wpostServer: http://css.washingtonpost.com/wpost

The Post Most: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Should the United States fund the service program AmeriCorps? President Obama would increase its budget. Rep. Paul Ryan would eliminate federal funding for the program.

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share

Join a Discussion

Weekly schedule, past shows

Erik Wemple
On Twitter E-mail |  On Twitter Follow |  On Facebook Fan |  RSS RSS Feed
Posted at 08:32 AM ET, 10/23/2012

Sarah Palin calls for thorough fact-checking — of Obama

Nineteenth in a series of endless, tireless, exhaustive, hairsplitting, obsessive, resounding, never-before-attempted, conclusive posts on the fact-checking industry.

In a twist that doubtless shocked viewers, Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity agreed that the president came off as petulant and condescending in the final presidential debate last night. Palin, in turn, went a step further, saying that President Obama prevaricated his way through the proceedings.

Palin: “There were so many untruths spewed by Obama tonight. Unfortunately Romney just didn’t have time to answer them all.”

Palin: “...lies catching up to him.”

Palin: “I sure wish the media would start calling Obama out on these lies.”

For the record, the media were doing just that at precisely the moment Palin was talking. FactCheck.org, for instance, roughed up the president for shaky statements on Mitt Romney’s position on Pakistan, Iraq and the auto bailout. PolitiFact expressed some doubts about Obama statements regarding Iraq and Osama bin Laden. And Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler was on it as well.

All three of them, perhaps to Palin’s dismay, also cited various untruths peddled by Romney in the debate. If she wants it done right, Palin, it appears, is going to have to join the fact-checking industry.

The Fact-Checking series so far:

First: Can you remind me again what this fact-check debate is about?

Second: Is Fox really fact-checking the first lady’s claim that her husband is open-minded?

Third: CNN says fact-checking squares with its exclusive spot in cable-news sphere.

Fourth: Clinton bedevils fact-checkers.

Fifth: Fox’s Cavuto slights fact-checking of Clinton speech, perhaps including Fox’s fact-checking of Clinton speech.

Sixth: Fact-checking IS the substance that news consumers have been asking for.

Seventh: Biden and Obama keep checkers busy.

Eighth: A task for fact-checkers: Did the administration apologize for American values?

Ninth: Fact-checkers take dim view of Romney “apology” claims.

Tenth: GOP lawmaker says he doesn’t care what a fact-checker says.

Eleventh: Soledad O’Brien says she’s “required” to fact-check

Twelfth: Romney’s not-so-secret comments take a beating from checkers

Thirteenth: Catch the error in this Washington Times invite.

Fourteenth: AP editor cites Bachmann fact-checking ‘quota.’

Fifteenth: Are Democrats more offended by adverse fact checks than Republicans?

Sixteenth: Fact-checking: A consumer-driven movement.

Seventeenth: Fact checkers not helping advance Obama argument.

Eighteenth: Huffington Post combines aggregation and fact-checking, unimpressively

By  |  08:32 AM ET, 10/23/2012

Tags:  presidential debate obama romney fact check, fact check debate, palin fact-check, fox news palin debate, presidential debate palin fox news

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company