Glenn Greenwald nails it:
Identifying lies told by powerful political leaders — and describing them as such — is what good journalists do, by definition. It’s the crux of adversarial journalism, of a “watchdog” press. “Objectivity” does not require refraining from pointing out the falsity of government claims. The opposite is true; objectivity requires that a journalist do exactly that: treat factually false statements as false. “Objectivity” is breached not when a journalist calls a lie a “lie,” but when they refuse to do so, when they treat lies told by powerful political officials as though they’re viable, reasonable interpretations of subjective questions. The very idea that a journalist is engaged in “opinion-making” or is “taking sides” by calling a lie a “lie” is ludicrous; the only “side” such a journalist is taking is with facts, with the truth. It’s when a journalist fails to identify a false statement as such that they are “taking sides” — they’re siding with those in power by deceitfully depicting their demonstrably false statements as something other than lies.
Truth doesn’t have a side. It is what it is. And when journalists soft-peddle the truth in trying to present it as the equivalent of a non-truth, they do us all a disservice.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I saw this piece yesterday. Couldn’t agree more. We don’t correct people’s misstatements of fact nearly enough. The words “liar” and “lie” probably set some editors’ hair on edge because they attribute motive. What I usually do is state what the person has said, then the next paragraph begins “actually,…..(statement of real factual situation)”
As in:
“Richmond can’t continue spending like it’s 2007,” Ms. Tea Party spokesperson said.
Actually, the state budget has been cut by several billion dollars since 2007.
Not correcting factual errors in newspapers is a pet peeve of mine. I think we ought to do it in letters to the editor too. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I’m reminded of the under-current of journalists from the national media outlets deriding Michael Hastings and the Rolling Stone for publishing their profile of Gen. Stan McChrystal.
Greenwald is a pretty reliable indicator of the truth of many matters. In this one, he has it partially right.
The media, which might be fairly called the “corporate media” have undergone dramatic economic disruptions of their own. It doesn’t take long to see how the game is played if you want to advance your career: young journos see what stories get play, which are spiked. When your business model depends on winning each quarter hour, it’s no surprise that complicated stories that require research to understand and nuance to tell take a back seat to the Runaway Bride du jour or Lady Gaga’s tatas.
In a larger sense the media merely reflects the change that has occurred within our lifetimes in the public sphere. Since 1980, in almost every aspect of public life, the private has been exalted and the public demeaned. As we have watched, the role of government has changed from that of (an at least nominal) advocate of the rights of the individual to that of a coat holder for corporations. Little surprise that “news reporting,” controlled as it is by a handful of corporations, has a pro-corporate slant.
In an environment like this, the traditional practice of journalism is a quaint relic that is increasingly difficult to afford and not nearly as convenient as manufacturing your own facts or summoning an in-your-pocket pollster to gin up a predictable result.
All of our institutions are corrupt, journalism among them.