NYT FACT CHECK » NYT LETTERS » NYT OP-EDS » REALITYCHEX

David Brooks Needs a Fact-Checker

July 17, 2012   ·   1 Comments

Source: NYTX

From: Marie Burns
To: Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times Editorial Pages Editor
Greg Brock, New York Times Corrections Editor

In his New York Times column today, David Brooks writes, “The president is now running an ad showing Mitt Romney tunelessly singing ‘America the Beautiful,’ while the text on screen blasts him for shipping jobs to China, India and Mexico. The accuracy of the ad has been questioned by the various fact-checking outfits.” (You can view the ad here.)

I am aware of three major “fact-checking outfits”: PolitiFact, FactCheck.org and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post.

PolitiFact rated only part of the ad. It assessed that part as true.

Brooks can only pretend PolitiFact “questioned” the ad if by “questioned,” he meant “checked.” But that is not the way most readers would interpret Brooks’ meaning. A reader would surmise that Brooks’ intent was to suggest that independent organizations had deemed the ad “questionable,” or “inaccurate” or “misleading.”

Even if you apply an overly-generous reading and interpret Brooks to mean, “The accuracy of the ad has been checked by the various fact-checking outfits,” his statement is untrue since only one “fact-checking outfit” “checked” the ad, not “various outfits.”

Neither FactCheck.org nor Kessler has reviewed the ad. (On March 2012, Kessler assessed a related remark by Vice President Biden, and gave the Vice President two “Pinocchios,” a rating which means Kessler thinks Mr. Biden was guilty of making “significant omissions and/or exaggerations.” However, the March assessment was specific to the Vice President’s extended remarks and of course does not comment on the accuracy of an ad produced in July. [Only Romney himself has the power to time-travel [see “he retired retroactively”].)

Please ask David Brooks to provide evidence of his assertion. If he can provide none, please print a correction.

And, whatever action you take (or don’t take), I look forward to hearing from you directly on this. Thank you,

Marie Burns
New York Times eXaminer

By marieburns

Readers Comments (1)

1. Mike Wagner says:

   “The “Times” did not answer my letter, it did not pay any attention to me; but it happens that I read the “Times,” and know some of its editors, so I went after it again and again. I will quote from the last of my letters, so that the reader may see how desperately I tried to get something done:

   New York City, June 15, 1914.

   EDITOR, THE NEW YORK TIMES:
   Some time ago I wrote you a letter with regard to charges I had made against the Associated Press. I asked you to consider these charges and lay them before your readers, and give them an opportunity to decide of their truth. Not hearing from you, I wrote a second time, to ask you to do me the courtesy to let me know your intentions in the matter. Still not hearing from you, I assume that it is your intention to treat my communication with contempt. I want to call your attention to the fact that in writing to you I am making a test of the sense of honor of your publication. I am putting you on record, and I shall find means to make your attitude known to the public…”
   – Upton Sinclair, “The Brass Check”, (1920) p.152-3. http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/hj/sinclairtbc.pdf

   5:45 am on July 18, 2012

    Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name

Email Address

Website (optional)

Enter Code *