First, though, I must lament that “truth vigilante” generated way more heat than light. A large majority of respondents weighed in with, yes, you moron, The Times should check facts and print the truth.
That was not the question I was trying to ask. My inquiry related to whether The Times, in the text of news columns, should more aggressively rebut “facts” that are offered by newsmakers when those “facts” are in question. I consider this a difficult question, not an obvious one.
I think the answer to the second question Art asks is the same as the first: “Yes, you moron. Don’t have a separate fact-checking column about it, just add a sentence pointing out that what was said was false.”
He’s getting killed in the comments again. On the last one, he shut them off in the mid-two hundreds. I’ll bet this one doesn’t hit the century mark.
Update: A bonus for this post is Times’ Editor Jill Abramson’s note saying, “Of course, some facts are legitimately in dispute”. Does the sun rise in the East? Some say yes, others say no in a dispute raging in Washington today.