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.
Wow. The stenography of the media is one of those things the you know is going on, but when you see them openly admit it in print, it suddenly makes it much, much worse. I suppose this is progress though. The best comment by far on this revealing query comes from Glenn Greenwald:
That’s basically the equivalent of pondering in a medical journal whether doctors should treat diseases, or asking in a law review article whether lawyers should defend the legal interests of their clients, etc.: reporting facts that conflict with public claims (what Brisbane tellingly demeaned as being “truth vigilantes”) is one of the defining functions of journalism, at least in theory.
Exactly. People read the news to be informed, and for the purpose of having an independent third-party hold powerful interests and government to account. In most cases, neither of those things presently happen. And the fact that someone in Brisbane's position even has to ask this question just shows how far we've fallen.
No comments:
Post a Comment