Why The New York Times Is Hopeless

Because it publishes this sort of articles:

Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign debates, The Times has employed a separate fact-check sidebar to assess the validity of the candidates’ statements. Do you like this feature, or would you rather it be incorporated into regular reporting?

If you need to ask, then you are so not in the right profession. Just imagine a doctor sending out a memo to her patients asking, “Would you prefer that treating illness be incorporated into my regular practice?” Or a teacher doing a survey among students, “Do you want me to make sure that I impart the correct information to you in class? Should I be a truth vigilante and double-check the date of Don Quijote‘s publication before discussing it with you? Are you sure? Are you completely sure?”

And here is the best part of the article:

Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?

Yes, this is the quality of writing The NYTimes regales us with. If it’s a fact, why do you need to correct it at all? What you correct are mistakes, not facts. Or is there some new definition of the word “fact” that I’m not aware of?

And this is the content they want to charge us to read online.