NY Times Asks: Hey, Should We Report The Truth?

(Courtesy Runnin' Scared)

NY Times public editor Arthur S. Brisbane posed an interesting question in his column today: should the Gray Lady point out when politicians and other officials are clearly lying to us? To figure out whether the "newspaper of record" should report truth in addition to parroting bullshit, they decided to crowdsource the question: "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."

After citing several examples—including misunderstandings by Clarence Thomas and outright lies by Mitt Romney—Brisbane says many readers fed up "with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight." But even so, he worries about reporters remaining objective while becoming "truth vigilantes," which makes them sound like Robert De Niro's character in Brazil:

Is that the prevailing view? And if so, 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? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?

It seems the Times is having a hard time understanding that there is a middle ground between manhandling facts and patronizing readers. The column was successful in one regard: sparking a conversation online. It has led to hundreds of angry comments on the Times, as well as all over Twitter and other sites, expressing outrage that such a question was even asked to begin with.

Slate wrote, "Basically everyone on the Internet is slack-jawed and stunned by this entire thing, because, man, “should we print the truth or not” is a hilarious question to just throw out to readers." As Paul Myers tweeted, "Is the NY Times "the paper of record" or just the paper of "Press 'Record' then press 'Play' and transcribe..."?" One such commenter sums up the general mood:

I'll join the chorus here: it's stunning that the New York Times would ask this question. And do it in a slightly negative way: vigilantes are people who take justice into their own hands, often with very unjust results. Reporters don't need to be vigilantes -- they need to be journalists. I've been around a long time, and remember when a reporter's job was to find and present facts, not talking points, and certainly not his or her own opinions or attitude. Is there now a class in journalism school to fine hone snarkiness? I find the debased state of journalism these days to be deeply depressing and dangerous, and the fact that this is even a question at one of the world's better newspapers is a sign of a deeper debasement than I thought. No wonder candidates aren't afraid of lying. And newspapers wonder why people are flocking to the internet?

It doesn't surprise us that they feel the need to engage with their readers on the subject—more and more, reportage has become polarized into he said/she said soundbyte confrontations with little in the way of clarity. The question is: isn't this exactly the kind of issue they should have confronted years ago, like after the Judith Miller debacle?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Ben Yakas in News on January 12, 2012 2:43 PM

Comments [rss]

Timon_8

I would have preferred the NYT confront the issue BEFORE the Judith Miller scandal, not after. But that's just me.

TheOtherBob

Are you fuckin' kidding me? Like, is there a hidden camera somewhere recording me right now -- is this going to be on like Spike TV or some shitty third-rate cable station or something? They seriously fuckin' asked this?

Mother fucker.

ItchyGomez

Spike TV is shit, but man, Joe Schmo was an awesome show.

"Tim Osman"

Having visions of Jack Nicholson in a marine officer uniform testifying before a military court

whiteiris

The New York Times is the paper equivalent of Baghdad Bob. "This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

Mordicai

I have PolitiFact in my feed reader; I find it much more fulfilling than unfiltered "news" sources.

m_a_r_t_i_n

"Comments Closed" - LOLz! That experiment didn't last long.

Spirit of 76

Well, at least the Times asked the question. If someone ever asked Fox News, the reply might be somewhere along the lines of hysterical laughter.

grgny

Absolutely you should call out the lies and propaganda. Not to do so allows the lies to become reality

BobSantos

The concluding sentence is exactly right: the Judith Miller debacle is when NYT made an active decision to ignore the fact that it was being used as a propaganda tool by whomever they interviewed.

I'm sure the temptation for "star" reporters to editorialize is great, as well. Editorialization, though, is not the same as fact-checking, which is what I supposed (when I was young) getting the story out always included.

"Tim Osman"

There is the truth and then there is everything else (including the New York Times)

AaronRed99

Why would they start reporting the truth now?

Roger_the_Shrubber

The Times hasn't reported the truth since Walter Duranty was sucking Stalin's dick, journalistically speaking.

DoYouEverWonder

Then they can't figure out why they're going bankrupt. Maybe if they had stuck to doing real journalism to begin with, they wouldn't be such big financial trouble. In the meantime, they just sold a bunch of their local newspapers to a bunch of right wing religious fundies.

Joey__Blow

well maybe the next time Willard claims that Obama is responsible for 25 million Americans being out of a job they could refer to the monthly numbers showing that at least they went from insane to just being bad... and that at least some jobs were created or saved by Obama policies...

Nos Feratu

The NYT's needs to tell me when a politician is lying? I don't need the NYT's for that. It's easy to tell when a politician is lying.........his lips are moving.

Like other people here have already stated, I would actually go back to reading the Times if they resumed actual reporting.

randomtransplant

"Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?"
Nobody is asking the Times to be omnipotent. I think I speak for almost everyone, though, when I ask that they not actively perpetrate lies by presenting them as valid, or hypothetically valid. Brisbane mentions Krugman - sit in for a couple of lectures of his and learn to cite sources & the historical record. I don't mean to be patronizing, my point is that we all know what the task entails, its basic stuff every half-educated person can accomplish.

Sounds to me like they just realized there is a large potential payoff for not chasing the Fox Corporation further down the rabbit hole of ever-distorted perception than they already have. Consumers want the truth - its why we still pay for novelists & national geographic photographs, mostly trust our doctors, and listen to our elders at work- but take our journalists with a grain of salt.

mattbrooklyn

Wonder why their readership is falling...

Seriously - if they actually practiced real journalism when it came to politics, they might get some more people reading and linking to their publication.

RW

If you allow truth-telling to be labeled "vigilante" or with any other negative term, you're ceding ethical ground for no reason. Never allow yourself to be defined in terms convenient to the opponent, especially not when the opponent is up to no good.

TrollyMcTrollington

It's so important it's part of the First Amendment. So , yes.

Or else just turn into the NYP or Daily News and report on celebs and their bullshit.