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

[bmora]

I guess if you don't look for an example, then, technically, Bill was factually correct.

[filo]

It depends on what you think the meaning of the word "recent" is. lol

Kristol doesn't care about the truth. He is just a walking "talking points memo"

[lapdogs]

Did you expect these two clowns to get their facts straight?

Don't you know the ol' Rush Limbaugh "rules for facts", that he taught all his listeners and writers?

When in doubt, just pull whatever "facts" you need "out of your ass" and your listeners or readers won't bother to verify if you are telling the truth or not!!

It was working until the media learned how to use that new, fangled contraption called the InternetS.

[BoydReed]

Isn't that just a bunch of tubes?

[wm1066]

C-Span started this; if you have someone that tells the truth you need someone on to lie so you get balance.( the author who wrote the book on the holocaust and the holocaust denirer). The NYT found out it is lie heavy and they have TWO liers on thier staff.
Fox decided you can't have anyone tell the truth so thats make them consistant. ABC is just making stuff up. And Wolf Blitzer wont let anyone one talk that isn't 100% for Isreal.

[devadasi]

Exactly wm1066. That's why Wolf Blizer is supporting Clinton. Once she said she would obliterate Iran, Wolf began drooling.

[davedave]

oh you people!!!

don't your panties all in a twist. the NYT just needs to print not corrections but a disclaimer.

"if you believe anything these neo-convict, panderbearian, bought and sold,sacks of wheat say; you are on your own, intellectually."

the credibility of the NYT has never been lower, big whoop if it features these chuckleheads. its just trying to make a buck....

they know (or should know) what they are doing to themselves as the "paper of record". rupert murdoch is running the numbers for the takeover as we speak.

d

[Levittown]

I compare both Brooks and Krystal are the medias contribution to the right wing who should have joined the McCain and Lindsay Graham shilling for Georgie when they strolled the " peaceful " shopping streets of Bagdad. Put them all together they spell
"' liars " and " false- a- fiers.

[the964kid]

NYTs needs to stop printing these fools' pieces. Kristol is always wrong. Why bother paying them to write this when their reporting is made-up?? I stopped reading the NYT's after they endorsed Hillary, since at that point I knew they had no integrity as journalists.

[Kim445588]

That was your first tip off? :-)

[MSaldana]

" I stopped reading the NYT's after they endorsed Hillary, since at that point I knew they had no integrity as journalists."

Hey, 964,

They have no journalistic integrity because the endorsed someone you weren't supporting? Nice intellectual viewpoint... for a 6th-grader!

-MS

[MSaldana]

964: Question: Would you prefer the New York Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch, and as right-wing as they come)? After all, the Post endorsed Barack Hussein Obama!

-MS

[tomsemioli]

Most of what is printed in the New York Times is an error!

[jqcitizen]

tomsemioli-

Not sure if most of the print in the New York Times is an error. But, do believe that at least some of it is pure propaganda that is 'Leaked' by, so-called, high government officials and then published as fact.
Kristol and his war-loving friends at Progress for a New American Century probably think it is wonderful that the Israeli Air Force flies the same aircraft as US pilots do. I don't think he would be bragging a whole lot about the fact that borrowed money from foreign nations is supplying those same war planes to Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. Thanks to the Bush-Saudi love affair we get the privilege of enormous debt, outrageous fuel prices and an assurance of an endless battle over oil disguised as a difference about religion.

[nevergiveup]

Which is tragic considering that they are our country's "paper of record"--they are literally writing history. Only there's is horribly flawed.

[kae]

OK - so NY Times readers should read this neocon rag and check back the following day to verify the accuracy of its content? Maybe its just a new marketing strategy?

[stanjz]

Why can't Leiberman, Brooks, and Kristol stick to their main fear about Obama?They think he won't protect Israel. Maybe he can refute that too easily, so they go on this endless tirade of trying to smear him.
I'm a big supporter of Senator Obama, but you know what, maybe it's a good idea to blow up a nuclear production facility rather than blowing up an entire city. Fine, but how about we give a guy with real diplomacy skills a crack at getting them to stand down before we do that?

[TexasDem0]

So the penalty for make-it-up-as-you-go-pseudo-journalism is a correction?
But they get to keep their jobs and astronomical salaries?
Where do I sign up?

[LiberalBuzz]

WOW Me too, I'll write for cheaper than Kristol,make up worse stuff and then let the NYT add corrections. Whatever they are paying Kristol I can do for HALF. How's that for a deal?

Why is this man STILL working for the NYT?

Is it worth it to them to try and attract a few rightwing nutjobs to the paper by putting out columns by men who just make up things?

[BarryChamplain]

The New York Times' editorial policy has always operated from the position that if they present "all sides" of the political spectrum, they will maintain their credibility as an "unbiased" news organization.

SO damned much to unpack there. First of all... SO WHAT, if your paper has a POV? Ever hear of the Wall Street Journal? The NY Post?

Secondly, if they thought that by hiring Safire, Brooks, Krystol, ad nauseam, the right-wing gasbags would back off calling them purveyors of "liberal bias"... you're kidding, right? They're gonna give up a great utilitarian punching bag/whipping boy, just because you're "balanced"??? In. Your. Dreams.

Which brings us to the last fallacy: there has long been a standing belief that there are "liberals" on one side of the "opinion" spectrum, and "conservatives" on the other. Anyone who has read "Blinded By The Right" (I'm thinking the Times honchos just may have) knows that there is a WELL-FUNDED SYSTEM of PROPAGANDA, backed by think tanks and the GOP.

And liberal people with actual "opinions" are not even armed with the clout to get as many forums as these agent provocateurs.To call this premeditated, organized marketing of lies and their professional salesmen "opinions" is obscene and just plain clueless. Again, I can't believe the Times is clueless.

[unity08]

Wouldn't that be called appeasement?

[SmokinJobaman]

Pick nits much?

[dadw5boys]

Don't you wish someone was picking the "NIT's" about WMD with Bush?

[SmokinJobaman]

Or they could go back further to when Clinton said basically the same thing when he was in office.

[sixletters]

I think Kristol's stupid face is an error.

[RoseBlue]

I think this is just new standard operation procedure from the NYT. Let these right-wing nuts say or make up anything they want. Print the correction or retraction the next day, so who cares. The lies have already had their intended impact. Great way to run a paper, huh?

[dikky]

Why would anyone pay any attention to what Kristol says, anyway? He's the same person who proclaimed, early in the Iraq mess, that the Sunnis and Shiites got along fine and would never fight one another. He dismissed those who thought otherwise as ignorant.

[mamacat]

Kudos to the NYT for correcting propagandists' messages. Given the currect fiasco in Iraq, in which the MSM failed to fact check to messengers of the right, it is a very welcome change to see the NYT keeping tabs on their paid liars.

[BillyT]

No...I and several others I know have written to NYT to point out his blatant mistake. All NYT has to do is not to do any checking and just let the readers point out the mistakes. LAZY journalism.

[realpolitic]

As conservative columnists lean so heavily on ideology, facts do not matter as much to them. I bet Brooks resents being in the same boat with Kristol. However, the main difference is Brooks does not practice character assassination as freely. While Kristol is easy to caricature, most often I feel Brooks is just very wrong in his conclusions. Brooks leaps to grand conclusions from very narrow evidence. Both have protected Bush.

[MSaldana]

"As conservative columnists lean so heavily on ideology, facts do not matter as much to them."

Hate to burst your bubble, but the same is true for liberal columnists. But you tend not to notice it as much if you're basically in agreement with the columnist's ideology.

-MS