#truthvigilante: NYT public editor asks whether reporters should point out newsmakers' lies

[Newsjock]

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/?scp=3&sq=arthur%20brisbane&st=cse

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.

One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.

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.

As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?

http://jimromenesko.com/2012/01/12/nyt-public-editors-inquiry

On Thursday morning, New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane asked whether and when Times reporters should challenge “facts” asserted by newsmakers. Reaction to his post came fast.

“(Brisbane's post) should be put on the wall of a museum to explain contemporary US journalism.”

[baldguy]

1. The New York Times - the nation's paper of record - has forgotten what journalism is.

I weep for America.

[Brickbat]

2. Arthur Brisbane is a rotten "public editor."

There's a way to be an ombudsman, and Arthur Brisbane doesn't get it.

[Ship of Fools]

3. Unbelievable.

[grasswire]

4. ask Judith Miller n/t

[wryter2000]

5. Love this reply

..I think you should continue to just uncritically publish whatever anyone in a position of power says, and never comment on its accuracy.The idea that there's any kind of objective "truth" in the world is just an illusion, so why bother? I prefer that NYT "journalists" just parrot the pleasing untruths that our public figures dole out, while laughing behind your hand at us rubes for buying it.

On the NYT blog

[gratuitous]

7. That sums it up rather well

And the laughing behind the hand certainly isn't confined to the New York Times. Then, when the Truth finally straggles forward and inconveniently plops itself down in the middle of the public consciousness, the stalwarts of the Fourth Estate can then tut-tut their disapproval at the politicians and public figures who put forth those pleasing untruths while completely eliding their own craven complicity in promulgating the lies. After all, you don't get to go to the swellest cocktail parties if you keep pointing out that the host is a lying sack of shit.

[Spazito]

6. Some things never change...

I found this rather profound and still relevant quote from Finley Peter Dunne, (a humorist and writer) written prior to his death in 1936:

"Th newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward".

All is still true with the exception of "comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable", that part has been reversed by the modern journalist to become 'afflicts the afflicted, comforts the comfortable'.

Dunne also coined the phrase "politics ain't beanbags". That, too, is still very relevant, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finley_Peter_Dunne

[JDPriestly]

8. Yes. That's what journalists are supposed to do -- tell the truth.

Journalists are not just supposed to repeat the biased statements of others. They are supposed to ferret out the truth and print it.

A journalist who does not expose the lies of the powerful is a liar himself.