- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Politifact recently decided to evaluate and rule on the following story/claim:
It is the one and only story that Politifact has fact checked that evaluates the validity of the "zero complaints" claim and just so there are no misunderstandings, let me make some things clear:
1. Evaluating that claim is legitimate and completely valid.
2. This issue is a political one and their ruling has political implications for those on both sides of the Redskins issue.
3. This review also has the potential to negatively effect the credibility of certain conservative media organizations.
Politifact ruled that the claim was "False", but I have concluded that their evaluation displays a clear liberal bias on their part, and does so in several different ways.
Perception
Here is the headline from Politifact's front page:
As you see they rate the "received zero complaints" claim as false, and use their subheading to further substantiate that rating by saying "Except for the complaint that started this case". (take note of the subheading, as it will come into play in the future)
People arriving at the Politifact website who haven't yet read the actual article, or who choose not to read it, are sent a very clear, cut-and-dry message through that headline. It tells them that both the story and the claim are false and the patent office did in fact receive public complaints about the Redskins name, prior to making their ruling.
Political implications
That headline and subsequent ruling bode well for those on the political left who believe the name is offensive and should be changed, and harms the reputation and credibility of the Washington Times, since they are the ones who broke the story. It also harms the reputation and credibility of the media outlets and conservative pundits who chose to run with the story.
Methodology - Sources used to evaluate the claim
The original story which made headlines on July 1st was titled "Patent office did’t receive a single public complaint before stripping Redskins trademark" and was published by the conservative leaning newspaper The Washington Times. You would think that if Politifact wanted to fact check the story and the "zero complaints" claim, they would use the original article that was written by the Washington Times to do so... but that isn't what they did.
Politifact decided they would fact check the claim by evaluating the opinions written about the story on the internet by various conservative bloggers, rather than using the actual article written by the newspaper that originally broke the story in the first place. The reason they chose to evaluate the claim in this way, will become clear shortly.
Politifact's ruling and the flaws behind it:
So Politifact rules the claim that the patent office "received zero complaints" as "False" based on 2 reasons. That the 5 Native American's who filed the legal challenge qualify as a "complaint" and because they claim an opinion posted on the Conservative Tribune blog misled readers by suggesting that public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process.
The first reason is flawed because it's public knowledge that 5 Native Americans filed a formal complaint challenging the renewal of the trademark, which led to the USPTO review in the first place. Plus the blog even linked to the original story they were commenting on, which made that perfectly clear... So it's obvious that both the blog and the Washington Times were saying "zero complaints other than the formal complaint that started all of this", because they assumed their readers were fully knowledgeable of the controversy, including the USTPO ruling and the factors that led to it... This is a case of Politifact choosing to omit logic and common sense.
The second reason isn't flawed, it's just flat out incorrect, as well as being totally irrelevant to the validity of the quote. Nowhere in the post made by the Conservative Tribune blog, in the post they quoted from the Weasel Zippers blog, or in the original story from the Washington Times, was it ever implied in any way that "public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process". That is a completely false claim by Politifact... but even if bought into their assertion, it would still have nothing to do with whether the "zero complaints" claim was true or not. Their headline and subheading on their front page simply says that the claim that the patent office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name, is false, and any implications based on that claim are totally irrelevant.
(continued)
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name.
It is the one and only story that Politifact has fact checked that evaluates the validity of the "zero complaints" claim and just so there are no misunderstandings, let me make some things clear:
1. Evaluating that claim is legitimate and completely valid.
2. This issue is a political one and their ruling has political implications for those on both sides of the Redskins issue.
3. This review also has the potential to negatively effect the credibility of certain conservative media organizations.
Politifact ruled that the claim was "False", but I have concluded that their evaluation displays a clear liberal bias on their part, and does so in several different ways.
Perception
Here is the headline from Politifact's front page:
As you see they rate the "received zero complaints" claim as false, and use their subheading to further substantiate that rating by saying "Except for the complaint that started this case". (take note of the subheading, as it will come into play in the future)
People arriving at the Politifact website who haven't yet read the actual article, or who choose not to read it, are sent a very clear, cut-and-dry message through that headline. It tells them that both the story and the claim are false and the patent office did in fact receive public complaints about the Redskins name, prior to making their ruling.
Political implications
That headline and subsequent ruling bode well for those on the political left who believe the name is offensive and should be changed, and harms the reputation and credibility of the Washington Times, since they are the ones who broke the story. It also harms the reputation and credibility of the media outlets and conservative pundits who chose to run with the story.
Methodology - Sources used to evaluate the claim
The original story which made headlines on July 1st was titled "Patent office did’t receive a single public complaint before stripping Redskins trademark" and was published by the conservative leaning newspaper The Washington Times. You would think that if Politifact wanted to fact check the story and the "zero complaints" claim, they would use the original article that was written by the Washington Times to do so... but that isn't what they did.
Politifact decided they would fact check the claim by evaluating the opinions written about the story on the internet by various conservative bloggers, rather than using the actual article written by the newspaper that originally broke the story in the first place. The reason they chose to evaluate the claim in this way, will become clear shortly.
Politifact's ruling and the flaws behind it:
Conservative blog posts smell a scandal in the cancellation of the Washington Redskins trademark, pointing out that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "received zero complaints" about it before an administrative law court ruled in June.
The case was opened because someone complained -- so that assertion is wrong on its face.
But even that aside, the post is misleading in suggesting that public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process when they are not.
When people have a problem with patents and trademarks and want them removed, they file formal complaints, prove their standing in the case, pay a fee, and provide evidence to support their case.
In other words, they do exactly what the five plaintiffs in this case did here.
We rate the claim False.
The case was opened because someone complained -- so that assertion is wrong on its face.
But even that aside, the post is misleading in suggesting that public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process when they are not.
When people have a problem with patents and trademarks and want them removed, they file formal complaints, prove their standing in the case, pay a fee, and provide evidence to support their case.
In other words, they do exactly what the five plaintiffs in this case did here.
We rate the claim False.
So Politifact rules the claim that the patent office "received zero complaints" as "False" based on 2 reasons. That the 5 Native American's who filed the legal challenge qualify as a "complaint" and because they claim an opinion posted on the Conservative Tribune blog misled readers by suggesting that public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process.
The first reason is flawed because it's public knowledge that 5 Native Americans filed a formal complaint challenging the renewal of the trademark, which led to the USPTO review in the first place. Plus the blog even linked to the original story they were commenting on, which made that perfectly clear... So it's obvious that both the blog and the Washington Times were saying "zero complaints other than the formal complaint that started all of this", because they assumed their readers were fully knowledgeable of the controversy, including the USTPO ruling and the factors that led to it... This is a case of Politifact choosing to omit logic and common sense.
The second reason isn't flawed, it's just flat out incorrect, as well as being totally irrelevant to the validity of the quote. Nowhere in the post made by the Conservative Tribune blog, in the post they quoted from the Weasel Zippers blog, or in the original story from the Washington Times, was it ever implied in any way that "public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process". That is a completely false claim by Politifact... but even if bought into their assertion, it would still have nothing to do with whether the "zero complaints" claim was true or not. Their headline and subheading on their front page simply says that the claim that the patent office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name, is false, and any implications based on that claim are totally irrelevant.
(continued)
Last edited: