In its review of my next-door office neighbor, friend, and patron Barry Eichengreen's superb Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, The Great Recession, and the Uses-and Misuses-of History, the London Economist writes things like:
Mr Eichengreen at times stretches the facts to fit his narrative. He accuses the Fed of keeping monetary policy too tight because of a preoccupation with inflation; but it enacted several rounds of unconventional stimulus...
This simply will not do.
Barry has substantial discussions of when, how, and why he thinks that the Federal Reserve kept monetary policy too tight because of a preoccupation with inflation.
You can disagree with the analytical framework he uses to make his assessment that monetary policy was "too tight"--smart people like Jeremy Stein do.
But you cannot say that Barry's documented and well-supported analytical judgment "stretches" the facts, without any further elaboratio--unless, of course, you want to get a reputation for being in the fact-stretching business yourself.
The London Economist is right now in a race to establish itself as a trusted information intermediary with entities like the Financial Times, Business Insider, and http://vox.com. Right now it appears to me at least to be well behind the leaders. Things like this do not help it...