PolitiFact is arguably the most biased and the least trustworthy of the fact-checking operations—it or Snopes. Its dossier on EA is thick and nauseating: PolitiFact’s releases are progressive and Democratic Party propaganda masquerading as illumination and non-partisan reality. I’d love to know who made the decision to “fact-check” an obviously tongue-in-cheek video claiming that Hillary Clinton is really a lizard.
Did they really think this needed to be debunked? If so, the organization is run by morons. Was the fact-check also a joke? Professional organizations that want the public to trust them can’t afford to make such jokes. Alleged professional organizations with records of deceit, bias and dishonesty like PolitiFact especially can’t afford to make such jokes, because so many of their serious “fact-checks” are only slightly less absurd.
The “Hillary isn’t a lizard” piece is written with no hints of irony or humor, which is, of course, the right way to present such a thing if it is a joke. I really don’t know what to make of the article. I thought Snopes repeatedly fact-checking Babylon Bee gags was bad, but this—well, come to think of it, there is one possible justification. Anyone who trusts PolitiFact despite its long and ugly record of incompetence and bias is conceivably dumb enough to believe that Hillary Clinton is a lizard. In that case, PolitiFact is simply serving the needs of its market.
Another possibility, I suppose, is that Hillary really is a lizard, and PolitiFact is working with the Left, as usual, to make sure the truth doesn’t get out.
Ethics Alarms 
Well, if Hilary really is a reptile, wouldn’t that give Bill some cover for his philandering?
Can you prove me wrong?
This seems like a bit of s problem for Georgia:
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1744507794836091373?s=20
jvb
Ya think???
The article seems to be 1 part straight facts checking, 2 parts, “Look at these stupid (conservative)s!”
The video purports to show facts (hole in Hillary’s mouth, non-human mucus) and then draws an obviously obsurd conclusion. The conclusion itself requires no rebuttal, but one could and should still critically examine the purported underlying facts.
Politicifact did in fact check those facts as fact checkers purport to check (How many facts can a fact checker checker check if a fact checker could check facts?). All the videos were doctored compared to the archived originals. That is a modest convenience to a critical audience who shouldn’t have to devote too much effort to reptile theories.
I suspect though it is pandering. It is written pretty straight, but with a mild sense of faux exasperation and a wink. Phrases such as, “If Your Time is short: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a human, not a reptile,” and “some social media users are making cold-blooded claims,” show the mocking motivation.
There is another reason. Part of the Progressive arsenal that I’ve seen used here and there is the assertion, “Democrats employ satire to point out truths; Republicans use satire to disseminate misinformation.”
So, within the Progressive narrative, a comedic bit about Hillary being a lizard isn’t a joke at all, but an attempt to mislead that is deserving of fact-checking.
Yes, it’s idiotic and irresponsible, but these are the times in which we leave.
“Democrats employ satire to point out truths; Republicans use satire to disseminate misinformation.”
A corollary to the democrat moto “Our violence is speech; your speech is violence.”
I think my prior comments were eaten.
Rescued!
Thanks!
I appreciate your last paragraph. Before I read it, I thought to myself “If politifact is saying it isn’t true there’s probably some truth to it.”