Something that came to THC's attention this morning:
Via Hot Air THC learned the New York Times published a correction to a September 11 article comparing the approaches to war in the Middle East employed by George W Bush and Barack Obama which contained the assertion "Unlike Mr. Bush in the Iraq war, Mr. Obama has sought to surround the United States with partners." Since Mr Bush had 29 partners in the Iraq War compared to the five for our new adventure (three of whom also partnered with Mr Bush) this did seem a tad in error and today the Times finally corrected it.
Apart from his mild surprise that the Times deigned to print the correction since it is, in the words of Andy Dufresne in the Shawshank Redemption, "deliberately obtuse" and reluctant about such corrections if they impair the party line what this most reflects is the inbred nature of the Times and much other media reporting. THC is sure that the reporter has heard endlessly about Bush's "unilateralism" so didn't even think about it when he wrote the sentence and none of the paper's legions of editors also thought it unusual. They live in a world where they repeat nonsense to each other so much that they just come to accept it as the truth.
As if to prove the point, the Times is not the only media representative making the same mistake. The same Hot Air article also points out this tweet from reporter Josh Lederman, who covers the White House for the Associated Press, just last night.
As was pointed out the distinguishing factor was not that Obama had Arab allies since Bush did also, it was the Bush, not Obama, went to Congress to seek authorization.
The problem with the Times compared to the ignorant tweet of Josh Lederman is that it is the paper of record and relied upon by educators and researchers. The September 11 article will always be there for the researchers while the correction is hard to find.