OK, since I'm "stupid," spell it out for me. Help me understand where you're documenting "bias" with this example.

With my limited intellect, what I see you getting worked up about is this: On one hand, Politifact looked at Ron Ramsey's assertion that this year's redistricting effort has been the most open, etc, in history, and rated it "false," and provided evidence that it was, in fact, false. Then they looked at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's assertion that Republican Representative Scott Dejarlais had only worked six days in all of January, 2012. They rated that as "Pants on Fire," which is one stop more false than "false," and they offered information demonstrating how the assertion is not accurate.

Politifact defines the two categories this way: "FALSE – The statement is not accurate. PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."

In both cases, they cited information that any reasonable person would say refutes the claim, so both claims as reviewed were at least false. So from there, you seem to see a bias in their distinction that only the Dejarlais claim was noted as false, but also that it makes a ridiculous claim. I suppose you could argue that Ramsey's claim should also have rated "Pants on Fire," but I don't see how anyone with any sense could find that the claim about Dejarlais is anything but ridiculous. Politifact did note that the DCCC didn't offer anything but the calendar for when Congress is in session as evidence for their claim. It's a ridiculous claim. I don't know much about Dejarlais, but that evidence could be used to make the same claim about 434 other people, and I would call it ridiculous unless pictures of Congressmen in conga lines on cruise ships are offered up as additional proof.

When Congress is out of session, Members of Congress spend time in their district meeting with constituents and speaking to Rotary Clubs and whatever. This Congressman's office offered examples from his schedule suggesting as much, so barring evidence to the contrary, the reviewed statement is just one more example of stupid political distortions made by political operatives. I think it's fair to say that this was a ridiculous claim. (What I can't figure out is why, with the plethora of genuine fodder for criticism of these yokels that's available, anyone would make the effort to come up with this whopper.)

So your whole assertion of bias lies with Politifact failing to also find Ramsey's claim to be not only false, but ridiculously so. I can totally see the argument that it should've been or could've been rated "Pants on Fire," but it's a distinction without a difference, and I don't see how it clearly documents any great bias, other than your own.

Frankly, I think the whole Politifact thing is a gimmick, and that our friends in the press should be doing this sort of reviewing of the veracity of political claims as a matter of course in all their reporting, not just with great fanfare in a special "Truth-O-Meter" section. Instead, most reporting gets the "he said, she said" treatment, allowing false information to get a pass, and false equivalencies to be the order of the day when offering "balance" in everyday reporting. That's where the real problem lies.