asharockman

No Party Affiliation!

Well I'm a Hoosier and Angie went to Texas.

Honestly, I have no idea people's party affiliations. I'm a registered NPA, though I've been registered as a Democrat and a Republican in the past.

The meat of your question is how to do we ensure balance. On that, I can offer a better answer. The writer who writes a fact-check proposes a rating (True, False, Pants on Fire, etc.), but it's actually a panel of three judges (editors) who decide the rating that gets published. So in reality, four people have a vote in every fact-check. I think that makes us sort of unique in the fact-checking game.

The point of having three editors involved is so that different people can offer their viewpoints, analysis to best inform the fact-check. And to make sure balance does exist.

Some of those judging sessions (we call them star chambers) can pretty intense.

Don't think the candidates would agree to participate ¯_(ツ)_/¯

My sense is the biggest divide/change is between the politician and the non-politician candidates. Politicians (Rubio, Bush, Clinton) have been trained in political speak in the way that non-politicians (Trump, Carson, Fiorina) have not. That makes for some at times refreshing answers but I think also makes the non-politicians prone to a factual misstep.

Disagree. We've fact-checked President Barack Obama more than any other person. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Of the 2016 candidates, who have we fact-checked the most? Hillary Clinton http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/