does the bandwagon smell as bad as B O's campaign plane?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disappointing to see that the Obama folks have continued pushing that story even after it was clarified. I certainly understand someone misremembering what happened to a sick parent but when a biographer shows that the memory is inaccurate? Time to stop promoting the wrong story.

But I agree with the pp - WaPo is not off the Obama bandwagon. No way the Factchecker determines editorial policy (and vice versa). OP, you're either a troll or have difficulty with logic.

sensational thread title convinced you to read the article.

So? Doesn't make you less a troll or logic-challenged.

are you angry? or just using name calling bc you went to read the article and werent happy with the result you found?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disappointing to see that the Obama folks have continued pushing that story even after it was clarified. I certainly understand someone misremembering what happened to a sick parent but when a biographer shows that the memory is inaccurate? Time to stop promoting the wrong story.

But I agree with the pp - WaPo is not off the Obama bandwagon. No way the Factchecker determines editorial policy (and vice versa). OP, you're either a troll or have difficulty with logic.

sensational thread title convinced you to read the article.

So? Doesn't make you less a troll or logic-challenged.

Anonymous wrote:Disappointing to see that the Obama folks have continued pushing that story even after it was clarified. I certainly understand someone misremembering what happened to a sick parent but when a biographer shows that the memory is inaccurate? Time to stop promoting the wrong story.

But I agree with the pp - WaPo is not off the Obama bandwagon. No way the Factchecker determines editorial policy (and vice versa). OP, you're either a troll or have difficulty with logic.

sensational thread title convinced you to read the article.

I looked up Kessler's Pinocchio scale. One Pinocchio means "Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods." Three mean "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." The article says "they arranged the quotes and images to leave a misleading impression of what really happened." That seems to fit the one Pinocchio scenario, yet Kessler gave the film three. So perhaps OP is right, at least about Kessler.

I'd give Kessler one or two Pinocchios for the rating.

Disappointing to see that the Obama folks have continued pushing that story even after it was clarified. I certainly understand someone misremembering what happened to a sick parent but when a biographer shows that the memory is inaccurate? Time to stop promoting the wrong story.

But I agree with the pp - WaPo is not off the Obama bandwagon. No way the Factchecker determines editorial policy (and vice versa). OP, you're either a troll or have difficulty with logic.

Washington Post is finally waking up, it's the economy, stupid.

I thought we weren't supposed to trust that liberal rag. Which is it?

Believe it or not, it's possible to challenge and even disagree with statements made by the president/campaign without hopping off the bandwagon. I, for one, don't expect to agree with anyone 100% of the time, nor do I expect anyone to never make mistakes.

I appreciate Fact Checker and any independent media that corrects these types of statements.

Fact Checker has been routinely critical of the Obama administration (and has had praise when it has been worthy as well).

Try again when it's the editorial page.

Exposing spin and a faux sob story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-road-weve-traveled-a-misleading-account-of-obamas-mother-and-her-insurance-dispute/2012/03/18/gIQAdDd4KS_blog.html