"Nonpartisan" FactCheck.org hasn't factchecked McCain since January

[maximusveritas]

After reading through this thread discussing how we can pool our resources here at DU to help research McCain, I decided to have a look around FactCheck.org to see what they had written lately about McCain's numerous recent gaffes and lies.

What I found was absolutely nothing. FactCheck.org hasn't written a story about McCain since January when he was battling Romney. In the meantime, they'd written about 20 stories on Obama and Clinton.

So that's 20 pieces factchecking the Democrats. And 0 pieces factchecking the Republican. And that's supposed to be nonpartisan?

It's really emblematic of a problem in the entire mainstream media, where they've been giving John McCain a free ride for years (though especially since he clinched the Republican nomination). If it doesn't stop, we're going to lose, no matter who our nominee is.

FactCheck.org is important because many journalists use it as a resource when writing similar pieces. I sent them an email ([e-mail]) to encourage them to give more scrutiny to John McCain.

With his appearance on and numerous lies about Obama and evasions on his tax policy, this is the perfect time to do it. For example, McCain's adviser has previously stated that "What Senator McCain has said repeatedly is that these candidates cannot be held accountable for all the views of people who endorse them or people who befriend them". And yet, there he was, attacking Obama for his association with Ayers and then repeatedly mischaracterizing what Obama said in the debates.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Since the last time republicans were in the news - lol....

... But yah, this is a small downside to the Democrats dominating the media. If it hasn't changed after we have a nominee, and aren't the only show in town, then there's a problem.

And I fully expect there to be a problem, given the crush the media has on McCain.

[maximusveritas]

5. Yeah, I would understand it if they had more items about the Democrats

than McCain for that reason. But to have absolutely none, even though there are plenty of examples of getting his facts wrong, is unacceptable.

[billyoc]

2. He only repeats the same few lies, what the hell is left to fact check?

:rofl:

[DJ13]

3. Sites like factcheck worry me, as we wont really know how nonpartisan they really are

....until we discover they're manipulating what they report to suit one person or party over another at a time when information is most needed, like in a crucial election.

I know that if I wanted to cover all my bases as a political group (like the RNC) I would set up an "unbiased" "fact" organization well ahead of a critical election to give it an appearance of legitimacy, then when the election starts I would bias the info (or just not cover some points) to make my candidate look better.

[Bread and Circus]

4. I am extremely skeptical of factcheck.org and you point out one of the reasons why...