Speaking of would-be quotes of the day, I offer this:

So much, in other words, for the old man’s claim, through the symbol of his otherwise useless necktie, of membership in a civilized community, where civility and forbearance govern our relations with one another and family bonds matter. And so much for his social security in the literal sense, if the state can’t even secure him from invasion and violation in public and in broad daylight. It’s the ultimate satire: the state that promises you the security of an old-age pension can’t even provide you the security to keep it—the primary purpose of a state. It’s almost as bad as today’s Britain, where the welfare state provides for your welfare not by stopping omnipresent thugs from beating you senseless but by sewing you up afterward for free.

Myron Magnet(Link), describing a crime scene from Saul Bellow's Mr. Sammler's Planet.

Thanks for that great Magnet link.You had a stupid,nihilistic ,"intellectual" elite who were always finding excuses for why crime here in NY couldn't be stopped.Magnet (Sammler) describes exactly how shitty it was to live here then. This place certainly is a lot safer, and civil, than most European capitals now. All it takes is leadership. Can you find some?

I think Michael's comment is broadly right. Newspapers and other businesses which do communications of any kind are anxious to avoid their public speech causing trouble. They are seldom concerned whether what they print is strictly true - or fully supported by the available evidence, which as far as I am concerned is as good.

This explains why British newspapers employ lawyers to check for libel, whereas US ones employ extremely literal-minded young people (who either actually know nothing or are good at pretending to do so), to check anything that anyone might rely on being true in their everyday life.

If I say (which is untrue as far as I know) that Gordon Brown spreads strawberry jam on his shoes every morning, my UK editor will ask me if I can prove he does so, in case Mr Brown should sue, and might refer the column to be legalled.

The US fact-checker will want to know it is true, or (and possibly and), to have an expert opinion on whether one could come to harm from strawberry jam getting into ones socks in such cases, in case someone else should imitate the purported Prime Ministerial example and sue us for the tort of leading them to unusual laundry or podiatrists bills, and the mental trauma of being considered a nutter. They would likely demand the balance of my sentence was changed by inserting "room-temperature" before "strawberry jam".

In these times I'd half expect you to have to appear before the UK Lunar Rights Commission for that comment Michael.

If newspapers employ "fact checkers" why was, for example, Mr O'Hagan (of the Daily Telegraph) allowed to get away with writing a long "explination" about why the American government had not sent money to New Orleans after Katrina (racism etc) when, in fact, the American government sent tens of billions of Dollars (much of which vanished in fraud in New Orleans).

Every time I read a newspaper I can find errors of fact in it.

Are the fact checkers simply not very good (in which case why not give me their job?) or are falsehoods allowed as long as they serve a "progressive" agenda - even on supposedly conservative newspaper like the Daily Telegraph.