Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

So I see that TPM, too, has called Glenn Kessler on his shoddy "fact checking" as well -- albeit with less invective and far fewer obscenities. 

Kessler and I had a little exchange via email in which he chided me for my incivility, while steadfastly failing to address the issue that I raised, seeking instead to validate his work because he 1) criticizes Republicans too; and 2) other "fact checkers" have reached similar conclusions to him.  It's almost a parody of Village responses -- hurt feelings and validation via "plague on both your houses" bipartisanship:

Kessler to me:

You know, the world would be a better place if people didn't feel free to send such invective to people they have never met. I don't wish you ill and always am interested to hear the opinions of others.  I am skeptical of all claims made by Republicans and Democrats, so if you are looking for a partisan viewpoint you will have to go someplace else.  I simply don't take BS from either side.

I have been equally tough on Republicans regarding Medicare and the Ryan plan. I did not view this as a debate over semantics but whether the DSCC was misleading people, which it was.

Some examples of my critiques of Republicans on this issue: (omitted by me - I don't care.)

SC to Kessler:

I wished you ill because I am incredibly angry about what I see as your own untruthfulness here and the fact that you 1) obviously have not had the painful experience that would be necessary for you to derive suitable wisdom about the health care system and private insurance versus a single payer system; and 2) because you, and people in your position, are responsible for allowing the kind of harmful misinformation about the Ryan Plan -- claiming that it is not ending Medicare as we know it -- to be given the veneer of respectability.  What you say, sadly, will influence many people's notions of what is true here even though you don't seem to have the least bit of an idea what you are talking about. 
 
I am not interested in a partisan viewpoint -- I am interested in an accurate characterization of what Ryan proposes and why it is, in fact, the elimination of Medicare in any meaningful sense.
 
I am not interested in what you have said about the Republicans distortions of what the Affordable Care Act does to Medicare.  You are operating from the typical false equivalency position that is characteristic of many Post writers -- the notion that the truth always lies in between and that by splitting the middle and declaring a plague on both houses, you somehow arrive at a greater truth.  But that just isn't the case -- what it allows is for debate to be continually dragged rightward as there is really no limit to what the Republican Party will proffer as the truth.
 
So again, how can you claim that Ryan's Plan does not eliminate Medicare?  You can keep the name, but so fundamentally alter the program as to render it unrecognizable.  A single payer, universal program providing health care coverage is simply not the same thing -- by a long shot -- of a needs based voucher program that requires individuals to purchase private insurance from for-profit companies.  It just isn't.  And this is what Ryan proposes.  
 
I believe that what you are doing here is reflecting the Washington Post's multiple institutional biases on this issue.  Those are: 1) that Medicare is unsustainable and needs to be fundamentally changed; 2) that the voting public will generally not like such changes because they are hopelessly unrealistic about what can be afforded; 3) that the Ryan Plan is a courageous and admirable approach to resolving the problems that the Post sees; and 4) therefore, completely accurate, but populist oriented critiques of the Ryan Plan must be attacked as demagoguery because if they prove politically successful, attempts at reform will be off the table.  
 
You are certainly free to make that case.  I don't agree, but at least it would be accurate. 
 
But instead you chose to give credibility to the defenders of the Ryan Plan by mischaracterizing the Democratic attacks on the Plan as lies.  Your "four Pinocchios" rating will most assuredly be used for partisan purposes -- surely, something you understand.  And your rating doesn't withstand any kind of reasonable scrutiny.
 
Again, all rancor aside, explain to me how it is that the Ryan Plan is not really the end of Medicare for those of us under age 55.  Because I don't think you can do it.

Kessler to SC:

I tried to be civil and engage in a conversation but you clearly have made presumptions about what kind of life experiences I have had, of which you have no knowledge, and also have a mistaken impression about how The Washington Post institutionally operates. I am sure it makes no difference to you, but the conclusion I reached is similar to the conclusions reached by the fact checkers at PolitiFact and factcheck.org. I frankly only care about the facts and have no interest in how partisans might or might not use the material in my column. I have had a hope that my column might elevate the conversation in Washington but sadly your unwarranted and extreme invective suggests that is not the case.

SC to Kessler:

People politer than I am have reached the same conclusion without invective.
 
Perhaps you will see fit to respond to them.(Citing above TPM article).

Kessler to SC:

if you actually read that article, you will see they had the decency to contact me, politely, and my response is in there.

SC to Kessler:

I read the article and didn't think your response was adequate -- the issue is not whether the Ryan Plan would end all health care support for seniors -- it will, in the future, supply inadequate and ever diminishing support for some senior citizens to purchase insurance on the open market.

This is not the same thing as Medicare and, indeed, represents the effective end of Medicare. 

And that is not even getting into what happens to support for Medicare by those of us who, like me, have paid huge sums of money into the program and are being told we will never receive its benefits.  How long do you think an entitlement program can retain necessary political support when it has been effectively limited to those lucky enough to have reached a certain age?  

But putting that aside, you are really not answering the question of how it is "a lie" -- a pretty strong statement -- to characterize the Ryan Plan as ending Medicare. 

And no more was heard from him.

 

Now truth be told, I probably should have been more civil in my approach, but am in the midst of a couple of different family medical emergencies that have lessened my patience with respect to this kind of claptrap.  But Mr. Kessler's all important feelings aside, he is absolutely and completely wrong and demonstrates that fact with his defensive and evasive responses. 

 

I feel like this all gets back to where I started with blogging -- this overwhelming sense that we so need a better media than we have and the people in these positions are virtually incapable of thinking critically or courageously about these problems.  Instead, they feel a desperate need to engage in the equivalence game and to be able to argue from authority when called on it.  They are worse than useless.