Its more of the same.  They will fact check the conservatives and give a pass to President Obama and the Democrats.

It would be better than being the leftist propaganda mill it is now. But having internet access does not make one an arbiter of truth, and I don’t see where they have anyone qualified to do it.

They can start with vetting the current President. I’ll hold my breath till that happens.

The NYT has become a sham of a joke of a travesty of a parody of a farce of a newspaper. The mental disease known as “lunatic-left d-cRAT socialism” has destroyed the last few remaining brain cells of the lamestream propagandists at the “All The News That’s Fit to Fake” NYT. However, like certain other body parts, the brain of a lunatic-left socialist is extraordinarily tiny, so there wasn’t very much for this extremist disease to destroy. (NB: the lunatic-left affliction to “recklessly spend other people’s money” is NOT controlled by the brain, but is one of their more disgusting bodily functions. That’s why crazy pelosi, who has been brain dead for decades, managed to waste more than $5 TRILLION as the WORST HOUSE SPEAKER IN AMERICAN HISTORY.) The good news for these lamestream propagandists is that they are now mentally on a par with their leader “You Lie!” hussein, whose severely drug-damaged brain was barely able to keep up with their only partially impaired one previously.

If Karma works, the editors, owners and journalists/socialist-propagandists of the NYT will all  be reincarnated as dung beetles — and they’ll feel right at home!

I think I can sum up all the posts by conservatives on this topic:

Boo-hoo-hoo!  We don’t like it when our mountains of lies are exposed.  It isn’t fair!  And Obama is a secret Muslim, why won’t the NYT report that?

You thought wrong…

I must disagree with other conservatives posting here.  I would be very interested in it.  In fact, I have the premise of the first column!  How much longer until the liberal bent of your paper drags you into obscurity and bankruptcy?  I mean, that’s the plan right?  I mean, the saying goes “Stick with what you’re good at” and apparently you suck at that.

Guh, you are exactly right. Vigilante is the only part of that story that holds any truth. If they had really been a truth vigilante Obama et all wouldn’t have been able to get away with 90% of the crap they have pulled in the last 3 years.

When  Samir Khan was killed, a number of news sources reported that the State Department had apologized to his family. Even though he was a known terrorist. However, the “story” of the apology did not run in any of the more liberal news outlets. Is it possible that if you don’t report it, it never happened?

Exactly.  If they don’t cover the story where a Democrat has spewed falsehoods, how can they fact-check it?

What is your evidence Obama lied about his mum’s healthcare issue?

This is a perfect example of WHY a paper like the NYT is full of sh*t.
And why hacks like Brisbane are a living, breathing, walking examples of outright STUPIDITY.

Brinsbane is arguing that there should be “fact check sidebars” in news articles. As an example, he says (quote): “The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

Except a statement like THAT is nothing more than outright political maneuvering to try and split of hairs, to basically cover the butt of their guy (Obama) given the paper’s leftist leanings. However, speaking as a professional writer, it also pisses me off because it’s a complete misleading use of the English language — literally a bastardization of it.

That’s because what Brisbane is talking about are literally TWO SEPARATE THINGS, though he’s tried to blur them conveniently together. It’s one thing to argue that the ACTUAL WORD “apologize” was never used in an Obama speech. Establishing that as a cold, hard fact could easily be done by simply going over his speeches. And I have no problem with that since — in good journalism — a story should accurately report whatever someone said.

HOWEVER…that said…Brisbane is then ridiculously asserting that if a particular WORD isn’t used, then any and all intents PERTAINING TO THAT WORD can’t apply either.

And that’s just absolute horse sh*t.

Look, simple example — a teenager asks Mom and Dad to borrow the car, so he can take a girl from school on a first date. They say “No prob, just be home by 10.”  So the teen goes out…he and the girl really hit it off…they lose track of time…and as a result the teen gets home past his curfew. At which point he finds his parents waiting in the kitchen with angry looks on their faces.

Now, the kid could say “I’m sorry. We just lost track of time.”  The kid could say “I know I disappointed you. I should have done a better job watching the clock.” Heck, the kid could even say “It was all my fault. I’m to blame for what happened. But I promise it won’t happen again.”

The point being that just because he didn’t use the ACTUAL WORD “apologize” when talking to his parents doesn’t mean that he WASN’T ACTUALLY APOLOGIZING to them. Because he clearly was. So for Brisbane to stupidly state (quote): “Any assertion that he has apologized rests on a misleading interpretation of the words” is IN ITSELF a misleading interpretation of words.

Seriously, I realize the Progressive Left wants Obama reelected. And they can see right now…given the mood of the country and the shape of the economy…that the average voter is NOT happy with the way things are going, which means Obama does stand a pretty good chance of losing the next time around.

But liberal MORONS like Brisbane who work in the media need to give America a freaking break. And that’s because the average person really IS smart enough to see through all the smokescreens and crap they’re trying to pull. So here’s a news flash for those the Lib media: we’re not falling for all the tricks you pulled last time around. We’re SMARTER than you and this time we’re also going to OUTVOTE you too!

The New York Times is an oustanding Newspaper. The world isn’t designed to satisfy right wing fantasies. Fair reporting, and concern with truth, justice and facts will always look ‘liberal’ and left wing.  If you say people should be treated equally regardless of their wealth or race; if you are concerned with the misfortune of others; if you base your reporting based on facts, you will come across as liberal. Why? Because it is impossible to stick to the facts and be a right wing ‘conservative’ (which has very little to do with real conservatism).

It was in the book  “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother.”  by Janny Scott. 

“The author had access to Dunham’s letters to her insurance company and reported that her fight was over disability coverage (which is not affected by the new health care law) and not over medical insurance. The White House did not dispute the account.”  USA Today

Why doesn’t the NYT and the rest of MSM see it?  They no longer set the agenda.  We know what’s going on because we now have other sources to learn about the stories they have chosen to ignore and have chosen not to fact-check.

The NYT and MSM follow a ‘self-imposed’ leftist agenda. 

Please see embedded responses:

The New York Times is an oustanding Newspaper.  Blahahahaha  – some would argue – in the past they were once outstanding.  I point to Walter Duranty and say not then, not ever.
The world isn’t designed to satisfy right wing fantasies (no response – too over the top to require a response) Fair reporting, and concern with truth, justice and facts will always look ‘liberal’ and left wing.  (Fair reporting is exactly what will make them a trusted widely read, widely sought source.  They are not fair today.  They are sinking.)

  If you say people should be treated equally regardless of their wealth or race ( Conservatives believe people should be treated equally regardless of their wealth or race.  We do not approve of class envy);
if you are concerned with the misfortune of others (I’m concerned with the misfortune of others.  Many studies show that conservatives give to charity more often that liberals.);
 if you base your reporting based on facts (Yes – please – base your reporting on all  facts – even facts that don’t always support your liberal agenda),
 you will come across as liberal (WRONG – you will come across as factual.).
Why? Because it is impossible to stick to the facts and be a right wing ‘conservative’ (which has very little to do with real conservatism).

I want the facts.  Don’t waste my time with half-truths, lies and omitting stories.
BTW:  Have you seen this latest gallup poll? Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.  If the NYT is a business enterprise, why would you choose to reflect a liberal agenda knowing full well you will be alienating a large portion of the population?  It doesn’t make good business sense.

Of course they should. A journalist should fact check a story and if it’s not true, he should report that. I don’t care who it is, democrat, republican, independent, celebrity, etc.

Um. Sounds to me like the media fact-checked him.

If only the NYT was for TRUTH instead of their own leftist views of the world. It’s a shame they are incapable of seeing both sides. And, their lack for reporting on very serious topics that don’t promote their slanted myopic views. It’s a shame. 

Absolutely NOT true. In other words, fair reporting of justice and facts can only be liberal??? Ask the Russians how the truth won out in the USSR. You are myopic. 

Uhhh, doesn’t this count as fact checking??

“The author had access to Dunham’s letters to her insurance company and reported that her fight was over disability coverage (which is not affected by the new health care law) and not over medical insurance. The White House did not dispute the account.”  USA Today

The NYT’s lack of self awareness used to be annoying.  Over the past four years or so, it has gotten to the point of amazing self parody.

As you pointed out, the fact that he used that “apologize” analogy to make his point is jaw dropping.

The Times who have been the culprits of things like – a 2000 word front page story on a John McCain affair…that never happened, btw.

Or how about a front page Darrell Issa story that had over 13 errors that needed to be corrected?

In fact, this is all one needs to know:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/corrections/index.html

Your average blog tends to be more careful with facts than the Old Grey Lady.

How would they know he’s Muslim if it’s a secret?

Give us an example of a so-called apology.

But the truth did win out in the USSR and it toppled.

Give us an example of the leftist bias you see “all the time”.

Also, there aren’t just two sides to a story. Get out of your left wing-right wing paradigm.

The harsh reality of collectivism won out, not thanks to the NYT’s and Walter Duranty as RW pointed out above.

Duranty, the left wing communist did his best to paint a rosy picture of Russia and decry the “evil” of the American capitalist system.  The ends justified the means, going as far as to deny the death of millions:

“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”

Can you find this information in the New York Times?  That’s the question.

We’re discussing the New York Times.  They did not fact check Obama.

I didn’t say that.  I was responding to john gammer.

SSDeez, do you read the NYT?  You don’t have to be a right winger to know that the Times is liberal.  I’ve never met a liberal that hasn’t acknowledged that.  It’s not a controversial statement to make.

Still waiting for an example.

The New York Times is the best paper if you want news. If you want news to satisfy your imagination and fantasy about the world, you can watch Fox News.

People have no idea what ‘liberal’ means. Russia fell for reason you can’t fathom. It has nothing to do with this discussion whatever.

I wonder how many of you rightwing schmucks have actually picked up a copy of the NYT. Despite the decline of print media in general, nearly a million people pick up a copy of the NYT every day, and the cost has recently gone up to $2.50. It’s without a doubt the best print paper in the country and its online edition is the most widely read in the world, and it’s free unless you make heavy usage and then there’s a modest fee. While one would certainly not want to get all one’s info from the NYT, it is, as they say, the newspaper of record for our country, and it deserves its stellar reputation and has won more Pulitzer Prizes than any other news outlet. And, yet, you idiots attack it as being just a liberal mouthpiece, and you probably prefer getting your objective info from Rupert Murdoch’s media mouthpieces. It’s no wonder why the world thinks American rightwingers to be the most backward fools and tools.   

SSDeez, if I directed you to numerous studies, you would reject them.  If I sent you links, you would call them bised.

I could ask you to remember when the Times refused McCain’s Op Ed after they published Obama’s.  I could point out the people they have on staff are overwhelmingly self described liberals.  I could point you to this:

THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
“Of course it is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html

But no matter what I directed you to, you would reject it.

The best way to prove my point is this link:

http://www.nytimes.com

Google works.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/books/in-a-singular-woman-janny-scott-portrays-obamas-mother.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/magazine/mag-24Obama-t.html?_r=1&ref=jannyscott 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/books/in-a-singular-woman-janny-scott-portrays-obamas-mother.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/magazine/mag-24Obama-t.html?_r=1&ref=jannyscott 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/samir-khan-killed-by-drone-spun-out-of-the-american-middle-class.html

Really?  How did they cover the following:
Fast and Furious?
Solyndra and government bailout money?
Corzine and MF Global?
Obama administration hasn’t passed a budget in 3 years?
Occupy WallStreet – crime and filth?
Warren Buffett’s company fights IRS to avoid paying taxes  – owes $1 billion?
Fannie Mae Bonuses?
on and on …

I want news – all the news  They will not report on things that tarnish the liberal agenda.  You can enjoy your life of unicorns and posies with the NYTimes.

Always the liberal/leftist/elitist snark. 
We are discussing fact checking.  You’ve presented two book reviews – glowing reviews, I might add (did we expect anything less?).  

No where in those articles does it say, the story Barack Obama tells about his mother and her health insurance fights, well not true.

Let’s see every other president raised taxes to pay for a War…Two wars in Bush’s case. Yet, Bush cut taxes. Guess how much Bush’s wars and his budgets cost the US…$5 Trillion Dollars.

*Remember it’s the President who puts forth a budget NOT the Speaker of the House.

One is a book review.  The other is an article BY THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK.

Welcome to the dumbing down of America, where simple lying becomes a “truth vigilante” and must be argued and have an essay written about it. By this standard, Beaver Cleaver would’ve won a Pulitzer.

I think it’s fine if the new yawk times wants to ‘challenge ‘facts” as long as they don’t mind people bashing them with the same baseball bat. After all, the times is a Leftist rag with an ideology to match. They don’t deal in ‘truth.’ They deal in opinion and bias and then try desperately to masquerade it as ‘truth.’ Happily, everyone knows this to be true.

WOW!!!
That’s a LOT of cheap perfume to cover the stink of shit that is the NYT.

The NYT is a conglomeration of left-wing political and social hacks.
Anyone who argues that FACT is an idiot.

NYT is a puppet for the DNC always has been always will be……  They got Obama elected so they want to get him re elected.   And during Abu Ghraib they got soldiers killed for years since they ran it 150 times on the cover to support our enemy and in an effort to get Kerry elected.  It is a rag plain and simple…..

The “com” in “newyorktimes.com” is an abbreviation for “comics”

Do you want to break it to Newt?

“The White House on Wednesday declined to challenge an account in a new book that suggests that President Obama,
in his campaign to overhaul American health care, mischaracterized a
central anecdote about his mother’s deathbed dispute with her insurance
company.. .”  — July 13, 2011, New York Times, Politics section

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/us/politics/14mother.html

See my post earlier in this thread.  The book’s author reportedly was a Times reporter before writing the book. After her report on the health care issue involving Obama’s mother, The Times followed up the Obama story in what appears to me to be a complete and balanced manner, at least once, in a news article in the Politics section. It isn’t hard to find that article, and I put a link to it in my earlier comment. 

So I think the Times has covered this story, and RW was mistaken.

I am choosing my words very carefully here, but I think it is safe to say that there are people from any political viewpoint who are a bit too eager to pile onto any allegation that happens to reinforce their own beliefs. They judge a fact or an allegation not by whether it is true, but by whether they want it to be true.  That happens on the right and the left.  I don’t claim to know RW’s motivation.

To those of you Americans (red state or blue state) who are still capable of having a political discussion that doesn’t involve name-calling and insults, I salute you.

 – Steve Marschke

I think we have gotten off track here a bit.

The original article is about Arthur S. Brisbane asking whether the New York Times should act as fact-checker.

I
responded, “It’s more of the same.  They will fact check the
conservatives and give a pass to President Obama and the Democrats.”  
This was meant to show the NYTimes could have fact-checked Obama on his
statements concerning his mother.

Even after the book came out (in April/May 2011) it took until July for the New York Times to print this softest of articles.  

Read the article:

 Book Challenges Obama on Mother’s Deathbed Fight

By KEVIN SACK  Published: July 13, 2011

The New York Times did not come out and say based on our fact-checking, the following was a lie: “He put it similarly as president in a town-hall-style meeting
in Portsmouth, N.H., in August 2009. “I will never forget my own
mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about
whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment,” Mr. Obama
said.”     

They smoothed over it it many ways, one of which quoting instead, ” Nicholas Papas, the spokesman. “The president has told this story based
on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago.””  

And why did it take the NYT to print an article in July of something that was exposed in April? Too busy scrubbing Sarah Palin’s emails looking for any inconsistency?

“To those of you Americans (red state or blue state) who are still
capable of having a political discussion that doesn’t involve
name-calling and insults, I salute you.”  I  salute you too.