Annenberg FactCheck.Org Not Sticking to Facts
13 November 2008If I want Obama-surrogate talking points, I can go to change.gov for his policy description du-jour. I really don’t need FactCheck.org run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (PPC) to act as yet another arm of the Obama machine. There’s a good reason the Annenberg PPC has to use quotes to call itself a “nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters.” That’s because FactCheck.org, the Annenberg PPC and the Annenberg Foundation all serve as advocates for the Annenberg Foundation which was founded to “advance the public well-being through improved communication.”
To do what?
To advance the public well-being through improved communication.
Okay so who defines “well-being” and “improved communication,” Improved to communicate what? Convince us all we have problems and Obama-style marxism will solve it?
At any rate, Brooks Jackson offers ZERO evidence to support the assertion that Barack Obama’s Civilian National Security Force will be “unarmed” and have no police powers. He doesn’t go to Obama and seek clarification. Instead, Brooks Jackson posts a transcript of the relevant stump speech Obama made when first announcing his plans for a Civilian National Security Force. He then offers his analysis of what the speech means. This is not “fact checking,” any more than political punditry is news. And this is the big problem in our news media today (not to mention the state of education). Not even journalists or professional “facticians” can distinguish a fact from an opinion.
I will assume because he block-quotes the transcript that CQ Transcriptions, and not Brooks Jackson, breaks the speech into paragraphs. If you listen to the speech and then read the transcript, it is quite apparent that the two ideas, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” and “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” go right together. In fact, it is not that the first sentence ends one idea and the second begins another. Based on his speech, the first sentence begins the idea and the second elucidates.
Add to this the use of the words “Security Force” by POTUS-elect Obama. Security is used as an adjective here. What kind of force? A security force. So that means something that secures or provides protection. And what is a “force”? Well even if you were thinking of AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps or any other corps, it is “a body of persons or things available for a particular end.”
Hmmm, what end? National Security.
I’m not here to claim that Obama is talking about secret police or neighbors spying on neighbors or brown shirts or Obama Youth or anything else. I’m here to call Brooks Jackson out and claim that he cannot defend Obama’s idea factually without interviewing Obama or finding an interview of Obama explaining this idea.
Can Brooks Jackson appreciate the irony of writing an opinion piece under the factcheck.org brand name? Only he can say.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
One Response to “Annenberg FactCheck.Org Not Sticking to Facts”
May 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA AGAIN?