BTH POLITIFACT AINT FACT

Hello. Im Mark Hyman.

The other day we told you the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an
additional 11 million people not in the labor force as of last month
than during the worst point in 2009. A viewer took exception to the
report, citing PolitiFact.com to back-up his claim.
Heres whats happening behind the headlines.
We examined the PolitiFact article. Theres a detailed report on our
website if you care to examine it. Heres the thumbnail version.
PolitiFact attacked a statement made by Senator Ted Cruz in early
2015. Cruz referenced the BLS statistic of 92 million people listed as
not in the labor force. A true and factual statement. PolitiFact rated
Cruzs statement as Mostly False.
It did so by studiously ignoring the BLS category of not in the labor
force while citing other categories and statistics from the same jobs
report Cruz apparently referenced.
PolitiFact created categories and definitions that are at odds with
BLS. Politifacts categories and definitions conveniently support its
analysis. There were numerous examples of PolitiFact making
statements and implying facts that dont square with the official BLS
data.
At best, PolitiFact was sloppy in its analysis. At worst, it was
intentionally misleading. You can reach your own conclusion.
Neither PolitiFact nor the author of the original article responded to
multiple requests for comment.
PolitiFact, we rate your creative analysis as Mostly False.
To comment go to Behind the Headlines dot net.
Im Mark Hyman.

Heres the link to the Behind the Headlines segment challenged by

the viewer.
http://www.behindtheheadlines.net/sections/videos/vid_501.shtml
Heres the link to the PolitiFact article cited by the viewer.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2015/feb/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-92-millionamericans-arent-working/
Following is the language of the actual request for comment sent to
both PoltiFact.com and the author of the PolitiFact article, Louis
Jacobson. Comments to PolitiFact .com can be made at
http://www.politifact.com/contact/. Mr. Jacobson can be reached
via email at ljacobson@politifact.com
This is a media request.
A viewer cited your article (http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2015/feb/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-92-millionamericans-arent-working/) in which you rated a statement by
Senator Ted Cruz as Mostly False.
In a February 2015 cable news appearance, Cruz cited the figure of
92 million as not working. Because you cited the Bureau of Labor
Statistics you knew or should have known Cruz drew his number
from the BLS January 2015 employment report "not in the labor
force" (NILF) category
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062015.pdf)
. In fact, you conveniently make no mention of this category while
citing other employment-related categories and figures from this
very same report.
In your analysis, you cited the 92 million figure (from the NILF
category) as [not] especially meaningful even though BLS has used
this category for many years and it makes for very meaningful
apples-to-apples comparisons between different periods of time. In

addition, the criteria for NILF are firmly established by BLS and not
open to interpretation.
Instead, you offered your own creative analysis that runs counter to
the actual categories and statistics offered by BLS. For example,
you make broad generalizations that are not based in fact (e.g. age
20 to 24 . . . are in college or graduate school) implying they should
not be included in the unemployment calculations. While some aged
20 to 24 are in college or graduate school, others are not. Some are
included in the employment calculations, while others are included
in the NILF category. This is based on whether they are actually in
school.
You further imply that employment statistics do not take into
account that some people who are not working because they are
taking care of children fulltime or have gone back to school. Yet,
as you knew or should have known, the NILF category actually
includes these individuals
(http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf).
Valid arguments can be made regarding whether BLS should
include everyone aged 16 and older in its employment calculations.
Similarly, not everyone aged 65 and older is retired as you implied
in your analysis. Yet, these are the currently established categories,
definitions and figures offered by BLS. To arbitrarily change these
categories and definitions on your own is both misleading and
disingenuous. But you do just that in your article.
Question: Was your analysis the result of sloppy work or was it an
effort to create a desired outcome (Mostly False) and leave readers
with false and misleading statements?