Fact Checking Fact Checking
I read my first Channel Four Fact checking column when I came across a link to it from an article I was reading about the Zika virus. This led me to “FactCheck: why the Zika conspiracies don’t stand up”. This caught my attention as I was not aware of any conspiracy theories and was interested to know what they might be.
The article discussed the virus, the theories, that the cause of the complication of microcephaly Pesticides in drinking water, genetically modified mosquitoes, and vaccines, as the cause of this complication were debunked in turn. Although the pesticide theory was concluded with “more research would be welcome”, the other two stories were dismissed as just that, stories.
Reading the article the zika virus and the causes and complications stopped being my main source of interest. I was more interested in the integrity of the facr checking that I was reading. As a result this post presents a small sample check of the fact checking employed at channel 4.
First let us look at the Channel 4 news fact check blog itself. It has several contributors although there are three that contribute more often than the others.
As below (at 17/04/16)
Patrick Worrall (464)
Cathy Newman (239)
Emma Thelwell (173)
The FactCheck Blog describes itself as follows “Channel 4 FactCheck goes behind the spin to dig out the truth and separate political fact from fiction”. The blog has won several awards
Winner: Online Media Awards 2015 – Best Commentary/Blogging
Winner: Online Media Awards 2012 – Best Commentary/Blogging
So it is reasonable to presume that it is highly regarded in journalistic circles. Indeed Channel 4 news is widely regarded as a high quality deliverer of news and this blog would appear to be the laboratory where fact is distilled from fiction.
I looked at the last Factcheck post from each of the main contributors, when clicking their name in the contributors list and decided to make up my own mind.
Patrick Worrall – Is David Cameron a Tax Hypocrite (here)
Firstly, I should point out the purpose of this post is not to decide whether Mt Cameron is a hypocrite or not. Rather to look at the methods by which this is being evaluated.
It starts with a summary of what David Cameron has done. It might be useful, if applying some scientific rigour to look first at the definition of “hypocrite” which in my version of the Collins dictionary is as follows
“a person who pretends to be what he is not” (I think they meant “or she”)
The definition of hypocrisy
“the practise of pressing standards, beliefs, etc contrary to one’s real character or actual behaviour, esp. the pretence of virtue and piety”
I’ve actually already made up my mind on the question in hand, but like I said, that is not what this is about.
The blog starts as follows
What did Mr Cameron do?
In an interview with ITV News on Thursday, Mr Cameron admitted he owned 5,000 units in a Panama-based fund set up by his stockbroker father Ian Cameron.
The Prime Minister said he and his wife Samantha held the shares from 1997 to January 2010, when they sold them for £31,000, making a £19,000 profit.
Mr Cameron said he paid no capital gains tax on the sale because the profit came in under the personal allowance at the time. But he paid full UK income tax on dividends earned from the investment.
The source provided for this information is Mr Cameron himself. There are no other sources which is, what can only be described as a poor start to a blog that purports to be checking facts.
The next section deals with the question,
Was the fund set up to dodge tax?
The section includes the following text (my bold emphasis below)
“…while the fund would not be taxed as a company, individual investors like David Cameron could expect to pay personal taxes themselves documents relating to Blairmore in the leaked Panama Papers suggest key business decisions were actually being made in the UK. It is hard to see how the company was not managed and controlled, and therefore tax resident, in the UK at the time. The leaked papers…suggest Blairmore made use of “bearer shares”
None of these insinuations are cleared up, no facts are presented to remove the suggestions, the coulds, or the hard to see. The section concludes,
While there was nothing unusual in Blairmore Holdings Inc using the shares, it raises the question of whether everyone who invested in the fund was as honest as David Cameron in declaring their assets and paying tax.
No evidence is presented to corroborate the statement that Mr Cameron has been honest as stated.
The following questions,
Did the Prime Minister break parliamentary rules?
So did he do anything wrong?
do not address the question alluded to at the top of the article (hypocrisy?) and the post concludes with the following
“There are no offshore trusts or funds from which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit in future.”
Source: Mr Cameron, independent verification: none.
Simply put, this sample fact check blog, makes no attempt to check any facts.
Cathy Newman – Child Deaths in Britain (here)
“Data shows five excess child deaths per day in UK compared to Sweden”
This claim should be a more straightforward endeavour as there is a claim based on a numerical value which on the face of it could be easily checked. The table below is from the report and is reproduced in the article.
The table shows two measures, the one on the right is not adjusted for population and the one on the left is (frequency per 100,000)
The article goes on to discuss the derivation of the number 5, as 1951/365 = 5.3. The article also correctly points out that the frequency which is more meaningful. The use of the excess deaths column as a comparative measure is not correct and the blog indicates something of a lack of understanding of statistics by suggesting,
“…it’s interesting to compare Britain to France”
due to the population being similar. The point of the standardised clumn of statisitics on the left is that you do not have to find a country with equivalent population to compare.
However, this fact check does correctly identify that the number 5 is correct (conceding the rounding) and, more importantly, that it is not the right number to use, whilst also pointing out that the conclusion, that the UK child mortality rate is poor relative to not only Sweden but most European countries, is fundamentally sound.
The FactCheck blog does check the facts, although, in this case, it merely involves is dividing a number by the days in the year.
Emily Thelwell – Did MPs cherry pick the HMRC’s tax avoidance figures? (here)
The article describes a disagreement over the Parliamentary Affairs Committee report which was critical of the HMRC’s tax collecting performance. An accusation with topical relevance.
“There were two figures put out by the PAC which were set upon. Firstly, that in real terms, tax revenues fell last year. And secondly, that the missing tax payments have risen by £1bn to £35bn.” (my emphasis)
Before discussing these particular numbers, it is worth pointing out that these two numbers were contained in points 1 and 2 of the conclusions and recommendations section of the report. There were nine points. Additiionally, this first statement does not encompass all of the criticism of the HMRC. There were also numerous figures mentioned in the report which attracted criticism. The two figures cited above were both reported in the articles referenced, in the Guardian and the Times, however both articles also mentioned other criticisms that have gone unchecked in this FactCheck. Also the headlines of both articles reference the HMRC’s perceived weakness in the dealings with “Big Tax Avoiders” (Guardian), “Multinationals” (Times).
Therefore at least some aspect of the accusation in the printed press is one of tax recovery from specific sources not necessarily the actual amount of tax. The FactCheck blog is not necessarily checking the right fact.
The report states
“In 2012-13, HMRC reported that it had brought in £475.6 billion of revenue, an increase of £1.4 billion or 0.3% in cash terms compared to 2011-12. Tax revenue therefore fell in real terms in 2012/13 as compared to 2011/12.”
Note that this is stated not necessairly criticised. Criticism is inferred by the fact check blog. Therefore the blog assertion that it is a “pointless point”, is itself a pointless point, as the report does not specifically make anything of it.
The blog goes on to discuss the tax gap. It again misrepresents the report’s conclusions,
“But to be fair to HMRC, there’s no standard methodology for measuring the tax gap and HMRC’s way has been endorsed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).”
Firstly there is no reference presented for the IMF endorsement. Secondly the criticism of the tax gap is not the size.
“HMRC should be explicit about the limitations of its current measure of the tax gap and gather intelligence about the value of tax lost through aggressive tax avoidance schemes. When there are firm plans to change international tax laws to tackle avoidance, HMRC should use this intelligence to assess how much additional tax revenue the changes would generate within the UK”
The criticism as shown above from Report point 2, is that the HMRC did not explain the limitations in accuracy and should attempt to increase the accuracy.
“The PAC’s chairwoman, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, said: “The tax gap as defined by HMRC did not shrink, but in 2011/12 grew to £35bn.” The gap for 2012/13 was £35bn, up £1bn on the previous year.”
The Factcheck blog falls foul of itself here by quoting £35bn twice, at least once incorrectly. But the broader point is whether the gap has grown. The blog uses a percentage change to illustrate that it has not, rather than the real figure which has increased. However this increase itself is not explicitly criticised in the quote from Margeret Hodge, however it may be inferred.
In answer to the criticism about money lost from tax avoidance schemes, the blog states,
“But a spokesman for HMRC told FactCheck: “Contrary to what the PAC report says, the published tax gap does include a measure of the tax lost from avoidance, as well as evasion, but it can only measure non-compliance with existing tax law – it cannot estimate how much tax might be due if tax laws were different.
He also pointed out that since 2010 HMRC has collected £50bn of additional tax through its compliance work, including £23bn from large businesses.
That said, the PAC was right about one thing…”
The evidence that HMRC is in the clear comes from the HMRC spokesman. There is no attempt to verify these claims; they are simply accepted as the truth. It seems like entry level fact checking that when investigating whether or not a claim against an organisation is true, the spokesman of that organisation (who is also granted anonymity) is not the best source.
The blog concludes that
“Whatever their complaints about the HMRC’s service to taxpayers, FactCheck has to agree with the taxman that their use of figures was misleading.”
It also has to be stated that FactCheck’s understanding of the use of these figures was also limited. In a balancing of the conclusion it goes on to criticise the HMRC for over estimating the amount of revenue to be reclaimed from Swiss accounts. However the number quoted £5.3bn over six years. £440m had been collected from a value of £1.9bn. With no references to any of these numbers.
However a tiny bit of digging would explain quite clearly why there is a lack of recovery from swiss accounts. It seems that the government was at the same time arranging for protection for assets in Swiss accounts in the Finance Bill 2012, as explained in this handy guide.
The Verdict
The Fact Check blog is supposed to be an award winning piece of journalism looking at the facts behind the spin. On this sample whilst it does a good job of dividing one number by 365 in one instance, on multiple occasions it simply accepts at face value the word of individuals, individuals at the centre of the issue, and presents them as fact.
In conclusion, the FactCheck badge gives the appearance of integrity but on closer inspection makes very limited attempts to verify information. The concern is that in the land of journalism, this is award winning science.
kam001