It's just a question of where you draw the line, isn't it? The Times doesn't print holocaust deniers' statements without a note that such a claim is bullshit,

It's just a question of where you draw the line, isn't it? The Times doesn't print holocaust deniers' statements without a note that such a claim is bullshit, does it? Or, if it does (in which case it would presumably just make sure to have a "mainstream" 3rd party point of view accompany it), how "big" can a lie be in the Times before they'd state the clear objective [yeah, yeah...] truth in their own voice? A claim that George W. Bush is still the President? That the sky isn't blue? Which is not to say that "Obama apologizes for the US" is on the same plane as far as how easy it is for the overwhelming majority to find agreeability on its, err, "truthiness". Therein lies the rub, I suppose.