New York Times Asks: Should Journalists Challenge False Statements Made by Policymakers They Report

[marmar]

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 I’d 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.”

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?

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 president’s words.”

This comes up quite often, in large part because major media outlets have been embraced “forced neutrality” — it’s a newspaper reporter’s 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 Post’s 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]

1. Just boggles the mind to think "They had to ask the question"

[marmar]

2. Yup.

nt

[City Lights]

4. Exactly.

Unreal.

[ladywnch]

3. this is even a question?!?!!!!! if not, then 'journalists' are nothing more than stenographers who

could and should be replaced by technologies that can do the job better.

[leveymg]

5. The Question is: When did that stop being a journalistic duty at the NYT?

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]

6. Do they even have to ask that question?

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]

7. Amazing.

Jesus.

[ljm2002]

8. I don't like the way Brisbane phrases it...

...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 president’s 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.