NY Times Public Editor Arther Brisbane gets guffaws with this query:
Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.
Please. I am sure that as long as they limit their fact-checking to Republicans their readership will be in heaven. No one wants or expects the Times to challenge anything out of the mouth of Barack, Nancy, Harry, or any other prominent Democrat.
And that expectation is reinforced by Mr. Brisbane himself - in ruminating about the wisdom of including more fact-checking in their "news", Mr. Brisbane offers Clarence Thomas and Mitt Romney as recent examples. Dems can relax and continue to run their mouths.
NO MERCY FOR THE DEAD HORSE: On my list of things that will never happen I include a Times reassessment of their non-coverage of Obama's evolving story about the Obama-Ayers relationship.
((I loved the obvious concern and affection Bush had for the troops and as long as I live I will detest those who did everything in their power to denigrate him and deny him credit for the good things he did and the outstanding character he showed in office.))
ditto and it is one of the main reasons I cannot respect Obama
Posted by: Chubby | January 12, 2012 at 11:46 PM
If you check the next thread, you'll see that I posted a link about Obama refusing to award the Purple Heart to the wounded and killed at Fort Hood.
Posted by: Sara | January 12, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Why don't they just change the name to Pravda.
Posted by: jorod | January 13, 2012 at 12:08 AM
Sue: I thought the Texas primary is on March 6, 2012. Is there some hitch on that?
Posted by: Sara | January 13, 2012 at 03:24 PM