Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?(Slimes-Barfing Was Never This Scary, Amusing, Surreal)

New York Times ^ | January 12, 2012 | Arthur S. Brisbane

[lbryce]

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.

[lbryce]

Having raised slime to that of doppleganger art form, the Slimes manages to outdo itself with a journalistic chimera of sorts, part parody, part satire, science fiction, insane asylum diary by none other than their very own Public Editor that will you inexplicably mind-boggled.

The disconnection of the words "truth" and "vigilante" in the title is immediate tipoff that you are reading the Slimes in that it palpably conveys the sense that it requires supra-societal means in which to get at the truth.

What finally hits you like a two-by-four right between the eyes, renders you mute, the sense of hopelessness you feel for these poor souls, pity that metastasizes into revulsion is the excerpt , below, offered by the Public Editor that is breathtaking to the convoluted sense of cluelessness that goes on all around them, that Times' readers look to The Times to set the record straight is about the d*mnest, sorriest thing imaginable.

FTA 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.

[Question Liberal Authority]

I assume the standard will also be used to refute Debbie Schultz when she says that Gabby Giffords was shot by a Tea Party Member who was influenced by inflammatory rhetoric, or whenever Obama claims that he created or saved over 3 million jobs.

[muir_redwoods]

Who gets the job of telling the Times and its reporters what the truth is since neither the paper nor its teat-hangers could ever figure it out on their own?

[musicman]

Help Keep the
"Conservative News and Views"
on FR coming by "Clicking Here"!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[txhurl]

Has this writer already forgotten zero’s campaign stump in Berlin, ‘08?

[RicocheT]

NY Times reporters and columnists asking we readers if they should tell us if politicians, campaign ads or government press releases are truthful? Don’t bother replying to the Times writers query.

The Times will never tell us if a Democrat, liberal or NGO like Green Peace or a global warming advocate is talking out of his a$$. The Times will continue to distort or mock or pass on lies when ever a Republican candidate or politician says anything and continue to call conservatives and TEA Party members haters, near terrorists and racists.

[lentulusgracchus]

I assume the standard will also be used to refute Debbie Schultz

Hey! Where do you get off, ungood OldThinker, unbellyfeeling a doubleplusgood duckspeaker like Comrade Debbie? Off to the camps with you! One-way trip!

</Stalinist drone>