A New York Times "fact check" of a Trump campaign commercial faults the ad: "Later, the ad says Mr. Trump is 'developing a vaccine in record time.' While potential vaccines may arrive in record time, they are being developed by private companies, not by Mr. Trump or his administration."
Who will fact check the fact-checkers?
Here is the New York Times's Science section's own "vaccine tracker."
Pfizer: "The Trump administration awarded a $1.9 billion contract in July for 100 million doses to be delivered by December and the option to acquire 500 million more doses."
Moderna: "In January, they began developing a vaccine for the coronavirus and since then the government has bankrolled Moderna's efforts, providing nearly $1 billion in support. In partnership with National Institutes of Health, they found that the vaccine protects monkeys from the coronavirus. ... On Aug. 11, the government awarded the company an additional $1.5 billion in exchange for 100 million doses if the vaccine proves safe and effective."
Johnson and Johnson: "In August, the federal government agreed to pay $1 billion for 100 million doses if the vaccine is approved."
Novovax: "In July the U.S. government awarded $1.6 billion to support the vaccine's clinical trials and manufacturing." A July Times news article on Novovax reported: "The company's effort paid off last week when Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration's effort to hurry coronavirus vaccines to the market, gave Novavax $1.6 billion, the largest award to date."
I guess it's nice, for a change, to see the Times insisting on giving "private companies" rather than the government credit for anything. But if these vaccines fail, or have negative side effects, the Times will almost certainly find a way to blame the Trump administration rather than the private companies.
Anyway, who should Times readers believe about the role of the Trump administration in the vaccine race? The Science section and business reporters who cover the drug companies? Or the politics reporters who write the campaign ad "fact check" feature? Allowing these features to stand uncorrected and in conflict further erodes the newspaper's credibility. It seems to me to be a case where the "fact-check" confuses voters or carries water for the Biden campaign rather than adding useful information.