"Truth Vigilantes"
January 12, 2012 1:04 pm ET by Simon Maloy
Arthur Brisbane, public editor for the New York Times, poses a question today: "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" He asks Times readers -- and this is really quite remarkable -- whether New York Times reporters should fact-check statements from the people they cover:
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.
[...]
This message was typical of mail from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight. They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.
Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven't mentioned here?
Newsmakers already have people to repeat what they say without challenge. They're called CNN.
This is an expression of an irrational, overpowering fear of anything that could be misconstrued as a viewpoint. It has so thoroughly permeated our news establishment that the paper of record is having an existential crisis over whether they should make sure what they present to their readers as news is true.
This, in turn, is a symptom of valuing the appearance of objectivity over accuracy -- itself a pointless endeavor, given that the catcalls of "bias" will continue no matter what steps the Times takes.
Here's a recent example in which a little fact-checking would have served the Times well. On January 10, the Times quoted Mitt Romney on the campaign trail in New Hampshire:
"I've got broad shoulders and I'm happy to describe my experience in the private economy and the fact that if you take all of the businesses that we invested in over our many years, over 100 different businesses and collectively, they net-net added over 100,000 new jobs," Mr. Romney said.
The claim from Romney that he created 100,000 new jobs while with Bain Capital was dissected by the Washington Post's Greg Sargent and the New Republic's Jonathan Cohn and found to be "bogus." The Washington Post's fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, called it "untenable." It's one of those scare-quoted "facts" that the Times should have challenged, but didn't.
As such, Times readers were left unsure whether Romney's claim was true, or perhaps just assumed it was because the Times didn't say otherwise.
The choice between being accurate and being "fair" is a false one. But the drive for forced objectivity and the fear of appearing "biased" have become so ingrained that the presentation of the truth is now cast as an act of vigilantism.
That's it. Stop the world. I'm getting off.
This from their ethics policy. Given the stated "integrity of their news reports" this editorial question is curious.
Should the news... be true?
Jesus of F***ing Christland.
WTF!!
This is truly astounding. From the Public Editor no less!!
That would apparently be making one fact more important that another fact.
I guess this means anything one utters qualifies as being a "fact" in the eyes of the Times.
It's truly embarrassing.
That is, they don't report to him.
The "Public Editor" at the NYT is the equivalent of other papers' ombudsmen.
But you're right; he shouldn't have to ask that question.
In 2004 the Swiftboating of Kerry went through several phases. In the spring (May?) it surfaced and the press didn't give it much traction. Kerry still was in primary campaign funds. Once he accepted the nom in July, he could only spend the Federal presidential campaign funds - which had to last until Nov. W was able to spend his Primary war chest until the late Aug RNC nomination.
The Swiftboaters moved back into attack. The press was working on the horse race. In spite of a major editorial by Chicago writer who had known Kerry, plenty of debunking by other sources including Ted Koppel on Nightline, they persisted. One old hand in the print media pointed out that for most of his journalism career, if anyone had walked in the door with a story as thinly grounded as that one, they would have been sent out the door in minutes.
The weekend before the election, the Baltimore Sun ran a full page special comment by one of the lead Swiftboaters - on the front page of the Opinion section. One side only. No information of any kind on other points, facts, etc.
I have an extremely high level of cynicism here. Every print article that covered a situation I was involved in and knew the facts, including when my name was prominently in the article, had serious factual errors. The one editor I talked to about correcting the piece and adding a larger background story blew me off. Told me my concerns were foolish, America would never succumb to the people whose actions I was concerned about.
That was the spring of '88, when I found out first hand how totally in control of the Alaska GOP, the Religious Mega churches were, and how seriously the national movement was to turn the country into a Christian Nation.
One of the things I have learned about the way humans learn, is how much repetition is involved. The GOP, Madison Ave and teachers all know the average person has to hear something 15 times before they remember it. Which doesn't cover understanding it, believing it, or being able to use it.
So I can only fantasize that the NYT is pulling a Rip Van Winkle revival and the success is ginormous.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
We might have benefited from the NYT spending a little time thinking about what was true and what wasn't back then. Now? Just go away please NYT. The sooner you go under the better off the world will be. A liberal paper in name only is worse than no liberal paper at all.
Romney is doomed if Palin is starting to talking about him. I'd attempt to get a restraining order, but that's just me.
"Do you, as a reader of the NYT, expect the NYT to actually print something on the pages of the paper, or would you prefer clean white sheets of paper?"
"If you subscribe to the NYT, would you expect to actually receive the paper every day, or would you prefer that we send it directly to a recycling facility?"
"Would you still pay for your subscription if the NYT were to replace the paper with an email containing links to the press releases that we currently print unedited?"
What is news if it isn't accurate? Propaganda?
Their approach deifies ratings and revenue above all else. What the NYT are advocating will only embolden these propagandists. The Times needs to resist this PC urge to say "well both sides do it" and point out the liars for who they are.
Based on what I've read, these "public editors" at the Times have been nothing more than public apologists for the paper's desperate attempts to prove that it's not liberally biased by totally giving in to the urge to say both sides do it and pretending that everything is 50/50.
Presenting falshodds unchallenged simply becuase they represent "the other side" is not being OBJECTIVE - it is, in fact, being BIASED towards THE OTHER SIDE.
People's beliefs on any matter are irrelevant if they are based in demonstrable falsehoods. It is not BIAS to present FACTUALLY ACCURATE information, or call someone out when they make a statement CONTRARY to KNOWN, FACTUAL information.
If reality happens to have a LIBERAL BIAS, this should not be of concern to the NYT.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
Oh boy have I gotten into verbal tussles by pointing out my opponent's opinion had no validity since it was based on a lie.
What we CANNOT argue is that (1) the earth is getting warmer, and (2) Man's emission of CO2 is the primary driver of this.
Those aren't opinions.
Those are matters of proven scientific fact.
(BTW... A note to the C-Students here: "Scientific Theory" is the same thing as a FACT to any lay-person. Unless you're a scientist doing research in the relevant field? Theory = Fact, and you're NOT, in fact, entitled to an opinon on the matter. You're just WRONG. Period.)
And, IMHO, the only reason the Right tries to changes the FACTS (on that issue and on many others) is that, in light of the facts, their OPINIONS become indefensible.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
In terms of global warming, yes, we are in a natural cycle of warming. Nobody disagrees with that. The rate of warming is increasing because of the our pollution. This is what they have a hard time grasping onto. As if emitting all of these horrible things aren't going to do damage to the Earth.
I've asked before, and I'll ask again. Even if you are one of the deniers of this proven science; don't you think it would be a good idea to have the environment as clean as we can have it?
Because a "HYPOTHESIS" is something that isn't proven, and therefore something lay people have some place to doubt. "THEORY," in scientific terms, is a HYPOTHESIS that - for all intents and purposes - has been proven, as far as any lay person need be concerned.
Problem is? Evolution and the AGW Model AREN'T hypothesies. They're THEORIES. You know... Like GRAVITY. ;) IOW? FACTS.
Potholer54 does a fantastic job on his youtube channel explaining this.
And you're 100% on the last bit. (Even though they never will be. LOL)
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
It's amazing to me how they prove this to be true literally EVERY TIME they argue with us!
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
Or is this just a statement that there are so many lies, if they were to begin to unravel them, their job would never be done short of the whole of the establishment coming apart?
Surreal. Forty years of the GOP "playing the ref" has fully paid off against all logic, reason and evidence.
But of course the Times' reporters shouldn't be stenographers.
What to do...what to do...
All they have to do, is report what the candidate said, and then report that neither he nor his people offered data to support his claim (in this case, his claim of having created jobs at Bain).
This is not a novel concept. It's how NPR Radio has reported it.
Any news agency with as ludicrous a slogan as "fair and balanced" should make someone immediately suspicious.
Does the Times just ignore the cottage industry that has sprung up to catalog and debunk these liars? That politifact and factcheck.org happened for no reason?
The absolute honest truth is in bending over backwards to be fair to both sides, The Timesand the other news media outlets are actually just doing the right-wing's work for them. They don't care about balance. They simply cannot have people out there speaking the truth. I remember when smart people ran and worked for the NYT and the Washington Post and others.
there seems to be confusion over the meaning of the word "fact".
"Of course, some facts are legitimately in dispute"
They're beyond saving. The brain rot is too far gone.
The uncritical reporting of assertions is NOT objective. It is, however, objectionable and a failure to perform the much touted function of reporting the facts without fear or favour.
Correction: "They're called the US Media." There are a couple of outliers, but not enough to seriously contradict the statement.
Is Mr. Brisbane genuinely perplexed or is he asking this in a passive-aggressive attempt to get the NYTimes staffers to actually do their jobs, confirmation of the Times' liberal bias be damned?
I can't tell. Based on the comments at the NYTimes website the readers are gobsmacked.