Dustin Siggins

Contributor


Dustin Siggins is the D.C. correspondent for LifeSiteNews.

Latest from Dustin Siggins

Last week, 17-year old Sara Mujica of Connecticut found out she contracted the Zika virus that has been raging across South and Central America. The decision by Sara and her Honduran fiancé to keep their child despite the link between the Zika virus and an unborn child's potential contraction of the disability microcephaly has led to widespread media coverage.

Two publications that landed personal interviews with Sara are People and The Associated Press, with the AP article being republished by leading outlets like The Washington Times and CBS News. Both outlets highlighted the link between maternal contraction of Zika and microcephaly, but they failed to inform readers that the vast majority of children born to women with the virus do not contract the disorder microcephaly.



Over the past few years, fact-checking websites have grown in number and influence. Regrettably, it often appears that ideology, not factual reality, guides much of what these organizations report -- especially when it comes to abortion.

I contacted Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler on fetal pain and a new pro-life bill. Kessler put me in touch with his Post colleague Michelle Ye Hee Lee, who said she wanted to examine the issue. What happened next should have been a victory for fetal pain advocates in a mainstream publication -- but, instead, showed that even when presented with the facts, Lee refused to challenge liberal abortion orthodoxy.



Co-authored with Drew Belsky

Shortly before the new year, a number of religious organizations were given protection from the HHS abortion and contraception mandate.  While social conservatives and defenders of the First Amendment cheered, numerous prominent media organizations manipulated basic scientific facts to deny that the mandate - required by federal law - forces people to fund abortion-inducing drugs.

The New York Times has done this as has NBC News.  While Pew Research did not deny that the mandate requires abortion funding, its weaselly assessment of the debate surrounding the mandate was almost as bad.  To wit, Pew stated that many with religious beliefs "oppose abortion and believe that using emergency contraception like the morning-after pill is akin to abortion" (emphasis added).



Normally, NewsBusters does not criticize editorials. However, on ocassion, one comes across one that is simply too full of myths and false statements that an exception has to be made to the rule.

On Friday, The New York Times published an editorial examining sequestration and taxes. The editorial was loaded with inaccuracies, misleading statements, and significant lacks of clarification. Below are nine corrections the editorial staff should make:



On Wednesday, the New York Times published a News Analysis of the President’s State of the Union address entitled “In Age of Spending Cuts, Making a Case for Government.” While the author, Richard Stevenson, makes a correct argument for how the President is pushing for larger government despite a shrinking federal budget, he ignores how there is no actual reduction in federal spending.

In particular, there are at least seven misleading or inaccurate statements in the analysis:



In his column yesterday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman made the case for how the pro-union and high-tax policies of the 1950s led to America’s unparalleled economic success from the end of World War II until the mid-1970s. The essay is a classic example of how to use a few correct facts to make a completely illogical argument.

First Krugman says “Above all, the success of the postwar American economy demonstrates that, contrary to today’s conservative orthodoxy, you can have prosperity without demeaning workers and coddling the rich.” The only evidence of “coddling” he cites is lower tax rates on the wealthy in today’s America as compared to higher rates in the 1950s.