The sharp eye and investigative fervor the news media takes towards Trump today is a great thing. Too bad it was absent during Obama. To show this, I often use an example from my beat in the early years, lobbying.
Barack Obama said in his first State of the Union address, "we have excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." This was false. Obama had hired at least 40 lobbyists for policymaking jobs by the time he said this, including a Goldman Sachs lobbyist as chief of staff at Treasury, and a Swiss banker lobbyist at the IRS. Yet when the New York Times wrote up his speech, they referred to that discussion of lobbyists without mentioning the brazen lie. When the Washington Post more recently "counted" Obama's lies, they didn't count that lie, because Obama had excluded some lobbyists.
That's like me saying "I have excluded cookies from my diet," and then justifying my devouring of Chips Ahoy, Mint Milanos, and Samoas by saying "I have excluded Candy Corn Oreos and Famous Amos from my diet."
Obama simply was not held to the same standard as other political figures. Sometimes the very same claim could get a "True" rating from fact checkers when Obama said it, and a "False" claim when someone else said it. I'm not exaggerating here.
Consider the light-bulb law. Obama on the campaign trail promised to outlaw traditional incandescents. During the 2008 campaign, though, George W. Bush signed a law that effectively banned traditional incandescents by setting efficiency standards the old-fashioned bulbs couldn't meet.
So how did PolitiFact write this up?
To a claim by a conservative group that "Democrats voted to ban our conventional lights bulbs," Politifact wrote:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-obama-says-it
Reply With Quote
