PolitiFact reader feedback: ‘Not giving all the context is misleading’

We’re entering the 2024 election cycle’s final lap, with almost two months until Election Day. PolitiFact is fact-checking the presidential and vice presidential candidates, and we’re also looking at statements from social media, pundits, President Joe Biden and key Senate races. 

Election years always bring out more readers and more interest in our fact-checks. The reaction to our coverage of this summer’s party conventions and nominee switcheroo was no different.

As this summer for the history books comes to a close, we rounded up our readers’ thoughts on our coverage. The feedback is lightly edited for length, clarity and style. Readers can email us fact-check ideas and feedback at [email protected].

Learn more about our election-year mission to hold politicians and pundits accountable to the truth and to share the facts so you can be an informed participant in the 2024 election.

We heard from many readers about our fact-checking on whether Democratic warnings about various planks of Project 2025 line up with former President Donald Trump’s agenda. 

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has warned Americans about "Trump’s Project 2025" agenda — even though Trump doesn’t claim the conservative presidential transition document and has distanced himself from some, but not all, of its ideas. 

On July 30, Harris said, "Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security." Mostly False. 

One reader emailed us with a prediction that Trump will not be consistent with his actions.

"It is appalling to me that you would rate Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’s warnings about what Donald Trump would do to Social Security or Medicare based on what he *says* he will do while campaigning.

Have you read Project 2025? It was written by his backers at the Heritage Foundation and by his former cabinet members and there is evidence he is aware of it and will participate in its implementation based on steps he has attempted in line with it before, however he denies that he knows about it and that he would implement it.

Have you noticed the consistent, ongoing pattern of difference between what Trump says he did or will do and what he has actually done and does?

Really misleading fact-checking on this important topic, in my opinion.

I cannot believe that you are actually trying to insist that a pathological liar isn’t going to do what he said he’d do about Medicare and what Project 2025 wants to do. His multiple budgets show where his intent really is. He wants to win an election so like the serial liar he is, he’ll say anything. Shame on you for laundering his lies."

(The Project 2025 document mentions Social Security 10 times, but none of those references addresses plans for cutting the program.) 

Social media users commented what they found to be important context about Project 2025:

"He openly supports parts of Project 2025 and literal dozens of Trump's former team are contributors to it, but sure let's give them the benefit of the doubt 😒"

"What about the head of the Heritage Fund saying out loud that Trump will understandably distance himself from the project and this is purely a political move? Fact checking is one thing, but not giving all the context is misleading. Dem claims that Donald Trump's Project 2025 are real and very much substantial."

We rated a Harris claim that Project 2025 would restrict access to contraception and in vitro fertilization Mostly False. A reader called our fact-check "disingenuous" after seeing our Instagram post. 

"They absolutely threaten IVF when they talk about assigning personhood and legal rights for an embryo. Anyone who has gone through IVF can tell you this (including myself!) Also, the groups providing guidance for this project consider some hormonal contraception to be an abortifacient because it can affect the lining of the uterus and therefore prevent an embryo from implanting. My super religious IVF doctor considered IUDs (intrauterine devices) to be an abortifacient. This is not far-fetched thinking that will never come to fruition should project 2025 be put in place."

On TikTok, we explained why Harris’ claim that a video captured Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, endorsing Project 2025 was False. (The video was from 2021, two years before Project 2025 was published.) A reader defended our post in the comments:

"All PolitiFact said is that this video is not proof. If you make a claim it needs to be able to be proved. We want honest politicians and I’m glad PolitiFact is being non-biased."

A reader asked us to fact-check this line from Harris’ speech at the Democratic National Convention: Trump "plans to create a national anti-abortion coordinator and force states to report on women’s miscarriages and abortions." We rated it Mostly False. When we got back to the reader, they responded:

"Thank you!

PS: I think in your fact check, it would be good to include additional context about who wrote the sections of Project 2025 that you quoted.

The section on USAID (United States Agency for International Development), which included the mention of a "pro-life politically appointed Senior Coordinator of the Office of Women, Children and Families" was written by Max Primorac, who served in the Trump administration as Mike Pence's envoy to Iraq and as a deputy administrator at USAID. I think it is also important to note the context that Primorac in this section was not talking about an agency that affects abortion policy in the United States but rather affects U.S. foreign aid, so the word "national" is inaccurate as it is more of an international proposal. Specifically, he was proposing to replace the USAID Office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment with an Office of Women, Children and Families and to eliminate all references to gender or gender equality. 

The section that talked about abortion data collection was written by Roger Severino, who was appointed by Trump as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.

I think in order to evaluate the truth of Harris's statement in full context, it is important to note who wrote these words and their previous ties to the Trump administration."

This reader criticized the framing and word choice that opened a story meant to inoculate voters with context and facts before the June 27 presidential debate. 

"I would ask that your fact checkers use the same standards with both candidates, and not parse data to be favorable or less favorable to one candidate over the other.

An example in your email thread below is concerning to me:

‘When former President Donald Trump discusses the cost of chicken and eggs, he has often been accurate. But Trump is also prone to exaggerating inflation's wallop under President Joe Biden.

Biden acknowledges inflation in his speeches, but he often says wages have outpaced inflation — which all depends on when you start.’

Your language about former President Trump is accurate, but then you use a pejorative phrase (prone to exaggerating) while using the word WALLOP, which is an aggressive term pointed at President Biden. You also used the word OFTEN, leaving open the possibility that President Trump is also wrong at times on this topic. Inflation has greatly impacted all aspects of life for voters, from the price of groceries to the affordability of housing, so any candidate running for president should be robustly questioned on the topic and be held accountable for their part in helping or hurting the inflation challenge with their policies and decisions.

You did not use pejorative language when speaking about President Biden and used an "it depends" statement to provide potential room to soften any inaccuracies that President Biden may state this evening. We have records on important topics from 4 years of former President Trump and 3.5 years of President Biden, so there is a significant amount of time for comparison.

Please do not provide nuanced analysis of one candidate that allows for acceptable or misinterpreted inaccuracies, while calling out granular inaccuracies of the other. Words matter, and voters of all parties would appreciate and desperately need parity in your fact checking this evening. Both candidates are flawed and are inaccurate at times; just asking that you call it fairly on a level playing field."

Others found our debate breakdown helpful.

"I just finished reading ‘2024 presidential debate fact-check: How accurate were Joe Biden, Donald Trump?’ Your summary by topic was VERY helpful and helped me make sense of the debate as I was having a hard time following the topics."

One reader saw our coverage on the front page of The Dallas Morning News and left a voicemail saying: "It's really helpful and I think it's evenly and fairly reported. It's extremely helpful in getting some accurate information out to the average voter."

Our coverage of the Republican and Democratic national conventions broadly inspired some readers to support our journalism.

"Thank you for your stellar coverage of both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. It is somewhat disheartening that speakers at the conventions don’t somehow manage ahead of time to themselves fact check the data they include in their speeches. Americans want to believe that what we’re hearing is accurate and conflicting data leads to mistrust. Your coverage and deciphering of the facts versus fiction has been tremendously helpful. I am now able to ignore the many annoying memes that pop up daily that so many people are fooled into believing are true facts. Again, thank you for your unbiased reporting and coverage during this tumultuous election campaign."

"I read your fact check on the DNC last night and just HAD to donate $20. I said that I donated because you were honest, rational, and hard working. But, I forgot to mention what is perhaps the most important accolade — you are unbiased. Ideally honest encompasses unbiased but it is not universally true. Congrats. I trust you."

We’re heartened by the response we’ve had from PBS News Hour viewers who have seen our team on the show and on the ground at conventions.  

"Atta Woman! I thought you gave an excellent presentation of last night's debate."

"Your appearance on PBS News Hour today was excellent … and super informative. You spoke clearly and to the point. I hope voters see much more of you during this election cycle. Cheers."

We have new partnerships with WBUR radio’s "Here & Now" and Capital B.

"I’m glad PolitiFact exists. It’s funny, whenever I present someone with information fact-checked by PolitiFact, usually to correct them, they get mad and say PolitiFact is biased. Doesn’t matter if the person is liberal or conservative. If the truth doesn’t match their beliefs, then they’re biased. The truth might suck sometimes, but it’s the truth."

"Thanks so much for your efforts. Unbelievable the amount of lies told and misinformation. Even more unbelievable how many fall for this nonsense. Please keep up your efforts!"

"Keep doing what you're doing PolitiFact. No sides, no speculation, just spitting hard truths at both sides of the aisle ❤️❤️❤️"

A reader sent us a message using our new texting service (Sign up for PolitiFact texts here): 

"Thank you so much! I don't always agree with you but I value your being there!!! Keep up the work you're doing!"

If you are interested in this type of behind-the-scenes fact-checking, consider signing up for the daily or weekly email newsletter from PolitiFact or sign up to receive text messages from PolitiFact. 

Do you read PolitiFact’s fact-checking and want to support our nonprofit newsroom? Donate to support the truth.