This week, readers reacted to our rundown on the whoppers, so far, of the 2012 campaign.
In the FactCheck Mailbag, we feature some of the email we receive. Readers can send comments to editor@factcheck.org. Letters may be edited for length.
Early Whoppers Review
I have been a supporter of FactCheck for a long time. I’ve posted your comments to my blog, commented on them in social networks and defended you when you correctly attacked my own sacred cows. I remain a staunch supporter of your fact-checking operations.
But you have to get out of the business of trying to describe and attack campaign strategy, for three reasons. [“Whoppers of 2012, Early Edition,” July 20.]
- First, it makes you sound less objective.
- Second, you can only offer opinions on the subject, not facts.
- Finally, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Stick to what you know — fact-checking politicians. You’re excellent at it. Nobody else does it nearly as well, and there’s so much of it to do that spending your time on other subjects just damages you in too many ways.
Dan Shafer
Monterey, Calif.
It’s a pity that none of the media have the spine or gumption to say what you have here. Perhaps if the “noise” were turned up enough, the candidates might be forced to discuss and run on substantive issues.
Nate Breen
Cheyenne, Wyo.
Good Lord!! I almost passed out. I write to say thank you. The summary is the most balanced piece to date on a truly ugly, despicable, dishonest and disingenuous campaign. But, if I can complain and point out wrongs, I certainly have a responsibility to let you guys know when you’ve done a good job. I will be sharing it with many of my family and friends.
Sue Harris
Highlands Ranch, Colo.