FactCheck.org comes clean on political affiliations


It was some time ago, but a lot of people appear not to have noticed.

Annenbergs and Reagan in the White House

President Reagan talking to Leonore Annenberg and Walter Annenberg at the President’s birthday party in the East Room, February 6, 1981. Photo from the Ronald Reagan Library

FactCheck.org, the group at the University of Pennsylvania that checks the accuracy of political ads and political statements, made a disclosure of its political leanings — in a post way back in 2009.

The truth?  Right here:

President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House “on vacation” at his home in Santa Barbara, Calif, according to Knoller. President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, also spent three or four days around New Year’s Day each year in Palm Springs, Calif., at the home of philanthropist Walter Annenberg. (In 1993 the late Mr. Annenberg founded the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is FactCheck.org’s parent organization.)

So there you have it, in FactCheck’s own words — they’re connected to Ronald Reagan through Walter Annenberg.

So, the next time someone tells you FactCheck.org is founded and run by “libruls,” send ’em here to see the real photographic evidence.

More:

Walter Annenberg, Ronald Reagan, and hangers on, December 31, 1985

Official White House photo: From left, Walter Annenberg, President Ronald Reagan, Charles Price, William French Smith, George Shultz, and Donald Regan, December 31, 1985. Photo taken at Annenberg’s estate, Sunnylands: “Sunnylands, the impeccably haute-moderne Shangri-la completed in Rancho Mirage, California, in 1966 by the late billionaire publisher, philanthropist, and power broker Walter Annenberg and his wife, Lee, was a haven for presidents and monarchs, stars and tycoons: the history-makers of the late 20th century.”

12 Responses to FactCheck.org comes clean on political affiliations

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Ayers was never a power in the Annenberg Foundation, nor was Obama. Both were grantees, and they got grants on a limited range of issues — education.

    Their getting small grants in Chicago to help local schools in no way changes the mission or organization of the Annenberg Foundation, which was set up as a defense of the western canon and conservative values.

    Reading newspapers, and getting accurate news, is part of the western canon’s philosophy, and a key part of conservative values up to Ronald Reagan.

    Fact Check was set up to defend newspapers, a big business, by a very conservative businessman, who believed in free market solutions, and who firmly disbelieved in socialism in almost all forms.

    Those are the facts.

    Like

  2. Hackneyed Hank says:

    All organizations change over time. The Annenberg Foundation is just one of those that has certainly done so. Annenberg was a friend of Reagan >30 years past. Yes, Bill Ayers did use the organization in an underhanded way, to create an organization that the current president became the titular head of (titular because he wasn’t really qualified for to be in charge of anything at the time). And yes, the AF has become more aligned with the Leftists who, we know, work hard to redefine anything so they can use it to be used as ‘proof’ to support an unsupportable Leftist ideal or situation.

    Like

  3. Robert Veite says:

    From whence ye came, doesn’t show where you are, just where you came from. The EPA was Nixon, The civil rights movement was republican, and the Cincinnati Enquirer was the Republican newspaper that counterbalanced the Post Times Star, the democratic leaning local paper. The post went out of business, the Enquirer is now coopeded by the left, and the EPA and Civil Rights Leadership is hardly the same as the late great Republican, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    So it wasn’t a $49 million to Ayers as you originally said, but a grant to an organization which as best you know did nothing wrong, and advocated for better schools, in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln. I see.

    But, of course, it’s still your word hanging in the wind. Got no sources we might check to make sure you’ve corrected all the errors?

    Plus, nothing about that changes the facts you failed to acknowledge, that Ambassador Walter Annenberg was a staunch conservative, friend of Ronald Reagan and not Bill Ayers, and didn’t set up a group with a liberal political bias.

    You’re free to hate Bill Ayers all you want. That doesn’t change history, doesn’t change the political stripes of Walter Annenberg, and doesn’t make any of those unbiased foundations, biased.

    Were any of the Annenberg foundations biased as you say, you could sue to end their tax-exempt status. Of course, the judge would require you to tell the truth. But if you’re so convinced, why don’t you sue?

    See also:

    => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
    => http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/02/arts/walter-annenberg-94-dies-philanthropist-and-publisher.html?pagewanted=all
    => http://www.anb.org/articles/10/10-02280.html
    => http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2002/10/citizen_annenberg.html

    In the end, I wonder whether your own biases haven’t polluted your ability to discern the facts, if not blinded you completely.

    Like

  5. scout13fox says:

    I most certainly read the article and many others to boot! Facts are fundamental! William Ayers was one of three writers that secured $49.2 million for ABC. YOU check your facts.

    Without resorting to belittling comments and personal attacks can you source anything to refute what I’ve pointed out?

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    Pay attention. First, read the article above (it’s obvious you didn’t).

    Second, read the links to the biography of Annenberg, Ronald Reagan’s friend, lifelong Republican and radical conservative.

    Third, check your figures on Ayers. He didn’t get a nearly 50 million grant from anyone, any time.

    Now, can you stand back for a moment and weigh the credibility of your claims?

    Ronald Reagan’s buddy funding Bill Ayers with massive grants to do anything at all?

    BTW, what was wrong with the Annenberg Challenge, other than it was pro-plutocrat, anti-public school? You mean, getting a grant from Annenberg turned Ayers into a Republican on education policy?

    Perhaps you’ve misinterpreted what facts you may have, or you’ve been otherwise misinformed.

    Like

  7. scout13fox says:

    Another fact, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms.

    This one is much closer to present than the picture of President Reagan with philanthropist Walter Annenberg. Google his name and President Clinton if you’d like to see plenty of pictures of them together.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s a pretty good disproof of the claims that the guy was NOT a conservative.

    Got any pictures of Annenberg golfing with Mao? Fidel? Che?

    No, of course not.

    Like

  9. John says:

    A deceased relative posing in a picture with a deceased president is no solid proof of anything, really.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. JamesK says:

    So if I write a biography on Reagan I become a Reagan supporter auotmatically? And if I write one Lenin I become a Communist?

    really? That’s the logic you want to engage in, henry?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    If the article claims that Kathleen Hall Jamieson is an Obama supporter — and I didn’t find that — it’s a lousy source. It’s a false claim. I saw a claim that she authored a book on the Obama victory — but Jamieson is an academic, a person who studies journalism and public policy. That’s what she’s supposed to do.

    Kathleen Hall Jamieson is a nationally recognized authority on political communication, campaigns, and political rhetoric. The Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, she is also the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Director of the University’s Annenberg Public Policy Center.
    * * * * *
    Jamieson is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the American Academy of Political and Social Science and the International Communication Association.

    The book mentioned is a non-partisan, academic look at the election. I suppose a lot of people think that everyone with an IQ above room temperature is automatically an Obama supporter and biased, and consequently, so are Jamieson and the other academics who co-authored the book, but that’s part of my lampoon here. Obviously, the reporter in the article to which you link asks us to judge the bias of the book, not even from the cover, but just from the title, and it wants us to assume that a book with Obama’s name in the title must be adulatory. I don’t see any evidence of that.

    Have you read the book? The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Message Shaped the 2008 Election, Kate Kenski, Bruce W. Hardy and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, was published by Oxford University Press, intended as much as a textbook for college classes as a book in the public sphere.

    If you’re arguing that the move towards non-partisan, hard scholarship is a move away from Reagan-esque policies, I would suggest you hold Reagan in much lower regard than can be justified.

    One of the sources relied on in the link you offer is Texas Darlin’, a McCain-created parody Democrat site whose great contribution to politics was a commenter’s description of a visit to the Honolulu public library where he discovered contemporary published accounts of the 1961 Honolulu birth of Barack Obama, thereby establishing Obama’s eligibility as a “natural born” citizen of the U.S. under the business records rule of evidence. That wasn’t what the site wanted, and they went private shortly after that. You’ll notice the site is dead and the URL abandoned, now.

    In short, what we see in that link is the lunatic ravings of the unhinged, again.

    What do you mean by “non-partisan,” and why doesn’t Jamieson qualify? What partisan activities do you find on her resume? Not even the extreme Tea Party American Thinker found fault with Jamieson’s political views in their review of the book.

    Look at the photos. Claiming FactCheck.org is a tool of the left is absurd on its face. It’s also absurd if one digs down a few layers.

    Also, see this:

    Like

  12. henrymowry says:

    One of your links in turn linked to a story about how the current Director of the Annenberg Foundation is an Obama supporter, so perhaps the organization has strayed from the Reagan-era connection. Here’s the article: http://www.mockazine.com/but_seriously/2009/11/fact-checking-factcheckorg.html#axzz2Fwe6f6AJ. Bottom line for me is that until we truly have non-partisan fact checkers, no one is above suspicion. Unfortunately.

    Liked by 1 person

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: