Reply #61: I'm trying to understand exactly what required correction would be satisfactory here.

[Pholus]

See, the 2nd paragraph of the article makes it clear that only a single liberal organization. MoveOn, was getting the Rahm potty-mouth treatment. Why lie only for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to read only 69 words past the headline (which at the reading speed of a below average college student -- 340 wpm -- takes just 12 seconds)? What was the plan that required that lie that would be apparent so quickly?

Parson me for saying this, but it seems like we are having a Cardinal Richelieu moment here. In this case, Hamsher is guilty of a "lie" only because the absolute most uncharitable, pedantic reading of the headline could be taken as a lie. To do this reading requires a willful ignorance of English and widely accepted conventions for headline writing as well as ignoring the full article behind the headline.

It smacks of desperation. Surely you have a better example?