The public editor at the New York Times, Arthur Brisbane, published a strange article today on whether the NYT’s reporters should be concerned with discovering the truth.
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.
Unfortunately, Mr. Brisbane’s idea of working to discover the facts merely consists of inserting more bias into the NYT’s regular articles:
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.”
Mr. Brisbane asks his readers, “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?” The obvious answer is no. Hopefully, the NYT will leave its opinions on its editorial page, because, like Joe Friday, “all we want are the facts.”
The rest of the article here.
Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land: "What color is the house over there?" "It is red - on this side". In other words the reporter could write: "In my cursory search of what I believe are all the presidents speeches where I thought the subject was US History, the word "apologize" did not appear at least in the infinitive form. Others have pointed out, however that it is possible to apologize quite profusely without using the word apologize." Of course this would shorten his or her career at the New York Pravda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShould news reporters call our what they THINK is a lie? No. That's opinion.
Should news reporters fact-check what newsmakers claim in the truth? Yes. That's journalism. And once checked, reporters should list their results.
Romney said Obama apologized. Checking the facts, he never did. You could argue that he intended to apologize, or his words are really an apology despite not saying it, but that would be opinion. Looking at the facts on record indicate Romney is wrong, and that's a fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Dr. Faust:
It seems natural to assume that since you're implying that Romney's claim that Obama has "apologized for America" in his speeches is true, you could easily point out some speeches - or even simply the relevant portions of speeches - in which Obama "apologiz[es] quite profusely without using the word apologize."
Please do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHa - my dear colleague Me-fisto, you got me there. Strictly speaking I did not assume anything and my modest claim that it is possible to apologize without using the specific word (being obviously true) is further supported by at least one comment above.
On a different angle, I found it also weird that the Editor thought that Krugman is entitled to his opinion (meaning that it needs no "fact check") while Romney does not (ie. he needs "fact check".) Why is that? - this is not a rhetorical question. I understand that Krugman is labelled as an opinion piece and the reporting is not - but that would only justify "fact checking" on the reporter's work (eg. whether the quote was wrong) not on what is clearly Romney's opinion (or "fact check" both Krugman and Romney) Am I missing something?
To be sure Me-fisto's prejudice was actually correct. I think Romney was right (not that it matters to the "fact" controversy), I am just too lazy/busy to do the necessary research.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMe-fisto: Ok, this is not a primary citation, but it is a hint: Jan 17 WSJ p A13, Bret Stephens: [POTUS] apologized at the 2009 summit of the G-20 in London...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFeel free to follow up.
ps. Funny name: fist = Faust, well done.
The media long ago removed spread opinion beyond the opinion pages. Do I have to say the word apologize in order to apologize?
Do people have to say that they don't like Obama's policies because he's black to be accused of racism? No, they simply have to say that they dislike his policies; the New York Times doesn't care why.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like fact checking, seems to me to be part of a reporters job. Take the post above. Mr. Doom seems to be claiming that the NY Times accuses people of being racists whenever they criticize President Obama . I read the Times practically every day and I've never encountered this. Is it too much to expect Mr. Doom to offer proof of specific incidents of this? Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegarding the claim that:
"Mr. Brisbane asks his readers, '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?' The obvious answer is no."
With respect to claims like Romney's regarding Obama "apologizing for America," it is trivially easy to cast doubt upon that claim while simultaneously remaining completely and entirely factual. As an (entirely fictitious) example:
"At the event, Romney again made the claim that Obama has "apologized for America" in his speeches, although neither he nor his representatives have provided any examples."
But then, we all know that reality has a decidedly liberal bias....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA slight edit to make the example more "completely and entirely" factual: "At the event, Romney again made the claim that Obama has "apologized for America" in his speeches, although neither he nor his representatives have provided any examples TO THIS REPORTER DURING THIS EVENT. THE PREVIOUS TIME ROMNEY MADE THE CLAIM WAS (DESCRIPTION OF THE TIME AND PLACE)" But then it would not cast sufficient amount of the needed doubt on Romney, would it?
My point is really, as everybody (especially lawyers) know, "facts" are just a label in all but a very very few cases ("Capital of France is Paris.") All this nonsense about "fact checking" is ideological claptrap well developed since time immemorial.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse