Fact-Free 'Fact Check' -- By James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal

A New York Times blog "fact checks" Friday night's Republican debate, and the first item, by Jeremy Peters, is a classic of the genre:

Asked what would happen if his son told him he was gay, [Rick] Santorum said, "I would love him as much as I did the second before he said it."

But Mr. Santorum has been asked that question before, and he gave a very different answer then. In a 2003 interview with GQ, he was asked what he would tell a son who admitted to having an attraction to men. He essentially said his son should remain celibate.

"I would try to point out to them what is the right thing to do. And we have many temptations to do things we shouldn't do," he told the magazine. "It doesn't mean you have to submit."

Mr. Santorum added that all parents should help steer their children in a direction "that would lead them to a better and happier life."

Then, when pressed on whether he would still love his son, he replied, "It's all you can do."

Do you notice what's missing here? Any factual assertion at all! Peters is faulting Santorum for changing his answer to a hypothetical question, not a factual one.

Further, while the answers are different, they are not inconsistent. Santorum said both times that he would love his son, although he led with that assertion in 2012 and had to be prodded in 2003. On Friday he added, "And I would try to do everything I can to be as good a father to him as possible"--which presumably would include pointing out "what is the right thing to do," as he said in '03.

We don't fault the Times for reporting Santorum's change in emphasis. It is newsworthy--and, by the way, it is also to Santorum's credit. But what in the world is it doing in a "fact check"?

Meanwhile, PolitiFact Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's franchise, checks an actual fact, and hilarity ensues. Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, a Democratic state lawmaker from Madison, complained that a hearing on whether to allow a mine in northern Wisconsin, was held very far from the site in question: "in Milwaukee--15 hours away from those most directly affected."

PolitiFact notes that the hearing was actually in West Allis, a MIlwaukee suburb. But they're just getting started:

[Roys] goes on to acknowledge that that distance and duration would be round-trip between Port Wing and West Allis, not one way.

Indeed, Mapquest shows that the longer of two driving routes between West Allis and Port Wing is 385 miles and just over seven hours one way.

Roys concluded her email by telling us not to "miss the bigger point here," saying it was "an extremely long and inconvenient drive" for northwest Wisconsin residents to attend the West Allis hearing.

OK.

It is, indeed, a lengthy drive from northwestern Wisconsin to West Allis. About seven hours long, or less. Not 15.

We rate Roys' statement False.

Presumably anyone who came from Port Wing would return there after the hearing, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to cite the round-trip travel time. In any case, this is the sort of hair-splitting in which this column might engage in a tongue-in-cheek item. It's kind of astonishing that these guys actually expect to be taken seriously. CLICK HERE TO READ ARTICLE Sphere: Related Content