delusional to think that the GP is the next major party anytime in the forseable future. I just see no evidence she has ever said or suggested, esp in that tweet, that all, over even a majority of that 60% will soon vote GP.

                  Edited: 2018-10-04 11:07:23 By Deleted User + 72 Characters .. + 11% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to collaborate on our developing articles:

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us