The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The NY Times Asks Their Readers, "hey should we actually check facts or nahhh?"
SyphonBlue
The studying beaverThat beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
The studying beaverThat beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
Yes, they are seriously asking that
I mean holy shit did you guys seriously just ask if you should do your fucking jobs? Holy christ our media is an embarrassment.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/?pagewanted=allShould The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
By ARTHUR S. 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.
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?
Please feel free to leave a comment below or send me an e-mail at public@nytimes.com with the subject line: Readers Point the Way: Correcting Untruths. Please adhere to my comment moderation policy when posting.
I mean holy shit did you guys seriously just ask if you should do your fucking jobs? Holy christ our media is an embarrassment.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
SyphonBlue on
0
Posts
So, it kind of is a radical idea.
At least, if I'm reading it right and it means calling Republicans on their bullshit instead of pretending it's "just an opinion" or the "other side" of an argument about a fact.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The truth has a liberal bias.
Again, why is there pressure to hide facts or omit them?
Because news is big business.
Read: money.
And news outlets, as they are news outlets, should be pushing back and telling them "Nah fuck you, these are called FACTS not OPINIONS"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Honestly, I think it'd be more readable and persuasive. For example, taking the issue raised by the ombudsman's letter:
A liberal reader will say "THANK YOU" to the Times for pointing it out, but a conservative reader will say, "yeah, he's never used the word apologize that you were able to find or identify," and they'll go right along blithely believing that Romney's right because the Times can't prove a negative.
On the other hand
If he can't cite an example, it's much more definitive that he's just making shit up.
They're not talking about facts being reported, though. They're talking about the factual accuracy of statements which they are reporting. It's the difference between the following two articles:
and
The Times wouldn't print Article 1 because it's bullshit. As it stands, they would print Article 2 because it is a fact that Gingrich said that. Whether or not something a politician (or other noteworthy figure that the Times is likely to quote) says is factually accurate isn't something that any major news outlet I'm aware of addresses. The Daily Show does it, and there are a number of online resources that go through speeches and pick out the bullshit, but I'd challenge you to find me a single major US newspaper that does what the Times is suggesting above.
Knight-Ridder won a Pulitzer during the Iraq War for doing the exact opposite. They were heavily critical of the war, shut out of a lot of access to the "powers that be" as a result. Instead, they cultivated sources from low-level administrators, soldiers and regional figures. This lead to their coverage being far more accurate, as they were getting unvarnished interviews with people who had access to information instead of bullshit spin from people with power and agendas.
Basically, the national media has forgotten how to report news. They are in the celebrity interview business now.
That's kind of the problem.
That's kind of the problem, isn't it? A news organization should absolutely 100% no questions even thought of be refuting Article 2.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I mean the question is basically hey guys we have been sucking at journalism for a little bit now; do you think we should try and do better y/n?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
This is where the myth of objective journalism has taken us. For an editor at the country's paper of record to contemplate printing the plain truth in news coverage apparently engenders a crisis of professional ethics.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Yeah, hypothetically, but it's never happened before. Outside of the few real uprisings in US history, people have, generally, bought whatever bullshit the 'newsmakers' have had for sale. Nowadays, with so much information readily available and so many people willing to comb through it and report online about which statements aren't truthful, there is a mounting tendency not to trust anything that anyone in a position of authority says. And if they have data to back it up, they probably bought the research. Printing political statements wasn't generally controversial because, until recently, you didn't have actual elected officials saying things like, "The president is a Kenyan communist!"
Certainly newspapers, in a platonic ideal sort of sense, should be chasing down the accuracy of statements they report. But none of them do. So it's kind of unfair to rag on the Times for suggesting that they start doing something that none of the papers ever have. At least they're trying to better themselves, here.
The Times has a very pronounced level of smarminess when it comes to addressing critics. If you ever get a chance to work with a "Timesman", you'll understand why. The level of self-regard and condescension to mere mortals inherent in that newsroom culture is pretty legendary.
this statement betrays an unfortunate unfamiliarity with american history
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
From the tone of the piece I think it's more, "We're sick of politicians using us as a method of spreading lies and propaganda. We can't stop it from happening overnight, but come over here a minute and let me tell you that this is happening and that you should not just accept every stupid-ass thing that we report someone having said. This is usually an op-ed sort of deal, but you do realize that these people are full of shit, right? Has it gotten so bad that we need to start point out for you when they're just making things up?"
So depressing. This really just caved the whole start of my day that the NYTimes is even treating this like it's okay.
While politicians have a long and storied history of spouting bullshit I can't think of a period when there has been such a density of ridiculous hyperbole flung. I mean, smear campaigns are one thing, or implying that the sitting president is acting in an un-American fashion, but I can't think of a point in our history where someone has come out and accused the sitting President of literally not being an American citizen, and then had people agree.
True story from someone who wasn't there but knows a guy who knows a guy: LBJ was running in an election in Texas earlier in his political career, and he was meeting with some advisers to talk about negative ads. One guy said, "hit him on his record on taxes!" and LBJ said, "Yeah, and let's start a rumor that he's a pig fucker!" Another guy said, "claim he's soft on crime!" and LBJ said, "Good idea! And let's start a rumor that he's a pig fucker!" Finally, one of his advisers said, "Sir, you can't call your opponent a pig fucker." LBJ says, "Why the hell not?" The guy says, "Um, because it's completely untrue."
LBJ says, "I don't give a shit if it's true or not -- I just want to hear him have to deny it."
He actually is somewhat defending the paper. He says that while the paper usually caters to the powerful, it will bite back in exceptional instances. Mostly, though, the social benefit of the paper is that it has to power to stop things from getting worse.
That story is in a lot of LBJ biographies. It's probably true.
there is not a president whose citizenship has been directly questioned that I can think of, no, but politicians have been calling each other all sorts of despicable things forever and ever
kennedy and al smith and various catholic politicians before were regularly called traitors or puppets of the pope, for example
for that matter pick any ethnic/cultural/religious group other that white protestant and you can find a treasure trove of dreck that continues to our present day
go look at editorial cartoons or newspapers from the gilded age for their comments about how presidents and senators felt about corporate interests vs. everyone else's (they were pretty much right but still)
or hell, read what people said about lincoln, or truman when he integrated the armed forces
there are tons and tons of examples throughout history of people saying enormously vituperative things about people in public life. The difference for most of our history is that the press was partisan (explicitly or otherwise), so there was at least some kind of balance in the news. Media consolidation (mostly as a result of broadcasting's natural monopoly) led journalistic outlets to appeal to the 'middle,' and thereby to the idea that journalists ought to be 'objective.' Over time politicians and other public figures have learned to use language to exploit this 'objectivity' to advance their own messaging; the LBJ story is the most visceral example.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I do believe that a lot of shady shit went unnoticed in the golden age of the media. That age is over, and a lot of people have verifiable reasons for not trusting the newspapers. The question is what, if anything, the newspapers plan to do about it.
And this is a crisis for them. The New York Times just sold off its profitable regional chain at fire sale rates to a cut-rate Florida outfit. When a company is dumping profitable divisions on the cheap, it's a good indication that there are deeper financial issues at work.
Because of that strong liberal bias reality has. Where's the "balance" there, bucko?
I heard it from someone whose father worked for LBJ and supposedly witnessed the exchange -- but I also think it'd be tremendously amusing in a meta sort of way if it ended up being an unfounded rumor that some of LBJ's friends started about him and which eventually became accepted as fact because the former President never publicly denied it.
Even if it is truthy, there are a lot of other stories about LBJ that make it an accurate depiction of his personality.
Chester A. Arthur:
Well, that's the first half covered. But it says right there that neither of them gained credence. The birther movement managed to go far enough to get the President--not someone nominated to Vice Presidency, the actual President--to produce a copy of his birth certificate for public inspection. Then continued to assert that it was a lie, to the sound of agreement from a large, vocal minority. It's completely absurd.
It's a non-trivial problem in general. When you have the chair for the SOPA committee making statements like, "The opposition have not shown any actual evidence that this act's current language will harm the Internet." how do you refute it in brief? There's tons of evidence, testimony from lots of people, and all of it is fairly complicated. There's no way to assert an accurate view of the situation against the view espoused by the statement without significantly changing the tone of the piece (from a report of the congressional statement to a review of the bill and the opposition's position).
The question was more of why 'balance' is necessary in something that shouldn't require it, but "money" was more or less the answer.
It's a rather marked departure from the norm.