General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew York Times Asks: Should Journalists Challenge False Statements Made by Policymakers They Report
New York Times Asks: Should Journalists Challenge False Statements Made by Policymakers They Report On?
Arthur Brisbane, Public Editor of the New York Times, has a piece today asking, Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante? The piece is generating some spirited discussion, so I thought Id weigh in with my own answer to the question.
As Brisbane sees it, the underlying issue is whether journalists more specifically, beat reporters - should challenge facts that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.
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?
If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less: The president has never used the word apologize in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the presidents words.
This comes up quite often, in large part because major media outlets have been embraced forced neutrality its a newspaper reporters job to tell the public what both sides are saying. If you want to know which side has the facts on their side, go somewhere else. (The Washington Posts Paul Kane is one of the more enthusiastic advocates of this style of journalism.) ......(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/762082/new_york_times_asks%3A_should_journalists_challenge_false_statements_made_by_policymakers_they_report_on/
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)nt
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Unreal.
ladywnch
(2,672 posts)could and should be replaced by technologies that can do the job better.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Haven't seen it displayed as long as I can remember. If anything, there is less uncovering of lies today than decades ago, when there were actually two parties and a real Liberal wing of the Democratic Party to provide quotes.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Translation of the question: Should we just be stenographers, or should, in reporting what a news subject says, we additionally point out facts, when these run contrary to the statement quoted.
Why should columnists have to point out facts? They should be spending their time crafting opinion pieces on subjects of interest to readers within their expertise. They are not fact checkers. And the Times does hire fact checkers.
To be fair, on many occasions, Times reporters do point out facts that contradict a subject's statement.
Richardo
(38,391 posts)Jesus.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the part where he suggests what a reporter could say when calling out Romney's lie, i.e.: The president has never used the word apologize in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the presidents words.
It's in line with Brisbane's phrasing of the question at hand: Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
Since when is it vigilantism for reporters to help the public sort through truth vs. lies? There is still plenty of gray area to be navigated; surely it is helpful for the public to know when a statement made by a public figure is contradicted by known facts.
In the above case, I'd have the reporter to ask Romney for specific examples where the President apologized for the U.S. Then when he comes up with one, point out that it does not say what Romney claims. Or if he does not come up with one, go on to say something like "we have found no speech in which President Obama apologizes for the US" and leave it at that.
In other words, I don't need the reporter to bloviate either. All I ask, is that they have a familiarity with the facts around the area they are concerned with; and when a statement from an interviewee does not comport with the facts, that they point this out.