Arthur S. Brisbane, the public editor of The New York Times, posted a blog entry early today asking for input on a dilemma: Should the Times rebut assertions that aren't obviously wrong but deserve fact-checking?
The immediate response was a little wide of the mark. Many inferred he was asking if the Times should report or check facts. He had to post a second entry to clear it up.
Along the way a raft of critics used the opportunity to be a bit snippy, to say the least.
But Brisbane's point is that many assertions are made and not rebutted; they're left alone and are questionable. He wondered if it was necessary to have a "truth vigilante" around. He hopes there is enough clarity now to proceed with a discussion.
Comments
Anthony Banks
01/12/2012 17:48
Kirk:
Brisbane asked a question whose answer seemed obvious to most intelligent readers: Should a New York Times journalist dare to commit journalism when reporting on things said by public figures? It does seem, at least in the initial post, that Brisbane's dilemma was mainly *when* to stop fact-checking--not merely whether a journalist should do so, although he implied this. Again, the answer seems obvious to most intelligent readers: a journalist should stop fact-checking once all the facts have been presented. Accuracy, not fairness, should be the order of the day.
What shocked most readers of the post--including this reader--is that the question needed to be posed at all. But, then, a quick glance at the Times--or the CBC, for that matter--demonstrates why Brisbane was asking. So much of what passes for journalism, particularly political journalism, can be summed up as coverage, rather than reporting: a journalist covers an issue or event by quoting from different people, presenting different sides, but rarely steps in to comment on errors in fact, questionable assertions or outright falsehoods. Instead, we are left with a "he said this, she said that" narrative. The quotes may be accurate, but the reader has not been informed about the truth. The reporter is best placed in this scenario to determine the truth--to put the facts on the table. Isn't that what journalism is for?
Kirk - my sense is that the public is - in the Occupy Wall Street environment - asking for more of journalism and journalists. Art Brisbane is only taking the logic of journalism one more step. That is to be able to draw conclusions as a consequence of fact-based reporting. To do otherwise is just stenography, not journalism.
Reply
Dennis Lee
01/16/2012 12:33
Kirk;
I, sometimes, am "fooled" by the headlines. Quick quotes that catch your interest to read further. I am often disappointed by what is wriiten, because I know htat the "facts" are skewed. often, the reader will do nothing to challenge the written word. Especially in politics.
I enjoy good journalism. Reporters that write "good copy" are sometimes few and far between. A paper the like The Times. I would expect nothing "but the facts" or both sides of the story, at least.
RSS Feed
