I've railed against the corporate press before, but things seem to be coming to a head lately.
The first salvo was this article by the Times' public editor, Arthur Brisbane:
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.
"WTF?" you say, "Isn't that what journalists do?" Apparently not, at least not any more. Well, the blowback was tremendous, starting with the comments to the article itself. This one is representative:
You are joking, right? You can't be this stupid. The New York Times and journalism as a profession can't have sunk this low that you'd dare to ask such a question. Is this The Onion or the paper of record? Holy Cow! Can't want til Jon Stewart vivisects you on Monday.
And another, with a bit of history:
This is a question? It's part of a reporters job to fact check. Journalism 101! And when did reporting become simply, "Parroting back whatever officials say"? I like the fact-check sidebar next to candidates' statements because you can't force the candidate to tell the truth and you have to print their exact words. A fact-check bar lets you do your job: objectively report. In all other articles (aside from those on the editorial page) journalists should be required to report both what people say, and to compare what people say to existing records of fact. Otherwise, why not just print press releases and official statements.... owait. You often do. :-/
"... 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?"
What kind of question is this? It sounds like you wouldn't want people to be biased by... the truth. A journalist who only corrects half the facts in an article is still promoting lies. In short, s/he's not doing a good job of fact checking. You're the New York Times, for goodness sake. One would think that you could hire reporters who can be relied upon to do a professional job. It's not a matter of "correcting one fact over another." All facts should be checked, period. If journalists had done their homework properly, for example, nobody would have bought the bogus story of WMDs in Iraq, and it would have saved us a war.
The shit-storm over this is amazing -- just google "truth vigilante" and take a look at the reactions -- especially from the blogosphere.
Paul Krugman weighs in on the issue, rather adroitly (and ironically enough, in the pages of the Times):
I was deeply radicalized by the 2000 election. At first I couldn’t believe that then-candidate George W. Bush was saying so many clearly, provably false things; then I couldn’t believe that nobody in the news media was willing to point out the lies. (At the time, the Times actually told me that I couldn’t use the l-word either). That was when I formulated my “views differ on shape of planet” motto.
Now, however, Mitt Romney seems determined to rehabilitate Bush’s reputation, by running a campaign so dishonest that it makes Bush look like a model of truth-telling.
I mean, is there anything at all in Romney’s stump speech that’s true? It’s all based on attacking Obama for apologizing for America, which he didn’t, on making deep cuts in defense, which he also didn’t, and on being a radical redistributionist who wants equality of outcomes, which he isn’t. When the issue turns to jobs, Romney makes false assertions both about Obama’s record and about his own. I can’t find a single true assertion anywhere.
It's rather sad that you have to go to the opinion pages to find someone who's willing to question a politician's bullshit.
(Full disclosure: I work for an alt weekly that has regularly won awards for investigative journalism. We have interns to cut their teeth on the journalism business by fact-checking -- everything we publish. We regularly commit journalism, and the mayor's office doesn't like us very much. And no, before you ask, I do not write for them.)
No comments:
Post a Comment