Isn't this what Journo-School supposedly tells us?

So, the NYT Ombudsman asks

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

[...]

Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.

     Huh....  So you're wondering if the Grey Lady should question whether or not something a "newsmaker" asserts?  As in...  Fact Checking?  There's a debate on this?  Seriously?  I mean if Barack Obama would declare that the sky was red, I'm pretty confident that the NYT reporter that was writing the story would "fact check" that.

Today Barack Obama in a speech in UpperWestern Jalopistan made reference to the fact that the he needed the help from labor unions to make the sky blue again, which President Obama erroneously claimed was the "color of blood", despite the fact that this reporter could plainly see it was actually a deep blue with puffy white clouds.

     I mean, come on...  This just sounds so tone-deaf, it's ridiculous.  Now, to make a brave attempt at mindreading, I suppose we can guess that Mr. Brisbane is arguing that the NYT should simply "report what they are told" by the "newsmakers".  So a newspaper should simply be a deliverer of data from Point A(the newsmaker's mouth/PR) to Point B(my eyeballs)?

     My god, it's called the 21st century!?!  We have 9 quintillion different places we can get "data delivered" on the internet today.  Twitter, Faceboo, Google+, email, blogs, aggregators, AP, Tumblr, etc.  What we need is interpretation, distillation, and yes, FACT CHECKING for gods sakes.  The whole idea is that we (the public) don't have the resources, time, money, knowledge, etc to delve into each and every single sentence and utterance you get from a "newsmaker".  We want to PAY SOMEONE or at least VIEW THE ADS OF SOMEONE who has the ability, time, resources, interest, knowledge, etc to do that for us.  That's the reason we might choose to pay for your paywall!  We're not going to pay for something we get 10000 other places?  We're going to pay for "unique" or "better" content.  The NYT and many other "premium/national" newspapers are able to do that "better" content, and they make money because of it.  

     To hear this guy innocently ask "hey, you know I have this question, this friend of mine...  suppose he went to this place, you know, and he um, well he did this stuff..."  In my opinion it's insulting.  To seriously ask if the readers of the NYT would want the content they're presented with to be fact checked, and overt lies either pointed out or at least questioned is just... I don't even know the word...  Infuriating?  Embarassing?  Face-slappingly obvious?