I mean, really?
When asking "Should the Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" Arthur Brisbane, the "Public Editor" (which sounds like ombudsman) for the New York Times means, "whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."
Well, gee, let me think …
Of course it should be. Of course they should. Duh.
I mean, either the "Paper of Record" is simply a PR Mill ("You say it, we'll quote it") or it's something giving us the news, i.e., what is happening, what is the truth, what is reality.
Do I expect reporters to get into shouting matches with everything a politician or celebrity or says? No, of course not. But neither do I expect reporters to act as stenographers. I expect fact-checking of at least some of the significant assertions being made, and the results included in the story. If a point has been disproven, or is subject to serious contention, I expect the reporter to raise that if the point is brought up again, and not take just a simple repetition of the point; get, at the very least, a commitment from the individual to provide backup for their statement.
Is there the risk of editorializing by the reporter? Sure, that's possible, and certainly something that needs to be watched for. Will some people be upset? Quite likely. Will reporters that do this possibly lose access to interesting sources? Perhaps. Will people debate what the real facts are, or perhaps question the facts that the news organization is reporting? Altogether likely, and that's a good thing.
But the alternative is zany. It turns journalism into simply typing whatever the person said, and turning discussions into simple "he-said, she-said" dictation without any assistance or information to help readers draw a conclusion.
A newspaper (or other news reporting media outlet) unwilling to do this doesn't deserve to be called journalism. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
The public editor asks for help from readers on determining how and when The Times should set the record straight on untruths in the news pages.
I find it extremely difficult to imagine any newspaper editor asking the public how to do his job, or the job of a reporter. Frankly, this enrages me, and in my opinion Arthur Brisbane should be asked to resign from his position.
It is the solely aim of a reporter to question anything and everything, to check, check and double check every single statement made by the person(s) being interviewed, and every "fact" being presented to the public. It's not a fact until it's proven to be a fact.
There are still many reporters who give due diligence to every story they cover, but their idealism and commitment is not supported by the news industry, which is filled with cheaters and frauds. To find slivers of truth in politics one must use multiple alternative news sources, such as independent and/or online publications. It takes a tremendous amount of time to ferret out the facts, and politicians and their spin doctors rely heavily on this.
There are ways reporters can pose questions without seeming antagonistic. For example, when Mr. Romney states that President Obama has made speeches apologizing for America, the reporter might ask: "Mr. Romney, will you please provide some examples of the President making those comments?" If Mr. Romney can provide those examples then the reporter checks the information, and if it's true, s/he can then use it to run an entirely separate story on that issue. If Mr. Romney can't support his statements then the reporter can add this untruth to other possible untrue statements Romney has made, after checking and double-checking, and then produce a story about the candidate's habit of using falsehoods to smear Mr. Obama. It takes more steps, it's more time consuming and laborious, but hard work always produces a better story, both for the public and the newspaper.
Newspapers have historically been seen as public watchdogs. Their purpose has always been to shed light in dark places, to educate, inform, and entertain. Print media (especially newspapers) have been mortally wounded by the introduction of electronic media, because the public's preference has been speed over substance. Hopefully, one day people will realize that a homemade dinner is far superior to a frozen entree, and well worth the wait.
To clarify, Arthur Brisbane isn't actually on the news staff or a publication editor. He's essentially the public ombudsman for the NYT, fielding complaints from readers.
Which doesn't make his need to ask this question any less doltish.
I agree, btw — you can fact-check in a non-hostile fashion. I think that sort of tradition has faded because it tends to tick off the folks you are fact-checking (or later calling out for their fibs) … who then retaliate by not inviting you (or your media outlet) back for more interviews or press conferences.
Which is another way of saying that the news media have become (a) cowardly and (b) in it for the commercial prestige.
My friend BD has a tendency to regularly call them "Our Useless Media." This sort of thing is why.
In my years of reporting I've never experienced that kind of retaliation. Maybe I was just lucky. I think overall they realized that I was doing my job. But more likely, their desire for continued press coverage brought them back. It all depends on the support you get from the publication you write for.
Generally speaking the readers probably don't realize that Mr. Brisbane is not an employee of the Times. Obviously then, it was the Op/Ed editor who was asleep at the wheel. I'm sure there will be/has been some discussion on the matter. So embarrassing.
He's an employee of the Times; he just isn't directly involved in the newsroom or news editing.
Our press *is* useless, they are nothing more than stenographers, granted, they are highly paid (NPR reporters $300k+, and that’s a lot of tote bags) stenographers, but they are stenographers all the same.
Heck, even the new Ombot of NPR has stated that the “View from nowhere” is the journamalistic standard to which NPR should aspire.
As a reminder, Colbert:
This has not changed, and if anything, has gotten worse since the whitehouse correspondents dinner he hosted.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
All Arthur Brisbane’s post has done is pulled the curtain back and exposed the sad truth of Journamalism and Truthiness that our useless press has embraced.
@BD: *sigh*