"Truth Vigilantes"

[phantom power]

Arthur Brisbane, public editor for the New York Times, poses a question today: "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" He asks Times readers -- and this is really quite remarkable -- whether New York Times reporters should fact-check statements from the people they cover:

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...

http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fpubliceditor.blogs.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F01%2F12%2Fshould-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante%2F%3Fpagewanted%3Dall

Newsmakers already have people to repeat what they say without challenge. They're called CNN.

This is an expression of an irrational, overpowering fear of anything that could be misconstrued as a viewpoint. It has so thoroughly permeated our news establishment that the paper of record is having an existential crisis over whether they should make sure what they present to their readers as news is true.

This, in turn, is a symptom of valuing the appearance of objectivity over accuracy -- itself a pointless endeavor, given that the catcalls of "bias" will continue no matter what steps the Times takes.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201120009

[southernyankeebelle]

1. Wow wouldn't it be nice that all news outlet do their jobs in the first place.

[phantom power]

2. They seem to have become confused about what their job is supposed to be...

It makes me wonder, is Arthur Brisbane:

a) truly confused about what "reporting" is, and whether it ought to involve fact checking
b) not confused, but actually frustrated by internal pressure and this open letter is somehow staging a revolt of some kind
c) desiring to continue the pursuit of "truthiness" and bogus "objectivity", and this letter is some kind of CYA

[southernyankeebelle]

3. The day men like Murdock bought news outlets of all types is the day we lost a real democracy.