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.
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.
