On Tuesday night time’s The Rachel Maddow Exhibit, host Rachel Maddow bit off more than she might bite, and now, conservative media watchdog Newsbusters is making the MSNBC big name eat her phrases. Maddow took intention, once again, at would-be veracity cops Politifact over their ruling that Martina Navratilova‘s totally true observation was, by some means, best “1/2-True.”

Having already fired Politifact in a earlier rant, Maddow had nowhere else to move however to induce legal motion towards the very fact-checking outfit, suggesting a go well with for custody of the mistreated phrase “fact.”

If you happen to overlooked it, Politifact examined Navratalova’s observation, made in the wake of NBA player Jason Collins’ popping out, that “In 29 states on this usa which you can nonetheless get fired for now not just being homosexual, but when your corporation thinks you might be homosexual.”

Consistent with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights staff, 21 states plus the District of Columbia explicitly restrict employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The rest 29 don’t. (This map presentations the legal situation by means of state.)

We will have to note that the 29 states in question are defined through the absence of a legislation prohibiting discrimination in response to sexual orientation, rather than the presence of a regulation permitting such discrimination. This implies employees in these states who believe they are discriminated in opposition to do not have grounds to win a lawsuit alleging discrimination. The group mentioned that it’s that you can think of for an supplier to discriminate based on the perception, somewhat than the very fact, that anyone is gay.

But whereas Navratilova gets the number right…

“Gets the number right.” That stands out as the choice of states by which employers can discriminate towards employees over their sexual orientation, or perceived sexual orientation. That implies she gets the the whole thing right, considering the fact that that’s exactly what she said. Politifact goes on to indicate that, in these 29 states, there are certain varieties of employees who may experience sure protections in opposition to discrimination (government staff, sure localities, firms which voluntarily don’t discriminate), which would be related if Martina had said a unique thing, like “All the individuals in 29 states enjoy no safety in any respect in opposition to discrimination,” however is completely beside the point to the reality of what she in truth stated. In their summation, Politifact says “In the event you frame this observation in the context of blanket protections by using states, she’s proper.”

That is precisely how she framed it. “In 29 states in this united states of america you can nonetheless get fired for now not simply being gay, but if your company thinks you might be gay.” If she had mentioned ”In 29 states in this us of a, that you would be able to go swimming,” this wouldn’t be “1/2-authentic” because there are parts of these states that are land.

In blasting Politifact once once more (a favorite pastime of Maddow’s, and mine), Maddow mentioned “The remark you had been purported to be truth checking is correct, and until someone figures out find out how to sue you with a view to retrieve the meaning of the word ‘reality’ from the darkish and airless hole you might have stuffed it into, PolitiFact, then no, it is not OK for you to simply make this stuff up.”

Newsbusters blogger Jack Coleman, who additionally doesn’t be aware of overview the truth of Navratalova’s commentary, does nail Maddow on the criminal merits of her plan:

As for anyone who would possibly sue PolitiFact for its alleged misdeed right here, how about Navratilova, the birthday celebration allegedly harmed? Such a lawsuit would get hooted out of courtroom. As a substitute of suing PolitiFact, Maddow would much slightly that anyone silence them, completely, preferrably her.

He’s got her there. Moreover, a sandwich containing knuckles does now not sound appetizing, and the value of birds depends little on their area relative to “the bush.”

Maddow’s shaggy dog story about suing Politifact truly gets at the downside with the website online, and its often questionable rulings. Reality-checking outfits have, in effect, taken custody of the phrase truth, and the harm they do after they pervert their very own kind is not evident within the things they get flawed, but in that it renders meaningless the things they, or any individual else, get proper. That is what the appropriate-wing desires, for mainstream journalism to turn into so discredited that everybody’s version of “facts” receives equal weight.