In defense of Dylan Otto Krider

[Bdub]

Dylan Otto Krider defends the work he did in trying to discredit Jon Cassidy's Human Events story on PolitiFact. We assess his level of success. Krider is welcome to join the board and address the issues directly if he wishes.

1) Cassidy's article:
www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/

2) Dylan Otto Krider's response:
www.examiner.com/article/does-politifact-say-republicans-lie-nine-times-more-really

3) My response to Krider via PFB Smackdown:
www.politifactbias.com/2012/09/pfb-smackdown-dylan-otto-krider-vs-jon.html

As things currently stand, Krider has taken to Twitter in his defense:

Dylan Otto Krider ‏@dokrider
@politifactbias Did you really do an entire critique of my post without linking back to it so people can see for themselves?
2:46 PM - 6 Sep 12

Krider has a point with this one. I neglected to include a link to his story. On the other hand, what was his point? Did he somehow feel that if people look for themselves then they would find that my criticism of Krider was wrong? Or was he just trying to eke a little more traffic out of the Internets? In any case, I updated my post with links to Krider's story and quoted his Twitter message on the issue. Krider has not, to my knowledge, followed up with any specific criticism, such as pointing out a criticism of mine of which his story is not guilty.

Back to Twitter, where I replied to Krider's tweet above:

Bryan White ‏@sbloviations
@dokrider @politifactbias Are more post-publication changes in store for Krider's critique?
6:45 PM - 6 Sep 12

Krider again:

Dylan Otto Krider ‏@dokrider
@sbloviations @politifactbias I(t) takes some brass to ask a guy to change something then blast them for doing so. You're welcome, btw.
6:53 PM - 6 Sep 12

Krider's probably right that it would take some brass to ask a guy to change something then blast them for changing it. The problem with his observation is that I've never criticized Krider for changing the text of his story. I've criticized him for doing it without appending a notice of correction. Journalists append notices of correction for the sake of transparency. It's an issue of ethics. My little dig hits Krider on that point by implicitly acknowledging that if he were to sufficiently change his story then readers might indeed have trouble finding evidence of the mistakes with which I charged him. I don't know why he thinks he's being criticized for doing the correction itself, nor do I know why I'm supposed to feel special gratitude toward Krider when he fixes a mistake. It's in Krider's interest to make his work accurate if he thinks of himself as an ethical journalist. I don't remember getting a thank you from Krider when I pointed out his mistake.

Krider again:

Dylan Otto Krider ‏@dokrider
@sbloviations @politifactbias Did you have another change you'd like me to make?
6:54 PM - 6 Sep 12

I just point out the inaccuracies and questionable methods (such as doing corrections without giving readers notice). It's up to Krider to write and/or correct the story.

Krider again:

Dylan Otto Krider ‏@dokrider
@sbloviations @politifactbias Fine bit of sleuthing, finding I made the change, considering I told you so you could object if unsatisfied.
6:57 PM - 6 Sep 12

Krider's praise of my sleuthing makes no sense whether taken straight or as sarcasm. I knew the change was coming because Krider said as much in an email message. What I didn't know was that he would fail to let his readers know that he had made a substantive change to his story. It wasn't just fixing a typo. Krider had made an error that substantially amplified his criticism of Cassidy. When corrected, Krider's criticism deflates almost completely.

I have no recollection of Krider telling me I could object if I was unsatisfied with the change he made to his story (I remember him asking where I saw a problem and what I would change to fix it). Perhaps he should give me permission to make our email exchange public so that readers can see it for themselves.

It is for the sake of the reader that I took the time to document the text of Krider's story from before he started making post-publication changes. It gives the reader sufficient documentation to see that I'm not making up the charge that Krider doctored his text without informing his readers. Finding out that Krider was changing his story wasn't sleuthing. Collecting the evidence that he made the change on the sly (so far as his audience was concerned) perhaps qualifies as sleuthing.

Again, Krider is more than welcome to post here in reply. In any case, we'll use this space to track any future developments rather than using space at the main website.

[Bdub]

Krider takes to the (Facebook) commentary section at Examiner.com to defend his work:

I do not wonder why the PolitiFact study does not agree with Cassidy. They are different numbers.

That they are different numbers simply provides the reason for wondering why they would not (substantially) agree. It doesn't give a why except trivially.

Also, your lengthy fact-check pointing out that Cassidy's numbers just include "Pants on Fire" ratings whereas UM includes both PoF and "False" ratings might leave people with the impression that I equated the methodology of Cassidy and UM, or said Cassidy included "false" ratings. My response to this is the same as when you first raised this bizarre objection - I never said otherwise.

Krider, from his article (bold emphasis added):
"It is those numbers Cassidy relies on for the title and entire thrust of the piece – PolitiFact finds Republicans wrong nine times more often than Democrats!"
"But nowhere in the study could I find where PolitiFact finds Republicans wrong nine times more often."

Krider asks me where my study finds Republicans "wrong" nine times more often. But he wants people to think he carefully treated Cassidy's claim for what it was: a claim about the specific "Pants on Fire" rating. Not the "False" rating, which readers would tend to fit under the "wrong" category. It's just not true. His article won't support his spin.

In fact, I say in the article, referring to Cassidy, he "presents it as Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims versus liberal or Democratic claims" - no mention of "False" as you charge.

If only Krider had stayed consistent on that point. But considering the full context we're wiser to interpret the one accurate paraphrase as an accident.

When referring to the UM study, I say it presents "a 'false' or even 'pants on fire' rating" (quoting from the article) and included "statements that received these dismal ratings" (again, in the article).

For the sake of clarity I'll point out that Krider is talking about a quotation from an article from Chris Mooney. But all that article does is talk about the categories that Ostermeier emphasized in his study. It doesn't have anything to do with Krider's presentation of Cassidy's work. It's not long after quoting Mooney that Krider claims Cassidy says Republicans get rated "wrong" nine times more often than Democrats. Is that supposed to make clear to his readers that Cassidy's talking about a different measure than Ostermeier?

So I see why you did not originally include the link to my article in your critique. Your readers might have seen this for themselves.

That must be it.
www.examiner.com/article/does-politifact-say-republicans-lie-nine-times-more-really

Nor do I ever equate the two numbers as having used the same methodology. If I am missing where I wonder why the two numbers vary so widely in the post above, please show me.

Krider (highlights added):
"PolitiFact finds Republicans wrong nine times more often than Democrats! I’d love to say that, too, but those numbers don’t even pass the smell test. UM’s 76% is startling enough, but Cassidy has to go for the nine times."

UM's numbers are so startling that Cassidy's should come close or else fail the smell test.

Let me also say how impressed I was by the incredible sleuthing you displayed catching me changing my article under the cover of night and trying to slip it past everyone.

Transparency is an excellent standard practice in journalism. Enough said.
www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/slate_shuts_the_window.php

You even cleverly got a screen capture so I could not backtrack once I had been busted by your outstanding investigative skills. Of course, it is at least possible that what tipped you off to this secretive change in the wording is that I emailed you to tell you I had done so. I did this so that you could object if your weren't satisfied. You did not complain or request anything else, I assume, because I probably would have complied, denying you the opportunity to say I refused. Had you asked for something else and I agreed, your post would have been a lot shorter.

Just not seeing the relevance.

Eliminate the lengthy section debunking claims I never made, there would be no post at all.

Hopefully we've cured Krider regarding his selective memory. "Wrong" doesn't work very well as a synonym for "Pants on Fire" when one needs to distinguish between "Pants on Fire" and "False."

Your ability to sniff out this change is particularly impressive considering it was YOU who requested it. It takes some brass to request I make a change, then blast me for having done so. I thought I could get away with it, but you're too wily for me! How did you ever catch me?

I've never criticized Krider for making a correction. I've criticized Krider for making non-transparent corrections. Journalists tend to do corrections on the sly for two main reasons. First, doing public corrections takes valuable time. Second, doing public corrections can make the journalist appear more fallible than the journalist wishes to appear.

On the upside, a consistent policy of doing public corrections serves to make a journalist appear to possess integrity.

As to my attempt to suggest your study matched the UM study in a misguided effort to infer credibility on your part, you set me straight. In retrospect, I got carried away with my attempt to present you as the “honest conservative” in contrast to Cassidy’s usual exaggerations.

Maybe Krider should do another correction.

Like all liberals, I am always on the hunt for the last honest conservative – it’s what leads people like me to vote for John McCain or read David Brooks only to be let down when they show themselves to be yet another dishonest, dissembling hack. In my zeal to present your study as credible, I can see now I engaged in a bit of affirmative action in an effort to bend over backwards and praise you beyond the merits. Though a poor comparison, I justified it to myself at the time as teeing up the softball as an excuse to present your debunking quote, which I thought demonstrated the self-deprecating modesty that originally seduced me into portraying you so favorably. So as my way of apologizing, I have removed the offending paragraph under the cover of night so that you can have your next investigative expose. Dazzle your readers once more with your uncanny ability to sniff out fraud.

I suppose I'm shown dishonest for claiming Krider represents Cassidy as saying the "nine times" figure represents "Pants on Fire" ratings combined with "False" ratings. "Pants on Fire" is "wrong." "False" is not "wrong."

Or something like that.