A lame critique of the New York Times.

Each new day presents a fresh opportunity to bash the Times.

THE ECONOMIST: "Innumeracy, thy name is New York Times reporter."

Apparently, reports of a rise in infant mortality in the South are not all the NYT claims.

A casual reader or fan of Putz reads this post and thinks, "Heh -- good for Insty! He's caught that liberal elitist media in another lie to bash the Red States again."

Problem is, the Economist post doesn't disprove anything -- it just raises questions.

65 more dead babies is 65 too many. But it's a small enough number that one needs to consider things like measurement error--did Mississippi change its criteria for infant mortality?

Erm, shouldn't the Economist know the answer to that question before calling the Times innumerate?

Look. Fact-checking the media is very useful and important, and a big part of what blogs should do. But the problem with Putz is that he links to every shallow critique like this of the Times, while linking to completely unreliable and discredited sources like Malkin, Pajamas, Powerline and Surber on a daily basis.