The press is getting its act together. But why were we so negligent with Bush's factual errors? Brendan Nyhan suggests:

(a) Rudy's bluster invites more critical coverage -- he _seems_ like more of a dissembler than the supposedly straight-talking Bush;
(b) Bush's statistics were carefully parsed to be half-true, making them harder to debunk within the framework of supposedly "objective" journalism (this is the argument we make in ATPS), while Rudy's are often just wrong;
(c) Reporters are becoming more skeptical about the use of statistics of the Bush administration;
(d) The political environment is pushing reporters toward more critical coverage of Republicans;
(e) All of the above.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.