the RNC knowing that McCain spoke out against the Bush tax cuts before he worshipped them is gonna run with this? what contempt for the intelligence and memory of the american people. what is the new slogan -- vote for john or hillary, they suffer as much from memory loss as the collective? (but they'll both be up at 3am cuz,you know, that not needing so much sleep thing).

Sent by tim in exile | 6:33 PM ET | 04-24-2008

I do thank you for all your work. It may sound a little odd, but perhaps it would be good to run the truth-o-meter through the truth-o-meter... :-)

I think there's something wrong with a category of 'almost true'. In the examples given that rating what it really means is 'not quite true'. You give that rating when you have found good reason to see the narrow basis of fact on which the statement is based to be rather misleading. If the technical accuracy of a statement rests on a misleading fact, it really is not truthful at all, but misleading. To be polite one would say 'not quite true'.

If the truth-o-meter itself to be 'not quite truthful', what would be the reason for that? Could it be the designers quickly found that to protect their social positions they needed to go way overboard in being polite for expedience? In every other way you do seem to think quite clearly about what is accurate, and only err in being over tolerant about accurate statements that are actually misleading.

I'd like to see your response.

Best,

Sent by Phil Henshaw | 10:36 AM ET | 04-27-2008

Perhaps we could hear a description of the scale used by the "Truth-o-meter"? A calibration, if you will?

As a listener, it's hard for me to assess the rating unless I know how far it is from the bottom or the top. Is there a False at one end and a True at the other, and a Neutral in the middle?

Does "Barely True" mean it is mostly false and misleading, with a small bit of fact, or does it mean it is more than 50% factual? If something is 50% fact and 50% inflammatory deception, where does that rank? Your story gave us no clue about how to interpret the information from Politifact.

Therefore, the story served mainly to repeat the charges made in the GOP ads, without actually giving me more usable information about them.

From the story, it sounds like "Barely True" might more accurately be called "Almost Entirely False."

This makes me question whether there is any reason to accept Politifact as an unbiased reporter, or whether they are subtly injecting a political bias to the ratings. Isn't "Barely True" misleading in-and-of itself?

There is a saying that "half-truths are more dangerous than falsehood." NPR should think carefully before essentially repeating half-truths, and ensure that you are providing your listeners all the information they need to evaluate the claims of the politicians AND those rating their claims.

Sent by Paul Davis | 12:47 PM ET | 04-27-2008

I got an email claiming the following:

>The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving
in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 ......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 ......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
1997 ............ . 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 .........1, 983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ........... . 890(George W Year)
2002 ......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............ . 919 (George W Year)
2006........ ...... 920 (George W Year)
2007....... ...899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency when America wasn't even involved in a war!

I don't trust this at all. Can you check it out? The email cites sources of info; I'll be glad to forward the entire thing to you if it will help.

Sent by Robert Nielsen | 1:09 PM ET | 04-27-2008

Thanks,

We will send these along to Bill Adair and see what he thinks.

-Senior Producer WESUN

Sent by Davar Iran Ardalan | 1:13 PM ET | 04-27-2008