The fact check is occasional but surprise that the occasion is Ryan. Next the article calls attention to slight nuances but misses the big picture by claiming Ryan fudged when the article itself is fudging, for instance, the fact that Ryan voted against the final report is not the same as Obama ignoring the whole report. The plant closing is a fact so let the fact stand by itself, the reported is arguing in favor of Obama and not just revealing the facts. Was the place outside the plant and did Obama say that quote or not? Having the reporter defend Obama while attacking Ryan isn’t reporting, it’s an editorial. Yes, Congressmen do ask for federal grants for their States businesses, that is their job. However, his letters were just that and not a promise to vote for something Obama wanted in return for money. I think Obama got Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and others to give their vote to Obamacare in return for money- a nuance, yes, by a crucial one. Atually, the third oaragraph about facts concerning medicare is an opinion of the writer since Ryan says the cuts will benefit future seniors and the writer disagrees. Since it is the future, it is an opinion and the statement”…In addition, Ryan’s own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program’s spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.” Is another editorial opt ed piece claiming to be fact checking but instead defending Obama. Nothing wrong with facts and fact checking but sadly all fact checking is done to promote Obama. Nothing new here since 61 percent of Americans polled see that the media is unabashedly Democrat and biased in favor of the administration.