Back in March of 2021, the Washington Post did a fact-check on Sen. Tom Cotton. You see, Republicans were making “hyped-up claims” about who’d be receiving stimulus checks “with carefully crafted amendments for campaign ads.” Cotton said that even Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would be getting a stimulus check from the government.
The Post must be going back and cleaning up 2021 for the new year, as it’s adjusted Cotton’s rating.
It turns out Tom Cotton predicted correctly — Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston bomber, did get a stimulus check. So we've adjusted the Pinocchio rating on this 2021 fact check. https://t.co/L87j8TvFjn
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) January 6, 2022
Wait until you hear what he predicted about the origins of COVID-19. https://t.co/GU5chc8czX
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 7, 2022
Yeah, he was spreading this crazy conspiracy theory that it could have escaped from a lab.
🤡
— Chris Wilson (@WilsonWPA) January 7, 2022
@TomCottonAR makes a claim that turns out true but still gets a “one Pinocchio mostly true” rating. Makes sense. 🤡🤡🤡🤡
— Myfavoritchords (@myfavoritchords) January 7, 2022
So it’s true and you were wrong but it’s still labeled a lie? LOL
— Snakeskin Jacket of House Olive Garden (@SFlipp) January 7, 2022
— Geoff Walker (@gewa76) January 7, 2022
Seems completely true to me and you're just using the "lack of context" as an excuse to not admit you were wrong. Tsarnaev received a check! What happened to it afterwards may be OK, but how much in US resources have been expended to get it there? "Context"!
— Craig Beam (@CraigBeam1) January 6, 2022
Recommended
“Lacks context” is my new go-to complaint. “I know, officer, the light was red but your arresting me for reckless driving lacks context.” And so on.
— Brian Schubert (@SchubertBrian) January 7, 2022
It's time for the Post to get rid of this partisan fact-checking column, which often tests claims over too-short periods of time. It fails, and fails often.
— Jim Stinson (@jimstinson) January 7, 2022
Part if why "fact checking" predictions is stupid.
— Jeffrey Collins (@Collinstaxacct) January 7, 2022
https://twitter.com/Josh_Seattle1/status/1479245872210735104
What value is there in a "fact checker" if they attempt to check a statement that cannot yet be verified? When the fact checker is wrong – even when they apologize (and this is not a direct apology), they cannot undo the damage from insisting only they are the arbiters of truth.
— Keith Trauner (@kt_valueguy) January 7, 2022
This fact didn't need context.
Funny how the mistakes always go in the same direction.— 10% for the Big Guy (@rumBaKnight) January 7, 2022
How many times have you had to begin a tweet with “It turns out”? Hack.
— Janice (@jannyfayray) January 7, 2022
https://twitter.com/wretchedcretin/status/1479243162795364353
How did you 'fact check' a prediction in the first place?
— ParksDept (@parks_dept) January 7, 2022
Yeah but what about his family history
— Michael Watson (@MichaelWatsonDC) January 7, 2022
But what kind of house did Tom's grandpa grow up in?
— Steve (@SteveChoppah) January 7, 2022
https://twitter.com/StevenSkelton1/status/1479241430421753859
Wow…you really suck at your job, don’t you? 🙄🙄🙄
— Warren Howeler (@downersgrove77) January 7, 2022
You are fake news.
— Steven Mack (@smackdown5x5) January 7, 2022
Death, taxes, and Washington Post fact checking being wrong.
— AdamInHTownTX (Not a Biologist) (@AdamInHTownTX) January 7, 2022
So, it was completely true and you're trying to pretend it's still slightly not true.
— Dan Goldwasser (@dgoldwas) January 7, 2022
He said it in a (conservative) political context, so he still gets a Pinocchio.
Related:
Washington Post changes its 15-month-old headline about Sen. Tom Cotton’s debunked conspiracy theory https://t.co/oSqsdboR2b
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) June 1, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member