1712: Politifact

|< < Prev Comic #1712 (July 27, 2016) Next > >|

Politifact

Title text: "Ok, I lit the smoke bomb and rolled it under the bed. Let's see if it--" ::FWOOOSH:: "Politifact says: PANTS ON FIRE!"

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Basic, please expand. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

This comic presents the website Politifact.com as a person, who rates every statement they hear based on how true it is, as the website does with political claims.

The rulings from the Truth-O-Meter^TM at PolitiFact are:

• True
• Mostly True
• Half-True
• Mostly False
• False
• Pants on Fire!

The title text furthers this, with "Pants on fire" being Politifact's most untrue rating, but in this case it is an actual statement that Politifact's pants have caught fire because of the smoke bomb.

Transcript

[Megan walks around and rubs her eyes.]

Megan: I did not sleep well last night.

[A person with long hair wearing a hat crawls through the window, PolitiFact, Megan looks at the person.]

PolitiFact: PolitiFact says mostly true!

Megan: Oh no...

[PolitiFact has entered the room and Megan chases after that person with Cueball walking behind of them.]

Cueball: Not again. Get out of here, PolitiFact!

Megan: I swear I locked that window.

PolitiFact: PolitiFact says: False!

[Cueball and Megan standing in a bedroom, PolitiFact hides under the bed.]

Cueball: You can't stay under there forever.

Politifact: PolitiFact says: False!

Megan: Nobody likes you, Politifact.

PolitiFact: PolitiFact says: Mostly true!

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

The title text can be interpreted in two ways: Either that the pants are actually on fire or that rolling the smoke-bomb was a blatant lie. I'm not sure what to make of the "::FWOOOSH::" in the latter case... 162.158.83.66 16:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there is also an aspect of excessive literalism here. For example when Meagan says "I swear I locked that window" Politifact says "false". While it is literally true that this statement was false this is only tangentially related to the conversation. What is important is the home break in going on. 173.245.56.70 17:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that the title text has two equally true meanings. It was NOT a smoke bomb (it was some other type of bomb, so calling it "smoke bomb" is false) and also Politifact's pants were literally on fire. 162.158.214.147 21:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Smoke Bombs are not as obviously incendiary as (say) Incendiary Bombs, but they are actually burning, beneath the deliberate smoke, and perfectly capable of igniting materials. Depending upon their (mis)use. 141.101.98.20 12:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for the transcript to have colored text? The point of a transcript is to have a formal plain text description, decorating the text in this manner to convey information seems contrary to that. An in-parenthesis statement of the color would perhaps be better. Thomson's Gazelle (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Well that can be discussed, but it's the way it has been done in all comics with colored text. It is always easy to read it if you copy paste and you can still search for the words. And a reader will not have problems with the text. But agree that the transcript should mention that PolitiFact is written like their logo with colors. --Kynde (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

...maybe we should make a page for the formatting guidelines of transcripts. I swear I see this same thing on every page with formatted text in the transcript. Papayaman1000 (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is as it should be. --Kynde (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

While I feel that formatted text is a perfectly good style decision for the transcripts in this way, I'd like to point out that when there was a discussion on changing the tagline - "It's because you're dumb" - it was pointed out that there are blind people who use this site to follow xkcd, by having a reader program read this transcript. I'm not sure if such a program would mention colours or bold or italic text (etc), which would mean mentioning the colours could be more effective. - NiceGuy1 108.162.218.118 02:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. NiceGuy1 (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I did add that but Dgbrt reverted my changes do not quite know why... :/ --Kynde (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Revert: The transcript isn't the explain section." seems apt given the sheer amount of description added. If you'd have stuck with (in the first square bracket) saying "Politi is blue and Fact in red, whenever spoken by the PolitiFact character", or ideally something even briefer", it would aid the (colour?)blind readers to get the novelty of that more than the stuff like messy hair. IMO 141.101.70.211 08:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The transcript should describe the scene. But I do agree that I may have filled to much info into this one. Sorry about that. Have reinserted parts of the text. But a transcript serves several functions:

1. To make it possible to find out what any kind of text/numbers etc. reads, even if it is hard to read in the comic.
2. To make a description of what happens in the images. This has two purposes:
   1. So people with eye disabilities can find out what the comic is about. So here a full description of the comic is needed apart from the text.
   2. So it is possible to search the comic for info on the content, like a woman with a hat with a white tag.
3. Finally it is great if the transcript represents the way it is written in the comic as close as possible including colors (which should also be described in the text for those that cannot see them selves). So tables, colors and formatting is fine. If the text then is harder to read it is possible to copy paste it.

This has been used throughout the explain xkcd, and if it is done thorough enough it will enable people to search for characters and objects.--Kynde (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking off the Incomplete tag. I tried to avoid deleting or diminishing the alternate interpretations, but I'm not sure I entirely succeeded. Also, when looking at the term Truth-o-meter, the only thing I'm capable of thinking is "wouldn't veritometer be a better term?"172.68.35.81 02:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe but that's what PolitiFact calls it... I have tried to improve the explanation a bit, by putting in some deleted parts again. --Kynde (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

?Dubious legal claim? The article first describes PolitiFact as breaking and entering, then later says this:

> Although entering someone's house against their wishes is illegal, regardless of how entry is achieved, Megan's failure to secure the window means that PolitiFact cannot be charged guilty of breaking and entering

This claim seems dubious, especially since “breaking and entering” generally doesn’t actually require “breaking” in places where it is an actual charge as far as I can tell. It also contradicts the start of the article.

Perhaps remove this and replace “breaking and entering” with burglary earlier on?

162.158.212.178 19:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That's right, it's certainly still illegal to enter somebody's house without permission even if they left their window open. 172.68.132.145 03:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

i'm typing this while listening to the sea shanty "wellerman" but backwards and sped up.New editor (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I always hear this in my head as "POLY FACT SAYS! PANTS...what...PANCE...no...MANTS...no...GA-...no...PANTS ON FIRE! I have Grammarly installed and right now there are 35+ errors. 87.bus.rider (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)