New Yorker messes up Jeffrey Toobin correction

New Yorker first radically misrepresents the issue at stake in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case. When publicly corrected, they make a correction, and then misspells and mis-names the Solicitor General of the U.S. And they quoted Toobin's mischaracterization of what the religious freedom law was.

Althouse / March 29, 2014... Jeffrey Toobin, the legal correspondent, radically misrepresents the issue at stake in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case. Ann Althouse (commentator, lawyer), takes apart his mistake here.

Then, when issuing a correction in response to Althouse, the New Yorker misspells and mis-names the Solicitor General of the U.S. It was all on transcript. A fact checker consulting the transcript would easily have revealed the error.

The more egregious one was the way in which Toobin mischaracterized what the religious freedom law was all about; its not in dispute; Toobin just got it wrong.

New Yorker   Fake Facts   📚 References The error: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-new-yorkers-lame-effort-at-un.html The error in the correction: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/03/oh-new-yorker-how-far-you-have-fallen.html New Yorker The New Yorker was once a renowned for their fact checking and quality. Then David Remnick took over as Editor and they became the cheap partisan low-quality mock-worthy rag that they are today. This details just a small portion of that. Fake Facts There's "facts" that people believe, but aren't. Worse are things that the Fact Checkers on the left have verified for people as true, that aren't true, or are completely biased or misleading. Most are sincerely mislead. The question is when confronted with facts do they argue to death using an appeal to authority fallacy ("but CNN says it's true"), or are they open-minded free thinkers that look at the new information and weigh it against the prior evidence? It's not wether they agree with me or not that changes who they are. (They might have valid reasons for still not agreeing). But it's their approach to new information that makes the difference between a conscious (self-aware) human, or a herd following collectivist.