[donohoe]

    they can't get that little thing right, it makes 
    me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article.

Given they got a small detail correct like the persons present was Gen. Clapper inclined me to trust the accuracy of the rest of the article.

Same logic?

[shutupalready]

No it's not the same logic.

If a 1000-word article had 50 misspelled words, would you then say that it was a pretty accurate because it was 95% correctly spelled?

No, you'd be horrified. Things like spelling, grammar, and basic facts (the capital of a country, USG policy on gifts, etc.) should be close to 100% correct. That's a lower bound to be taken seriously.

[thomasahle]

Not quite. When reading an article I want nearly all facts to be correct. Otherwise it won't do me any good. Now if I sample two facts and one is true, the other is false, it makes it unlikely that the article is mostly true. Sure, it is also unlikely that nearly every facts is false, but that's still not very comforting.

[lotsofmangos]

If I find that the brakes are working only on one side of a car, I don't consider the fact that some of the brakes are working, to be an indicator that the car is probably in good condition.