The State of the News Media in the US

[antigoon]

I read this piece in the New York Times by its and nearly spit out my food.

Should the Times be a Truth Vigilante

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.

One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.

Another example: 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.”

That approach is what one reader was getting at in a recent message to the public editor. He wrote:

“My question is what role the paper’s hard-news coverage should play with regard to false statements – by candidates or by others. In general, the Times sets its documentation of falsehoods in articles apart from its primary coverage. If the newspaper’s overarching goal is truth, oughtn’t the truth be embedded in its principal stories? In other words, if a candidate repeatedly utters an outright falsehood (I leave aside ambiguous implications), shouldn’t the Times’s coverage nail it right at the point where the article quotes it?”
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?

Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign debates, The Times has employed a separate fact-check sidebar to assess the validity of the candidates’ statements. Do you like this feature, or would you rather it be incorporated into regular reporting? How should The Times continue a function like this when we move to the general campaign and there’s less time spent in debates and more time on the road?

Oh, what? You mean the news isn't supposed to be a mouthpiece for "anonymous government officials" and presidential candidates to say whatever they want with impunity under the guise of unbiased fairness? What a shocking revelation from the public editor of one of the most well-respected newspapers in the world!

In my opinion, this little article is a perfect explanation of one of the ways the establishment press in America is so fucked.

Thoughts?

[Super Dude]

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that's what he was getting at. I thought it was more along the lines of "Do a lot of our readership believe that we're not earnest and honest in our coverage (as opposed to *some* people who write in)? If so, please inform us of how we can improve upon that." Again, that's just my guess, but who knows.

[7StringedBeast]

A news paper reporting the truth and being a watchdog for the public.  Imagine....

[jsem]

A news paper reporting the truth and being a watchdog for the public.  Imagine....

Wishful thinking.

[El Barto]

When it comes to what he describes as hard-news coverage,  they should report what was said and leave it at that.  There are plenty of ways for people to discern what's true and what's bogus.  Editorial departments can and should point out when somebody's full of shit.  Also,  the article can link to Factcheck.org.  Truth is,  most people don't just read the Times and assume it's factually correct, anyway.  Nowadays,  people get their news from a variety of sources and have a much easier time discerning fact from fiction.

Also,  this doesn't apply to interviews or press conferences.  I'd like to see more of those guys being hardassed about obvious bullshit.  Said Times reporter should be willing to press the fact that Thomas is lying when he's there to reply,  but when he reports it,  he should stick to what was said. 

FOX's "we report, you decide" is exactly how it should be done. It's just a shame that they don't actually believe it. 

[antigoon]

I think what you're positing relegates "hard news" to stenography, though. Shouldn't it be more than that?

[kirksnosehair]

"Hard News" isn't much more than stenography, though.    If you want more, then there's investigative journalism along the lines of FactCheck.org


I'm with El Barto on this.

[antigoon]

Also, I don't think the "you decide" part of "We Report, You Decide" means (or should mean) "you decide what is true and not true." I'm not saying reporters should turn all their stories in to op-eds but, they should not shy away from calling bullshit when they see it. I don't think the existence of Politifact and FactCheck absolve reporters of that responsibility.