Did you see stories like this about the people (including many law professors) who claimed that George W. Bush was not legitimately elected in 2000, or about the people (including a prominent philosophy professor) who claimed that the attacks of 9-11 were an inside job? Of course you didn't. The aim of the New York Times is not to report the news, but to shape it. This is known as propaganda.
Addendum: Don't you love it when the reporter says, "Their theory, of course, is false." The reporter is misusing the term "of course," which is short for "as a matter of course." What the reporter means is that the theory is obviously false. Is it? Are there no grounds for doubt? Wouldn't a responsible journalist try to get to the bottom of things, as far as where President Obama was born and why he refuses to release various records? Instead, we get reporters serving as apologists for the president.
Addendum 2: Let me follow up on "of course," which should never be used to mean "obviously." Here are three correct uses:
- I gave him the correct change, of course.
- Krugman, of course, is wrong.
- Of course, Obama used a teleprompter.
You can tell that these are correct because, in each case, you can replace "of course" with the longer expression, "as a matter of course."
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 