Usually we turn to fact-checkers to help us decide whether we can trust politicians. But sometimes the fact-checker comes under fire.
This example, cited by MSNBC here, comes from PolitiFact. The Democrats played a 2016 video clip of Trump saying “there has to be some form of punishment for women who have abortions.” Fact-checker PolitiFact then posted,
“A DNC video showed a 2016 clip of Trump saying ‘there has to be some form of punishment’ for women who have abortions. He walked back the comment the same day. We found no evidence that he currently supports legal penalties for women who have abortions.”
… and rated the video clip “mostly false.” Wait, what??? MSNBC says a community note complained,
“It is incorrect to say that showing an unedited video of Trump’s own words is ‘false.’ Reporting from 2016 confirms that this is something Trump said. Even if he walked it back following criticism, it is not false to accurately quote something Trump said.”
There are two different positions here. One is, he said it, so it’s not false. The position taken by PolitiFact is the video was taken out of context, and that made it mostly false. Presumably PolitiFact qualified their “false” rating with “mostly” because he did say it, but came down on the side of “false” because the DNC omitted that he walked it back.
Is this valid? Let’s start with this: Politicians and propagandists cherry-pick all the time. That’s not the same thing as altering meaning with selective editing, but it also is misrepresentation by omission, and is dishonest.
Let’s say a newspaper publishes a story that John Doe was arrested for a crime, then publishes a correction saying John Dole, not John Doe, is the person who was arrested. If you see the correction, but still tell people the newspaper said John Doe was arrested, aren’t you spreading a falsehood? Of course you are.
MSNBC argues it’s different with Trump, because when he says something and then walks it back, his original remark may be his true intention, and he may have been lying about his intentions when he walked it back. In effect, they’re criticizing PolitiFact for trusting Trump too much.
Trump is a unique problem, but the problem isn’t unique; the world is full of slippery politicians mouthing weasel words. Fact-checking them usually is fairly straightforward. Fact-checking Trump’s position on abortion is impossible, because what he says today could change tomorrow. Who knows if the DNC misrepresented his intentions, when nobody can pin down what those intentions are? He’s disavowing Project 2025 too, but do you trust that?
My rating: PolitiFact’s narrative statement is accurate, but they should’ve turned off their True-False meter on this occasion, because Trump made two conflicting statements and they don’t know which one to believe.
Maybe the real issue isn’t about fact-checking, but whether Trump’s 2016 comment is fair game. When ordinary people say things they don’t mean, it’s still held against them. The rule is: Don’t say what you don’t mean. That’s especially true in politics, where every word is scrutinized. For example, Republicans dug up a remark Tim Walz made years ago about carrying a “weapon in war,” so why shouldn’t Democrats dig up his previous remarks about abortion?
The even larger issue is this: Aren’t voters entitled to know that he once said women who get abortions should be punished? And then decide for themselves how seriously to take it, and whether they agree with it?