It’s great to see the New York Times at least suggest that Rudy Giuliani’s claim to have been “at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers” is bunk, but the headline (“Giuliani Missteps in Imagery of Sept. 11”) sucks. Note how it reframes the issue in terms of tactics rather than facts.

Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern in which journalists will frame factual disputes in terms of tactics in an effort to remain “objective.” And when real fact-checking does get into major newspapers, weak-kneed editors frequently pull their punches in the headlines. My favorite example is Dana Milbank’s pioneering 2002 takedown of President Bush in the Washington Post, which got the namby-pamby headline “For Bush, Facts Are Malleable.”