Should newspapers be truth vigilantes?

That's the question posed by the NYT's public editor today.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/?pagewanted=all

I'm disappointed there's even a discussion about that.

 

Brisbane's view is a large problem with much journalism. Some reporters seem to believe "objectivity" and fairness simply requires presenting two sides to a story. Good reporters actually analyze and think critically about what they're writing about. If something is wrong, say it's wrong.

He worry about correcting one facts and not others makes little sense. First, if it's wrong, it's not a "fact". Second, reporters make all sorts of editorial judgments. Why would it be any different here?

 

No. Rehire Jayson Blair.

 

Maybe Brisbane is bucking for the next ESPN ombudsman job.

 

I have known some reporters who believe whatever people tell them. They don't just believe they need to get both sides, they just can't process the fact that somone is lying or fudging the truth.


Others -- who work in words in a daily basis -- can't figure out that someone is using weasel words to evade the question or basically lie.

Theyve got a quote, so they're happy. Hard to fathom.

 

He'd be a step up from the current one ...

 

The NYT blog post is an unfortunate byproduct of what social media has brought to journalism.

The thought process for putting something out there is no longer, is it newsworthy? Instead, it's screw the news, just find something that will get you 173 reader comments whether you already know the answer or not.

 

Brisbane's response to the uproar:

http://jimromenesko.com/2012/01/12/nyt-public-editor-on-reaction-to-truth-vigilante-post/

 

I don't understand why he keeps using the word "facts" in quotation marks. Like someone said above, it's either a fact or it isn't. If it isn't a fact, you say what the person said, then you give evidence to the contrary.

The problem is, you can't always disprove something in one or two sentences, and keep moving along with your article. It usually takes an entire article to show why what the person said is not true. That's basically what Politifact does. It's a great idea. It takes a statement said by a politician and analyzes it to determine how true the statement was. It's a great example of a truth vigilante.