Sorting out the "truth" may seem a treacherous endeavor in such a politically polarized time. But we believe our journalists can play a greater role as an honest broker for voters bewildered by the barrage of campaign talk.
So in a move rare for a news organization, we're dedicating a team of reporters and researchers to meticulously examine the rhetoric of candidates and their partisans, and then make a call: Is the claim true or not?
You might think such work would be standard journalistic fare. But many news organizations can spend less money and get less grief if their political reporting sticks to stenography and puffery.
It's easier to record the words and claims of competing candidates than to vet their accuracy. It's easier to write about the strategy of using negative advertising than to do the painstaking research to sort out whether the claim is actually true or false.
— Neil Brown, Executive Editor of the St. Petersburg Times, announcing Politifact, a new project to determine whether candidate statements are actually true.
Coupla points
You write, based in part presumably on the disparaging commentary by Jimmy's online foot soldiers, that Foley's signatures were gathered by hired drones with no stake in the election. That's simply not true. Brian's petitions were carried, inter alia, by members of his local party committee, people who actually live in the district and weren't part of a DFNYC field trip. That's probably why they got more signatures, because Foley's people actually know the local community. And despite what you've been told, they went door to door as well. There's a flood of dishonesty on this subject, and I'm not at all surprised by it.
Second, Jimmy's press release is false: the board did not validate his signatures. They accepted 1165 of 1408 of those signatures, throwing out 243 immediately. So that's sixty percent of his cushion gone right there, and he'll need to defend the remainder in court. Which makes what I've been told was a conscious decision that the campaign had better things to do than go around actually talking to primary voters and getting their support an even more stupid decision. The money and time that they saved by not talking to voters, they're now going to have to expend in a courtroom. That's borderline campaign malpractice.