How is this even a QUESTION?

[seawasp]

The New York Times asks "Should the Times be a Truth Vigilante?"

In other words, should the Times point out falsehoods in stories, such as deliberate or blatantly wrong statements by politicians.

YOU ARE A NEWSPAPER! TRUTH is what you DO!

How can any newspaper even START to ask that as a question? What the hell? Seriously, WHAT THE HELL?

Comments

[brashley46.livejournal.com]

Amen to that.

[ldsman.livejournal.com]

They should also avoid only targeting one political party. Point out the truth on both sides or STFU!

[melchar.livejournal.com]

It's another example of fawning life skills. When kids are socialized to think that the most important aspect of life is for everyone to like you and be friends, truth and integrity get thrown under the bus.

[rdmasters.livejournal.com]

It says horrible things about my lowered expectations that I'm applauding them even asking the question.

How did we get here? (exits, shaking head)

[von-krag.livejournal.com]

The Times has a agenda that is very much NYC-centric & left wing liberal Democrat in out look. It also is elite & Ivy in it's bias IMO. I tend to verify everything it reports w/other sources, more work but a better picture on the event reported. I know from personal experience that it has lied on 2nd amendment reporting & on military coverage. When confronted by this it has done scant retraction of it's lies.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

If you have a higher standard, then I'm sure you are ready to back up these claims with actual evidence.

[von-krag.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

Brisbane's framing is dishonest; he invents a dramatic negative term ("truth vigilante") and uses fictional example with absurdly loaded words which clearly violate NYT standards.

As the first comment on his post points out, noting deceptive statements is journalism 101 and there are specific conventions for doing in as detached and neutral was as possible.

It's not acting like a vigilante, it's reporting.

I can't discern Brisbane's agenda, but it's clear he's one of those sorts who thinks that news is the stenography of the powerful and balance means not questioning what people say.

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

The sad thing is that journalists don't even start to ask that question. And find it a strange question. Rule one of journalism should be verify. I don't care if you got the story from your best buddy in the world. Verify it before you print.

Somewhere over the years they got lazy and started accepting the press releases of various organizations as basic news and just reprinted them because fact checking it was to much work. I mean here you get a memo from say The society of Science Professionals sending you a memo that watching the stars causes cancer. And they just blindly print it. Don't do any due diligence anymore which once was the basic job of the reporter. And now they ask should they be checking the facts? The answer is HELL YES!!!!

Oh well

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

I'd like to think the ombudsman is doing this deliberately, to point out how bad the situation has gotten. But that is like the '11th dimensional chess' theory of President Obama's strategizing - mostly wishful thinking.

[illian.livejournal.com]

My journalism teacher used to tell us tales of when some rival newspapers used to gleefully cut each other over the accuracy and verity of each other's reporting. ("Some others may have reported that . . . when we have received documentation showing . . .")

[richardboustead.livejournal.com]

Newspapers aren't out to report truth. They're out to generate sales, and the fastest way to do that is appear interesting. I imagine you've heard the phrase that "If it bleeds, it leads"? Stories of tragedy and suffering have been proven to sell more papers than "Cute Fluffy Bunnies at Local Pet Show" or "Woman donates to Charity".

If you look at the papers, they exaggerate and enlarge - making things seem worse then they are. For example: A transformer fails and cuts power to 800 homes. The story will say the transformer "blew" and "nearly a thousand homes were plunged into darkness". Both statements are true, but exaggerated. The part about 'plunged into darkness' was especially hilarious since it was midday.

Newspapers were once about reporting the news, and accuracy was vital to their well-being. Nowadays newspapers are about generating sales by grabbing people's attentions with gory stories and shock tactics. They copy-paste press releases and slant articles to appeal to the editor's personal prejudices. They sell fear, anger and prejudice in place of reason and information.

I think the concept of something to hold newspapers accountable is a good thing. The News Of The World scandal in the UK has shown that the shining armor of the Knight is not as polished as one might think.

[kengr]

Not just newspapers. Radio & TV "journalism" suck as badly if not worse.

Hmm, maybe a variant of the libel/slander laws. If it can be shown you put forth a false (or greatly misleading) statement, there's a fine. Fine goes up *drasticly* for anybody (media or politician or other "public figure") if you continue to trot it out as true after being called on it.

Possible mitigation if it's something technical given by what should have been a trustworthy source and thus wasn't easily checkable. Of course, in that case you can sue them under the same law.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

Alas, newspapers do not provide Reliability Matrix ratings with their stories. While useful to some of us, I'm sure many fewer people would read such articles. Putting it all into small print in footnotes isn't likely to catch on.

[saintonge.livejournal.com]

The problem is, the New York Times is not competent to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

And that's true of every other newspaper I know, too.