Right is Wrong: the New York Times Corrects Latest Kristol, Brooks Columns on Obama

In a rare move, the New York Times offered a total of four corrections today, right under its editorials, covering the two latest columns from conservative op-ed columnists William Kristol and David Brooks.

Kristol has been plagued with errors since his column was launched several months ago, keeping internal and external fact-checkers busy. The man is a correction-generating machine. One of my country music friends calls Kristol and his conservative stable mate "Brooks and Dumb," and they are featured in my new book on Iraq and the media.

Several bloggers quickly pounced on Monday when Kristol declared that Barack Obama faced difficulties as indicated by losing the West Virginia primary by 41% -- which Kristol said was unprecedented for a frontrunner in recent memory. In fact, they noted Mitt Romney had trounced John McCain by much more than that in Utah just this year, and McCain had lost a couple of other contests by nearly that margin.

Here are the Times' corrections for Kristol:

In his column on Monday, Bill Kristol said he could not find a recent primary in which the candidate who would go on to win the nomination lost by as big a margin as Barack Obama lost by (41 points) in West Virginia. Mitt Romney won the essentially uncontested Utah primary on Feb. 5 with about 90 percent of the vote.

Also, the California Supreme Court is based in San Francisco, not the state capital, Sacramento.

Along with that, the paper carried two corrections on the latest Brooks opus:

The column by David Brooks on Tuesday said incorrectly that Senator Barack Obama voted last week for the farm bill. Mr. Obama did not cast a vote on the bill; he supported it.

Also, Senator John McCain spoke from Chicago on Monday, not Detroit.

Greg Mitchell's new book, which features more Brooks and Kristol follies, is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq (Union Square Press, $11). It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen.

Comments

[rosal]

I have no idea what is happening to the NYT. I have a subscription, but I am having second thoughts. Why do they hire these so called journalists? Who are they trying to please?

[admchriss]

It seems all the media are trying to be "fair and balanced" by putting right wing liars on their staffs - CNN has Coulter many times and has hired Bush mouthpiece Snow - WSJ which has just devolved into a right wing rag just ran a Lieberman lying article today.

[shamanbart]

I agree that it seems that is what the media is trying to do -- they somehow continue to feel obligated to present both the rational and irrational viewpoints, the truth-based viewpoints and the blatant lies. The constant regurgitation of right-wing talking points is sadly pervasive.

I don't feel any sense of loyalty to a newspaper that has so abandoned its ethical judgment like the NY Times.

The problem is it will get worse if Obama wins -- the media will give him less leeway than they did Bush, who has committed almost every ethical violation possible as President with impunity.

[gnomic]

I wonder how many column inches they are going to reserve for Billy "facts are not my friend" Kristol's corrections?

[CindyM2008]

At this point, I don't question Kristols's judgement and motives.
I question NYT's for their decision to keep him employed.

[GeoLee]

I am beginning to think there may have been malice and mischief on the part of the Times in hiring zKristol inthe first place. Maybe they hired him so they COULD make a fool out of him. I would like to think that anyway (:-)

[cla62]

The worthless times actually trying to correct a mistake. NOOO way, oh it was for the benefit of the left. I get it now!! HaHa, how are paper sales going these days boys. LOL

[Podewumun]

Glory be! The NYT finally hired one intelligent proofreader and gave him or her a red ink pad and a big ole rubber "BULLSH!T" stamp.

There may be hope for the human race after all.

[hoopesaz]

There is. Now, if he'll just read something else in that paper besides Kristol's column and actually start using his stamp, then I would agree with you.

[realtalk]

When you work in the media, and that is where people turn to get their information, the media has a responsibilty to be accurate.
This NYT times columnist is just incompetent, and it is probably purposefully incompetence!

[AbstractImp]

When you create your own reality...
you divorce yourself from reality.

[oldwiseone]

I wrote this one down

[illinoisan]

Apparently, the fact checkers at NYT are unfamiliar with the concept of truthiness.

[hoopesaz]

Nuance.
He didn't vote for it, he supported it.
I don't like her, I love her.
I didn't run, I jogged.
A technical error, yes. An error in substance? No.

[Kim445588]

Huh? He did not vote for it, therefore Kristol should not have written that he did.

[BDunne]

(((clapping hands)))

[nevergiveup]

Substance? You're kidding, right? You Rethugs sure know how to bend the words.

Kristol won't lasy long at the NYT. Evenutally, they'll grow tired of all the corrections to his sloppy writing and inaccuracies.

[SignedSealedDelivered]

duh, it's the point of the article (assuming you read it). he was attacking obama's lack of SUBSTANCE as a senator...yes, it is an error in substance.

[ebanks84]

As much as people believe everything written nowadays, it hurts a candidate when a lie is printed. They have to be more careful..

[lisakaz2]

Why is lying a legitimate pov?

[brainuser]

Wow, Frisco instead of Sacto. Like. hard-hitting journalism, dude! As David McCuulogh might say. NOT.

[KarateKid]

Kristol is suffering from the aftereffects of his drug use in the 1970s.

[ebanks84]

He's suffering from his racialitis, that's what he's suffering from!

[VOTER]

Not enough - FIRE, KRISTOL!

[LawSource]

FIX (fox) News and THE New York Times are NOT INTERESTED in PUTTING FORWARD THE 100% Truth to the American People!

THE PROBLEM WITH PUBLISHING Lies the First Time, is that VERY FEW EVER Read, see or hear The Correction!

[4wehttam]

Exactly, it's like in a court trial case. When a lawyer objects to something a witness or the opposing lawyer has said, and the judge sustains the objection and instructs the jury to "pretend" they didn't hear it.

Come on, of course they will remember it.....their human beings, not robots that can be programmed to forget something.

[Kim445588]

Yep, its why there are still idiots who think Obama is a Muslim.

[belief08]

You're so right, I see someone has been watching court TV. LOL!!!

[dadw5boys]

This all Bull Crapola.

Where was the investigation of WMD'S??????

Where was the 9/11 investigstions?

Kristol has Republicans connections that why he can write his crapola and keep his job.