Facts? What facts? This is Ithaca.

I wonder how many Pinocchios this article at the fishwrap of record about transient drill rig roughnecks Cornell students engaging in underage drinking got?

This many, ya think?

I give the editor credit—rather than take down the article, he left it there to stink:

Editors' Note: September 28, 2012
An article on Thursday described the effect of social media use on the bar scene in several college towns, including the area around Cornell. After the article was published, questions were raised by the blog IvyGate about the identities of six Cornell students quoted in the article or shown in an accompanying photo.

None of the names provided by those students to a reporter and photographer for The Times — Michelle Guida, Vanessa Gilen, Tracy O’Hara, John Montana, David Lieberman and Ben Johnson — match listings in the Cornell student directory, and The Times has not subsequently been able to contact anyone by those names. The Times should have worked to verify the students’ identities independently before quoting or picturing them for the article.

Via Newsbusters, where it was pointed out that the author of the article at the NYT "...had not considered at the time that the students could be lying."

And I love the dry remark at Instapundit:

Always remember,  these people are trustworthy, unlike those bloggers working in their pajamas.

Down at the Sidetrack Tap

I was looking around for a past David Brooks NYT column and, as always, got sidetracked—ended up reading his column from earlier this week, "The Great Divorce."

It's...well, just read it yourself.

The best part of this particular meandering, though, was coming across a commentary on Brooks' column at a liberal blog:

I regret that I’ve had to be working on something else today, because David Brooks is off the Oblivious Scale today. He has reached a level of cluelessness remarkable even for Brooks...

...Un-freakin’-believable. There hasn’t been this much upper-class-twit obliviousness concentrated in one person since Marie Antoinette.

Actually, I think Chuckles Schumer (thanks for that one, South) ranks right up there with Brooks—but I digress.

And how's this for Brooks-on-a-spit:

It’s like Brooks is some sort of Sisyphean device that has one purpose:  to take any possible social paradigm observation, smash it with a sledgehammer, and reconstruct the bits in order to fit his god-awful worldview of bipartisanship, even if the pieces don’t fit and had nothing to do with the original observation in the first place, and he has to repeat that until the end of time.  There are people that just don’t get it, people that don’t get it on purpose as satire, and then there’s David Brooks (who should be regularly harvested for the rich oil of contempt for anyone who makes less than six figures that he drips with) who somehow manages to make “not getting it” into an exciting new field of scientific endeavor.  I’ve got a fiver that says if Brooks was jammed together with any actual American middle-class salt-of-the-earth family for more than 3 hours, there would be blood all over the carport and a Garden Weasel shoved in a very uncomfortable place upon his person.

In short, libs don't like Brooks because he's a "conservative;" honest-to-God conservatives don't like Brooks because he's not an actual, you know, conservative although he's supposedly the token one at the fishwrap of record.

Face it, David: no one likes you.

Babs embraces the fishwrap of record...

...and the smell isn't attractive.  Via WHCU:

Local state Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton is calling for federal and state investigations into hydraulic fracturing after a series of New York Times articles raised concerns about the industry this week.

The reports show industry insiders questioning whether companies are as well-off as they claim, comparing gas drilling to the housing or dot-com industries right before they crashed.

Lifton says there now needs to be greater oversight of the industry from both the state and federal government.

Really.  Funny, but a piece at Hot Air begs to differ:

...The Gray Lady blew a spectacular bit of smoke with a recent article that suggested shale natural gas production is a shaky investment at best and, at worst, a Ponzi scheme of sorts, destined to devastate those who buy the “lie” that shale plays will not only produce high profits for companies, but will also provide affordable energy for the country.

The piece — “Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush” — appeared in the Sunday New York Times and implied natural gas companies intentionally or even illegally overstate the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves. The article mentioned by name (among others) Aubrey K. McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, the second-largest producer of natural gas in the country. The piece juxtaposed a McClendon quote — “It’s time to get bullish on natural gas” — with supposed “facts” that suggest no reason to be bullish exists.

By Sunday night, McClendon had already responded to the inaccurate and misleading article. In an internal all-staff e-mail, McClendon reminded Chesapeake employees of the facts NYT reporter Ian Urbina conveniently chose to ignore. Yesterday, McClendon published much of the same information to the Chesapeake website...

...McClendon was hardly alone in his reaction to the article. Energy in Depth compiled a list of some 25 responses to it, from experts in government, academia, industry and peer media, all to the same effect: The NYT article misstated the truth about natural gas...

Natural gas just might be the energy solution environmentalists say they want, but actually can’t stand because nothing would put them out of business faster.

Absolutely, positively read the whole thing.

Subscribe to NYT