Fact Checkers: A Pet Peeve
You've heard of a number of them even cited in debates, like the Washpo FactChecker's notorious Pinocchio's, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, snopes, etc. I've read them, even cited an occasional one or two over the life of blog. But if you think these sources are some proverbial Solomon or some incorruptible baseball umpire, think again. There are a number of moments I've read an analysis and that some of the points raised were subjective, dubious and misleading. FactCheck.org quickly impressed me as a source with a progressive slant (which I'm sure they would deny).
I will give a minor example with snopes, probably one of the better sources, on the ongoing NFL anthem kerfuffle. There were multiple debating points (including the practice of the national anthem before football games and player behavior), including where football players stood on the sidelines before a 2009 rule requiring them present. (This basically involved differing treatment of prime time games, not most or all games, and commercial accommodations.) The story goes that the 2009 rule was implemented with respect to the DoD, which heavily advertises on programming reaching young, available men, prospective recruits. One twitter troll ridiculed my memories over the years of seeing NFL players standing for the national anthem. I have memories of televised football going back to the 1960's; I'm incredulous someone could say such a thing. As Time noted, pro football put the national anthem into its opening ceremonies by the end of WWII There are hundreds of retired football players and coaches who can verify they stood on the sidelines during the national anthem over the past 50 years--and not just for special occasions like the Super Bowl. KUSA (Colorado) went to sports archives before 2009 and verified the fact. Rams coach Jeff Fisher, with 35 years of experience as an NFL player and coach, insists it was regularly observed on his teams.
Then there was a kerfuffle about whether player behavior during the anthem was in the rulebook, as one critical meme claimed on the Internet. No, not really, because the rulebook describes the action on the field; it has a separate game operations manual, and I've now seen it confirmed by multiple sources that does require players on the sidelines and to act professionally during the anthem; the failure to do so could result in fines, suspension and/or loss of draft choices. Now you can quibble about the use of the term "should" vs. "must" stand, but stop playing games: what's the purpose of prescribed penalty if the violation is "subjective"? My point here is that there is a policy; whether or not they enforce that policy is a different matter. Whether it's in the rule book or the operations manual is a legal technicality of little significance from the salient issue.
I think Snopes has multiple posts on this kerfuffle, this one dealing with the progressive allegation that the 2009 rule (to be on the sidelines, standing, in a quid pro quo for DoD recruitment ad business). Snopes basically debunks the paid participation link and points out the advertising exception prior to 2009 applied to prime-time coverage, also pointing out that broadcasts often didn't cover the game-opening segments, including the anthem. It also makes a nuanced observation that the league recommended but did not mandate standing during the anthem. Now give me a break! It mandates attendance, it's got sanctions on the books, it's got a major sponsor it knows would not be happy with disrespectful, unprofessional behavior by athlete, televised nationally. In this whole piece, Snopes doesn't even discuss the game operations manual; it doesn't cite evidence of teams on sidelines, before or after 2009. I think it does fine on the very nuanced piece it discusses, but again, give me a break. The average fourth-grader knows better how to stand, hand over heart, during the national anthem than your average football player.
Let's switch gears slightly. It wasn't my intent to focus on the football kerfuffle again; even though I'm a libertarian, I was born a military brat, I've had 3 uncles who also served, and I've had at least 3 relatives of my generation who retired from an honorable career in the military. I don't have an issue with people expressing their opinions, including of the US. But just as I don't vent my opinions on my employer's clock, I expect athletes to act professionally.
There was a kerfuffle over whether Clinton had flipped-flopped on Keystone Pipeline. Politifact looks at Clinton's 2010 "inclination" to support Keystone to her politically expedient opposition, determined not to cede the environmental vote to Sanders or O'Malley, as not a flip. Now it is true she always wanted to leave some wiggle room on the issue, but let's be clear: this was never about on whether the safety of the pipeline itself was comparable to or better than other pipelines crisscrossing the US. To some extent, Clinton didn't want to openly break with Obama's decision on the issue, and as cited above, she didn't want to be outflanked on environmentalism by other candidates. But these were totally known factors; environmentalist opposition was known from the get-go. Why did Clinton initially signal support? The Keystone Pipeline has enjoyed popular support. This is not unlike Clinton's swerve on TPP, which went from perhaps her most significant accomplishment as Secretary of State to a preemptive rejection against Sanders' economic nationalism. Now Clinton tried to leave some wiggle room, arguing everything went to hell in the details after she left office, which is a patently disingenuous, politically convenient excuse.
Something happened in the HIAC PPV last night that I think I've speculated about in a prior post: Sami Zahn came to the aid of his real life best friend Kevin Owens, pulling Owens out of the way of a crazy Shane McMahon fall from the top of a cage with the intent of driving Owens through a table. (Reports are McMahon's jump led to legit broken ribs, dislocated shoulder and neck trauma.) If you aren't aware, Sami Zahn had won the lower promotion NXT championship,and his long-time friend from childhood and fellow wrestler Owens followed him to the promotion--and swerves attacked him after his belt win. Owens then went on take Sami's title and wins the rematch. Zahn later on went on to get an injury during a bout on the main roster, and Kevin and he have had innumerable battles on both main rosters since then, in fact one in recent weeks. Owens asked Zahn for a favor based on old times and Zahn turned him down. So they were clearly setting us up with a swerve.
I love the idea of turning Zahn heel. What where do they go from here? I thought the original idea was to set up a contest between HHH and Owens. Or are they making Owens and Zahn a tag team? Another mystery: they had Nakamura job cleanly to Jinder Mahal. (I don't know what they do with Nakamura now.) Do they go heel on heel with Owens for the championship?
I will give a minor example with snopes, probably one of the better sources, on the ongoing NFL anthem kerfuffle. There were multiple debating points (including the practice of the national anthem before football games and player behavior), including where football players stood on the sidelines before a 2009 rule requiring them present. (This basically involved differing treatment of prime time games, not most or all games, and commercial accommodations.) The story goes that the 2009 rule was implemented with respect to the DoD, which heavily advertises on programming reaching young, available men, prospective recruits. One twitter troll ridiculed my memories over the years of seeing NFL players standing for the national anthem. I have memories of televised football going back to the 1960's; I'm incredulous someone could say such a thing. As Time noted, pro football put the national anthem into its opening ceremonies by the end of WWII There are hundreds of retired football players and coaches who can verify they stood on the sidelines during the national anthem over the past 50 years--and not just for special occasions like the Super Bowl. KUSA (Colorado) went to sports archives before 2009 and verified the fact. Rams coach Jeff Fisher, with 35 years of experience as an NFL player and coach, insists it was regularly observed on his teams.
Then there was a kerfuffle about whether player behavior during the anthem was in the rulebook, as one critical meme claimed on the Internet. No, not really, because the rulebook describes the action on the field; it has a separate game operations manual, and I've now seen it confirmed by multiple sources that does require players on the sidelines and to act professionally during the anthem; the failure to do so could result in fines, suspension and/or loss of draft choices. Now you can quibble about the use of the term "should" vs. "must" stand, but stop playing games: what's the purpose of prescribed penalty if the violation is "subjective"? My point here is that there is a policy; whether or not they enforce that policy is a different matter. Whether it's in the rule book or the operations manual is a legal technicality of little significance from the salient issue.
I think Snopes has multiple posts on this kerfuffle, this one dealing with the progressive allegation that the 2009 rule (to be on the sidelines, standing, in a quid pro quo for DoD recruitment ad business). Snopes basically debunks the paid participation link and points out the advertising exception prior to 2009 applied to prime-time coverage, also pointing out that broadcasts often didn't cover the game-opening segments, including the anthem. It also makes a nuanced observation that the league recommended but did not mandate standing during the anthem. Now give me a break! It mandates attendance, it's got sanctions on the books, it's got a major sponsor it knows would not be happy with disrespectful, unprofessional behavior by athlete, televised nationally. In this whole piece, Snopes doesn't even discuss the game operations manual; it doesn't cite evidence of teams on sidelines, before or after 2009. I think it does fine on the very nuanced piece it discusses, but again, give me a break. The average fourth-grader knows better how to stand, hand over heart, during the national anthem than your average football player.
Let's switch gears slightly. It wasn't my intent to focus on the football kerfuffle again; even though I'm a libertarian, I was born a military brat, I've had 3 uncles who also served, and I've had at least 3 relatives of my generation who retired from an honorable career in the military. I don't have an issue with people expressing their opinions, including of the US. But just as I don't vent my opinions on my employer's clock, I expect athletes to act professionally.
There was a kerfuffle over whether Clinton had flipped-flopped on Keystone Pipeline. Politifact looks at Clinton's 2010 "inclination" to support Keystone to her politically expedient opposition, determined not to cede the environmental vote to Sanders or O'Malley, as not a flip. Now it is true she always wanted to leave some wiggle room on the issue, but let's be clear: this was never about on whether the safety of the pipeline itself was comparable to or better than other pipelines crisscrossing the US. To some extent, Clinton didn't want to openly break with Obama's decision on the issue, and as cited above, she didn't want to be outflanked on environmentalism by other candidates. But these were totally known factors; environmentalist opposition was known from the get-go. Why did Clinton initially signal support? The Keystone Pipeline has enjoyed popular support. This is not unlike Clinton's swerve on TPP, which went from perhaps her most significant accomplishment as Secretary of State to a preemptive rejection against Sanders' economic nationalism. Now Clinton tried to leave some wiggle room, arguing everything went to hell in the details after she left office, which is a patently disingenuous, politically convenient excuse.
A Brief Wrestling Note
Something happened in the HIAC PPV last night that I think I've speculated about in a prior post: Sami Zahn came to the aid of his real life best friend Kevin Owens, pulling Owens out of the way of a crazy Shane McMahon fall from the top of a cage with the intent of driving Owens through a table. (Reports are McMahon's jump led to legit broken ribs, dislocated shoulder and neck trauma.) If you aren't aware, Sami Zahn had won the lower promotion NXT championship,and his long-time friend from childhood and fellow wrestler Owens followed him to the promotion--and swerves attacked him after his belt win. Owens then went on take Sami's title and wins the rematch. Zahn later on went on to get an injury during a bout on the main roster, and Kevin and he have had innumerable battles on both main rosters since then, in fact one in recent weeks. Owens asked Zahn for a favor based on old times and Zahn turned him down. So they were clearly setting us up with a swerve.I love the idea of turning Zahn heel. What where do they go from here? I thought the original idea was to set up a contest between HHH and Owens. Or are they making Owens and Zahn a tag team? Another mystery: they had Nakamura job cleanly to Jinder Mahal. (I don't know what they do with Nakamura now.) Do they go heel on heel with Owens for the championship?
