[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/09/10/the-end-of-facts.aspx[/URL]
[QUOTE] When a politician says something, the assumption is that it adheres, however loosely or distantly or illogically, to the truth. This week has shown that assumption to be hopelessly naive. First, the McCain campaign repeated the falsehood that Sarah Palin said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the “Bridge to Nowhere.” (Really, she said, "Thanks" [I]and[/I] "No thanks.") Then they suggested Obama wanted to teach kindergartners about sex—he did no such thing. Then they accused him of calling Sarah Palin a “pig with lipstick”—a stretch, even according to Mike Huckabee. And now they suggest—citing [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/"]FactCheck.org[/URL], no less—that Obama propagated “misleading” rumors about Palin. The FactCheck folks are displeased. Today they [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html"]posted an article[/URL] saying the McCain ad “distorts our finding.” They had called the Palin rumors “misleading,” but in no way suggested the rumors were coming from Obama. The Annenberg Center’s director, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, is mulling whether or not to take legal action, since the McCain ad technically violates their [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/copyright/"]copyright policy[/URL]. Jamieson tells me a statement may be forthcoming: “Earlier ads have done the same thing,” she writes. “I am trying to make sure we have identified all of them before issuing a statement.” ......cont'd [/QUOTE]
it gets better after the jump.