USA Today adds note to Navarro op-ed knocking Fauci: Did not meet fact-checking standards

The Hill ^ | 07 16 2020 | Rebecca Klar

[yesthatjallen]

USA Today added a note to an op-ed written by White House trade adviser Peter Navarro published by the newspaper that the Trump administration official’s op-ed criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci didn’t meet the newspaper’s fact-checking standards.

The editorial note written by USA Today editorial page editor Bill Sternberg appeared to be added to the online version of the story Thursday morning.

Sternberg said the editorial board reached out to Navarro, who has been critical of infectious disease expert Fauci, to provide a response published as an “Opposing View” to pair with an editorial the board wrote praising Fauci as a “national treasure.”

“Navarro’s response echoed comments made to other news outlets in recent days. We felt it was newsworthy because it expanded on those comments, put an on-the-record name to the attacks on Fauci, and contradicted White House denials of an anti-Fauci campaign,” Sternberg said in the note added to the story, which was first published Tuesday morning.

“However, several of Navarro’s criticisms of Fauci — on the China travel restrictions, the risk from the coronavirus and falling mortality rates — were misleading or lacked context. As such, Navarro’s op-ed did not meet USA TODAY’s fact-checking standards,” he added.

SNIP

[shelterguy]

“””” Navarro’s op-ed did not meet USA TODAY’s fact-checking standards,” he added. “”””

Funny stuff.

[Vendome]

Wow

Well, Fauxci, Falsi or whatever his name is sure short on facts and a demonstrable liar with duplicitous values.

His conscience has no boundary...

[apillar]

The so called “independent” fact checkers are no different than the party apparatchiks in Communist countries that would be sent out to discredit any party official that went off script. For example on COVID 19 they trot out a Doctor to “fact check” and declare any argument against masks as “false”. Yet there are plenty of doctors that have publicly stated that masks are ineffective. So they are choosing one side of a debate, putting out their hand picked “expert” as the final word on the matter, and declaring their opinion as “fact” and any counter argument as “false”.

[Jane Long]

Did these great, fact checking apparatchiks happen to prove where Navarro was WRONG, about Faux-chi, and where Faux-chi was right?

[kiryandil]

USAToday is colluding wiith the Democrat National Committee to influence the 2020 election.

[kempster]

I think there are just as many people who don’t believe the story about Fauci, where was there editorial note on that story?

[Agatsu77]

So who cares? They do not really check for facts. They look for the “correct” story line. “if it ain’t lib talking points its not a fact”.

[Gay State Conservative]

WHO FACT CHECKS THE FACT CHECKERS?

[jeffc]

USA Today only fact checks others, never themselves, as they are far above that, being the superior elitists they are...

[The_Media_never_lie]

USA fact checking standards....now that is funny!

[Gene Eric]

Just like telecom is doing with CNN and NBC/MSNBC

[babble-on]

If the White House is so dysfunctional that they can’t prevent internecine squabbles from breaking out into the open, then that’s not USA Today’s fault. They shouldn’t apologize for running an unsolicited opinion piece from a very senior White House official. That’s news. No fact checking needed. Mark Meadows has zero control over anything that happens in the White House.

[Robert DeLong]

USA Today, fact-checking standards. Why do these rags claim to have standards or that they accurately fact-check?

[chief lee runamok]

"..criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci didn’t meet the newspaper’s fact-checking standards."

Despite public knowledge confirming mr navarro's column.

[Savage Rider]

“Misleading” and “Lacked Context” are weasel words for “It May Have Been True, But We Don’t Like Your Truth.”

[entropy12]

The entire MSM does not pass fact checking!