so republicans trumpt something that is full of errors of fact?

you don't say

Have the wingnuts started yelling about how the White House "strong-armed" Reuters into pulling the story?

TPM noted that the author of the article was formerly an editor of WSJOnline. Is this an honest mistake, or a pattern? Worth looking into . . .

Terri Cullen is the author of the error-filled, rightwing meme-laden article.

She joined Reuters as their "wealth management editor" at the beginning of January. She is "one of the founding members of The Wall Street Journal Online."

Color me (not) surprised.

Click through the link and read what Reuters has in mind. Journalism is for all intents and purposes as dead as a doornail.

I always used to think of Reuters as a decent operation. When I saw this post, I wondered what happened. Tx to karen marie for giving us clues (no offense Steve but that's the sort of thing that would have been good note at bottom.) So now I say "it figures" but I still don't know if something bad happened to their management/ownership etc. (More specific than just "corporate" media, yeah we know that ...)

OK, how long before the Republicans turn this into an opportunity to accuse the administration of trying to abrogate First Amendment freedoms?

Too late and doesn't matter. Now the story is the WH strong-arming Reuters to pull the story. Which was the point all along, I think it's safe to assume.

Who's in charge of un-rung bells at Reuters?

Someone needs to demand a written retraction from Reuters. They need to be officially on record acknowledging their mistake.

The question is -- does Terry Cullen have a history of this? Or was it just one big bone-headed mistake? Anyone know?

That's what happens when a "reporter" just tweaks a few words in a GOP press release and then submits it as a news article.

I just submitted a comment to Reuters online. Doubt it will change their editorial policies, but at least I have voiced my opinion to them.

gee, I don't remember bush ever having this problem with so-called news agencies spreading lies about their policies, proposals, and what they had accomplished. I do however remember a ton of uncritical, unquestioning stenography.

"It also used right-wing phrasing ..." Likewise I heard Brian Williams, of NBC, introducing the State of the Union address and stating something to the effect, "the president is dealing with 10% unemployment and everybody knows it is much higher than that." Of course he offered no proof of his assertion. I wondered then when Brian Williams became a pundit instead of a news anchor.

Actually lamonte Williams is right on that count, it is much higher than 10%. However Obama is just following the same dishonest re-jigged numbers that Bush did, Clinton did, and Bush before, etc since they've re-jigged the U-3 number criteria to remove things like discouraged workers, long term unemployed, etc over time. It's a bi-partisan fix. The more accurate one is still U-6.

It bears repeating:
karen marie writes:
Terri Cullen is the author of the error-filled, rightwing meme-laden article.

She joined Reuters as their "wealth management editor" at the beginning of January. She is "one of the founding members of The Wall Street Journal Online."

Snippets from
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/blog/authors/terri_cullen_economy_and_marke/

"With any luck, we'll look back on 2009 as the start of a recovery from one of the worst economic disasters since the Great Depression. No doubt, the billions the federal government has spent over the last year has helped. "


"Turns out the U.S. government's bank bailout came with a surprising silver lining for taxpayers: The Treasury earned a record $46.1 billion in 2009 on interest from government bonds, foreign-currency exchanges, "toxic" mortgage bonds, and other investments.


In its rush to rescue the financial system from near-implosion, the Treasury made sizable loans, and purchased billions in bonds and the mortgage-backed securities that were the catalyst for the crisis. The Federal Reserve said Tuesday the billions the government earned last year was a record, the largest return since 2007. (The U.S. actually earned a total of $52.1 billion, but the Fed kept some for its own expenses and paid out dividends to member banks with the rest.)"

Given the borderline praise above, it seems Cullen is not a rabid conservative puppet. So this may have been an honest, if sloppy, mistake.