Editing 1712: Politifact

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 32: Line 32:
  
 
Alternatively, either Cueball or Megan just says this as a threat (they could even roll a non-bomb object under the bed and maybe they have talked out loud about the idea of using such a bomb before) and they could try to make the loud ''fwooosh'' sound themselves to simulate that the bomb going off. Then they would be telling an outright lie that would be rated as "Pants on Fire!". The fact that the ''fwooosh'' is located outside of the "quotation marks", is no indication as the sound is not part of the quote. Also the fact that "PANTS ON FIRE" is yelled, rather than calmly delivered in the fashion of her other judgments, is not necessarily any indication that this is not the case, since a threat that is so blatantly a lie as to warrant such a rating should be proclaimed out loud.
 
Alternatively, either Cueball or Megan just says this as a threat (they could even roll a non-bomb object under the bed and maybe they have talked out loud about the idea of using such a bomb before) and they could try to make the loud ''fwooosh'' sound themselves to simulate that the bomb going off. Then they would be telling an outright lie that would be rated as "Pants on Fire!". The fact that the ''fwooosh'' is located outside of the "quotation marks", is no indication as the sound is not part of the quote. Also the fact that "PANTS ON FIRE" is yelled, rather than calmly delivered in the fashion of her other judgments, is not necessarily any indication that this is not the case, since a threat that is so blatantly a lie as to warrant such a rating should be proclaimed out loud.
βˆ’
 
βˆ’
It is also possible that PolitiFact's rating is a meta check of the title text ''itself''; because the scenario described is not illustrated as is the rest of the comic, it has not happened, and thus is blatantly false.
 
  
 
It may be a coincidence, but PolitiFact.com was {{w|PolitiFact.com#Reception|awarded}} the {{w|Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting}} in 2009 for work done in their first full year of work (after it was started in August 2007), and this comic was released right after [[1711: Snapchat]], which hinges on the existence of little-known {{w|Pulitzer Prize}} categories.
 
It may be a coincidence, but PolitiFact.com was {{w|PolitiFact.com#Reception|awarded}} the {{w|Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting}} in 2009 for work done in their first full year of work (after it was started in August 2007), and this comic was released right after [[1711: Snapchat]], which hinges on the existence of little-known {{w|Pulitzer Prize}} categories.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)