Some Things Should Be Labeled as False

Fantastic piece by the Public Editor at the NY Times, critiquing factual errors in a recent Op-Ed that suggested that Obama would be hated by the Muslim world because he would be guilty of "apostasy" (completely false, apparently). I especially like this smackdown of the "it's Op-Ed, why does it have to be true?" position:

Shipley, the Op-Ed editor, said he regretted not urging Luttwak to soften his language about possible assassination, given how sensitive the subject is. But he said he did not think the Op-Ed page was under any obligation to present an alternative view, beyond some letters to the editor.

I do not agree. With a subject this charged, readers would have been far better served with more than a single, extreme point of view. When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that.