[source]
On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times editorialized about Justice Thomas and his acceptance of gifts while serving as a Supreme Court Justice. The editors couldn’t even get past the first sentence without saying something that isn’t true:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas insists that because he reported the sometimes lavish gifts he has received over the years, he should be off the hook.
No, he hasn’t. He hasn’t said a word about the gifts. As the Times’s own news article on the topic reported:
Thomas, through a court spokeswoman, declined to comment when asked in writing why he deemed it appropriate to accept some of the larger gifts.
Why does the Times feel the need to start with a misstatement of fact right off the bat?
I’m pretty sure Thornburgh would say “myopic zealotry” but no evidence of political bias.