OpenSecrets and FactCheck.org Denied Credentials at Republican National Convention

OpenSecrets.org, the non-profit which tracks federal campaign contributions and lobbying by lobbying firms, individual lobbyists, industry, federal agency, and bills, has been denied a credential to attend the Republican National Convention and is airing its grievances publicly.

“They gave no other reason other than that space is very tight,” Novak said.

“I don’t know if its because of the kind of work we do, I have no idea. But we are non partisan. We certainly pick on Democrats as much as Republicans,” Novak said.

FactCheck.org, which was scheduled to share housing with the members of OpenSecrets.org, was also initially denied the one credential they had requested.

www.politico.com...

This is amazing...

FactCheck was able to make enough of fuss that they finally got admitted..

But OpenSecrets ...who both the Left and Right here on ATS use to track money influencing politics?...No way.

What does this say about the current state of the GOP? When the organization that is responsible for exposing the corrupting influence of money in politics is tagged as the enemy?

FactCheck I get...Facts have not been kind to Trump this past year...but what do they have against a non-partisan, transparency motivated org that goes after both Dems and GOP when money flows?

Fact Check leans heavy left. I have read many of their articles and they twist and turn information with great force to create the image they want. Facts are simple conclusions, either true or false. If the information is bad for left they do a deep dive and drag the reader to the opposite side of the pool the best they can. I no longer read it.

originally posted by: LifeMode
Fact Check leans heavy left.

"The facts have a well-known liberal bias”

And OpenSecrets.Org? Curious as to what their crime is?

originally posted by: LifeMode
Fact Check leans heavy left. I have read many of their articles and they twist and turn information with great force to create the image they want. Facts are simple conclusions, either true or false. If the information is bad for left they do a deep dive and drag the reader to the opposite side of the pool the best they can. I no longer read it.

Funny because if you go to their website, they have negative stories on both sides of the isle. The new excuse is great though. If you don't like the content, its because its a "liberal site".

The bias of leftist "fact checkers" and reporters has been emporaclly proven time after time.

study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."

As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.

Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."


www.usnews.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

My firsthand experience with Factcheck indicates they are frauds advertising as watchdogs and collecting donations. In 2012, I very seriously considered filing a RICO fraud civil complaint against them, pro se, but other important life matters got in the way of me following through.

i want to see Factcheck exposed for their fraud though, so i am totally ok with the GOP denying them credentials. They aren't worthy of press-credentials.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance


The bias of leftist "fact checkers" and reporters has been emporaclly proven time after time.

You appear confused. According to your own excerpt the study empirically concluded..

"The conclusion: Republicans lie more."


The last bit in the article that is confusing you is not empirical, but a WSJ authors opinion refuting the "empirical" study.

These are both bought and paid for by non-conservative groups. Glad to hear they will not be there.

Factcheck.org is an Ayers related project. OpenSecrets pissed someone off and you might want to look into its founder.

a reply to: Indigo5

We all know republicans, especially Trump, are allegic to facts and there is no medicine except banning it.

a reply to: Indigo5

You are the one who is confused.

The subtitle,of the article in the link is "study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans".

What does it matter if they are biased or not? It is on the reader to make that decision but why would you want to deny them their ability to report?

Might be better anyway, we already know what Trump wants to do if gets to office for people who have wrote negatively about him...

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Indigo5

You are the one who is confused.

The empirical study by Lchter concluded anti-republican bias.

The author of that study, Lichter, also offered his opinion/analysis, not an empiracl study, on the subject of "fact checcker" bias.

Not sure how to respond. Everything you claim above is false...according to your own excerpt..and the study itself which I have read.

earth flat debate here..

originally posted by: matafuchs
These are both bought and paid for by non-conservative groups. Glad to hear they will not be there.

The strategy is referred to as "remove the referee"....otherwise, if you can't win a fair fight, get rid of the rule keeper.

If you can't win an honest debate...get rid of the fact-checkers.

It's why the GOP rhetoric in recent years has included a growing and consistent disdain for those concerned with evidence and facts and verifying claims.

What interests me more is the NEW move to ban and antagonize Opensecrets...who has been non-partisan, anti money in politics. What does that say about where Trump would take the office of the WH.

a reply to: Indigo5

So, the people who do not like Trump are not allowing these guys in and TRUMP is being blamed? Am I getting this correctly?

a reply to: matafuchs

You really think Trump has no say in the matter?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Really? All you see in the media is how the GOP 'leadership' is still not onboard. They won't fund raise. They don't endorse. But hell, the GOP says 2 people cannot come in and suddenly Trump is in charge of the GOP. You cannot have your fantasy both ways....

originally posted by: LifeMode
Fact Check leans heavy left.

Let me guess.

You lean Right.

a reply to: matafuchs

That didn't really answer what I asked.

You really think he doesn't have a say in anything that is going to happen at the convention?
He does have some endorsement, Ryan just recently did. He is just moaning about the ones that still haven't, you know the guys he just recently went head to head to and spent the whole time calling them names.
Also, if the GOP hates him so much, why would they deny the people that are willing to drag him in the mud?

You cannot have your fantasy both ways....

Are factcheck.org and opensecrets people actually reporters?

If they're not accredited journalists, then they SHOULD be denied access to the media area.

Viveca Novak, editor of OpenSecrets' money-in-politics blog, said in an interview the site has received credentials for every Republican convention since at least 1996.

It probably has nothing to do with Donald Trump specifically but rather that there will be so much spinning at the convention in general that it will rival Tornado Alley.