“the reputation of the US suffered in the rest of the World under the last Republican Administration” – except amongst the left in Europe and mass-murderers in the Middle East?

Despite your clear disdain for them, facts do exist and do matter and the media in both the US and UK are simply appalling in the way they deal with them, with the NYT being one of the worst offenders.

“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

Whether Obama used the precise word ‘apologize’ is irrelevant and trivial. What matters is the substance, addressed in the second sentence but only with the very weak “misleading”.

Krugman got it right and wrote what any decent journalist should report (and be ready to defend in a further article if called on it):

” Mr. Romney’s frequent suggestion that the president has gone around the world “apologizing for America.” (This) is a popular theme on the right — but the so-called Obama apology tour is a complete fabrication, assembled by taking quotes out of context. ”

Now, the Romney campaign would pay attention (and I would start to pay attention the NY Times’ reporting).

But back to Brisbane, it looks like his very notion of “truth” and “objectivity” is itself trivial, formalistic.

And indeed, it seems to me that fact-checking often devolved into this kind of triviality, whether he or she used that precise word or got the date and place for such and such event exactly right, etc. That the kind of fact-checking we can do without.

The real question is whether or not journalists must exercise factually well-informed judgement and publish it. And the answer is “Hell yes !!!” but it’s expansive, painstaking, occasionally risky and, specifically in the frenetic real time of politics, certainly very arduous.

One example: American TV Network News shows a clip of a news conference but tells you what the person said; the BBC shows the same clip and let’s you hear what the person said. It is astonishing how often the version given by the US anchor is rather different to what the person actually said, and is coloured by the personal and editorial angle that Network and anchor seek to convey.

In short, I do think the UK is more factual, and more than that, its facts are more reliable too.

I particularly worry if political reporters start trying to parse and correct economic statements, since it rarely appears that political reporters understand much economics.

Knowing how much the reputation of the US suffered in the rest of the World under the last Republican Administration, I would not at all be surprised to learn that no matter what was said in public, behind the scenes at dinners and coffee meetings Romney did indeed travel the globe “apologizing for America”. The only bit that can realistically be checked is whether or not he travelled much, not what he said.