The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote that Sen. John McCain's "differences with the White House are well known," and added: "He did not vote for the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a sore point with groups like the conservative Club for Growth." However, Stolberg did not note that after opposing the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, McCain now supports making the tax cuts permanent -- a position Bush noted during his Sunday interview.
A New York Times article about Sen. John McCain's speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference asserted that on the issue of immigration, McCain "has not changed his basic position." Similarly, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson stated, "McCain hasn't changed his position on providing illegal aliens with a pathway to citizenship, but he now has a new approach: secure the border first." In fact, McCain's current support for securing the border first represents a reversal of his prior position.
Numerous print publications -- including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times -- continued a longstanding practice of referring to Sen. John McCain as a "maverick" in their coverage of the February 5 presidential primaries and caucuses.
The New York Times' Mark Leibovich wrote that "supporters" of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign "were accused of racially tinged attacks and innuendo against" Sen. Barack Obama. But Leibovich neither identified the "racially tinged attacks and innuendo" that he said Bill Clinton and other supporters have been accused of making nor noted that her campaign has vigorously disputed such accusations.
A New York Times article stated that Bill Clinton "thrust himself into his wife's campaign ... with remarks that various Democratic officials have labeled racial and divisive." But the article didn't identify any remarks that were purportedly "racial," nor did it note that Hillary Clinton's campaign has vigorously disputed the accusation that Bill Clinton made "racial" comments.
In an article about former President Bill Clinton's September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, The New York Times suggested that Giustra was able to secure agreements giving his company the right to buy into Kazakh mining projects because of his connection to Clinton. The Times did not note that Giustra was reportedly involved in Kazakh mining deals more than a decade ago.
The New York Times' Leslie Wayne asserted that Sen. Barack Obama is "benefiting from millions of dollars being spent outside campaign finance rules," suggesting that the four groups she identified in the article are not subject to campaign finance regulations or, worse, are violating them. But three of the groups she named are political action committees (PACS) or have PACS and thus are subject to campaign finance restrictions, and she offered no evidence that they are not in compliance with those restrictions.
In a January 30 New York Times news analysis of Sen. John McCain's victory over Mitt Romney in the Florida primary, Adam Nagourney wrote that while McCain "presents himself as a man of principle ... who is willing to suffer the political consequences for breaking with party orthodoxy," Romney "is in line with all the proper positions for a Republican conservative, but he underwent a series of transformations to get there, leaving him vulnerable to the charges of inconsistency Mr. McCain has hurled." Yet on immigration and abortion, McCain too has displayed "evolution" and "inconsistency," a fact nowhere to be found in the Times report.
The New York Times' Carl Hulse asserted that, while Democrats were "pleased" that President Bush was giving his final State of the Union speech, "they were not as elated about ... its emphasis on reducing the pet projects known as earmarks beloved by many in Congress." Yet Hulse left out a different reason for congressional criticism of Bush's earmark threat -- that, when the Republicans controlled Congress, Bush approved all of their earmark-laden appropriations bills. Nor did Hulse report that the Democrats approved fewer earmarks last year than the Republicans did in 2006 when they controlled Congress.
A New York Times article falsely suggested that the legal authority "permitting intelligence officials to eavesdrop on the communications of terrorism suspects" would expire on February 1 unless Congress renews it. In fact, neither the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- the principal law "permitting intelligence officials to eavesdrop on the communications of terrorism suspects" -- nor the authority to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists will "expire" on February 1; rather, what are set to expire are the August 2007 revisions to FISA made through the Protect America Act.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich mischaracterized Tim Russert's question to Sen. Hillary Clinton during the October 30 Democratic presidential debate regarding a 2002 letter written by former President Bill Clinton to the National Archives and Records Administration. Rich wrote that "Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be 'considered for withholding' until 2012," adding, "When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: 'Well, that's not my decision to make.' " In fact, Russert falsely claimed that Bill Clinton's letter asked that the communications "not be made available to the public until 2012."
In a blog post, New York Times reporter Patrick Healy wrote that as Spanish-speaking voters chanted "Si se puede" at a rally in California, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "bellowed into her microphone, 'Si se pueda is right!' " Healy added, "Several colleagues who speak better Spanish than I do say that 'pueda' (as opposed to 'puede') has meaning in other contexts, but it does not really make sense in this one." In fact, Clinton used the correct verb but the wrong tense.