This morning, Reuters ran a
hit piece on Marco Rubio, trying to pile up various reasons why he shouldn’t be the Republican vice presidential nominee. But apparently the Reuters reporters failed to fact check the Democratic talking points they were given before running them as a news story: So far, Reuters has published five separate corrections to the story (all noted at the bottom), in each case dealing with a factual assertion in the original that was blatantly false. An hour ago, there had only been three corrections published, so we should probably stay tuned for yet more.
Everybody sing along:
"Roto Reuters...that's the name...you just flush the real truth...down the drain. Roto Reuters.:"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. He "failed to pay down the principal" of his mortgage and "did not pay down the balance" of his student loan. So basically he complied with the contractual payment terms, rather than pre-paying? How is that paragraph still in the story at all?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe basic point is he didn't pay his debts. He's a hypocrite. He lectures about government spending and debt yet carries around a large amount of debt and then used a GOP credit card for personal use -- which he paid back only AFTER he was caught.
The corrections are minor. The basic points stand though.
And the idea of Rubio attracting Hispanic voters is a fantasy. Yes, he might help in Florida. Maybe. But the Cuban-American vote is vastly different than the non-Cuban vote because of the different experience in regards to immigration.
Sorry. But Rubio is a hypocrite and a fraud.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously, what color is the sky in your world? Reuters has had to make so many corrections--five they've acknowledged, though others have the factual error/falsehood count pegged at eight--that the original article's thesis no longer exists! Has your politically driven, partisan hatred completely blinded you to the facts printed on your computer's screen?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe article as corrected is still pretty strong, in terms of its negative information.
If Cornerites were concerned about journalistic accuracy, there would be daily posts correcting Fox and the WSJ.
The article in question posted corrections, unlike Fox and the WSJ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOther than that, the story was accurate…
(Sorry, Taranto)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse