I'll give you a general tip for reading opinion pieces / fact checks (from generally reputable sources):
Any "fact" it claims which is bad for it's case, you can believe with > 90% probability
Any "fact" it uses to support it's case should be taken with a tablespoon of sodium.
For example in this case: 24,800 projects underway. I assume if many were mostly built then they would say "10,000 chargers expected to be operational by March".
If they were under construction at all, they would probably say "under construction" This is a statement from the Federal Highway Administration! it's PR! (as it should be, nothing wrong with tooting your own horn) and the most they claim is "underway".
Of course we won't get an investigative story about this, but I'd wager the vast majority is in the earliest possible stage (before even permits to build)
So, the criticism of Buttigieg is well founded, and the "misinformation" is more directionally correct then the "fact check"
Any "fact" it claims which is bad for it's case, you can believe with > 90% probability
Any "fact" it uses to support it's case should be taken with a tablespoon of sodium.
For example in this case: 24,800 projects underway. I assume if many were mostly built then they would say "10,000 chargers expected to be operational by March".
If they were under construction at all, they would probably say "under construction" This is a statement from the Federal Highway Administration! it's PR! (as it should be, nothing wrong with tooting your own horn) and the most they claim is "underway".
Of course we won't get an investigative story about this, but I'd wager the vast majority is in the earliest possible stage (before even permits to build)
So, the criticism of Buttigieg is well founded, and the "misinformation" is more directionally correct then the "fact check"