Malreported By Unpersons
Day 12. Weight (this morning) – 274 lbs. 1839 calories consumed; 621 calories burned on elliptical trainer and weights.
Marty Yawnick – you guys know him, right? – posted this Op/Ed article from the Blogs section of the New York Times site earlier today, knowing it would make my head explode. The headline alone is linkbait at its finest: “Should The Times Be A Truth Vigilante?”
The main crux of the piece is: what the line should be for journalists when they hear someone, be it a candidate for office, elected official, or political pundit, delivering a complete falsehood? When someone like, say, Gordon Keith, says “Mark Followill killed five coeds at UNT,” should the duty of the reporter to, in the same piece, write: “Of course, Followill didn’t kill anyone, and Gordon Keith is a bad person for suggesting it”?
(Mark: I’m sorry for adding on to your growing Google Bomb. The example was just too good to pass up.)
The money quote:
[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.”
My gut reaction is right in line with Krugman’s. It’s a base duty of any reporter’s job, when they hear a statement like that, to investigate it and confirm it. Confirm, confirm, confirm. And, when you encounter bullshit, it’s your job as a journalist to report said awful offal.
Any Journalism 101 student would be able to tell you that.
Now, let’s perform the other, abysmal part of a journalists’ job: look at the opposing viewpoint.
My response to Marty after ready the piece – which, to be honest, didn’t feel like it was written by one of the Times’ leading scribes – was a Devil’s Advocate spinner. Too many times, candidates – or elected officials, or really, anyone operating in the political arena – have gotten used to being able to say damn near anything and not having it challenged. With the electorate so willing to be spoonfed “realfact” and talking points that hardly have a fleeting basis in reality, it strikes me that people aren’t willing to do any fact checking for themselves. Why should a reporter, who is underpaid and really grateful for their paycheck to begin with, risk getting their access revoked, or the ire of an Editorial Desk that might have an agenda of their own, stick their neck out and dispute the person they’re covering on a regular basis?
No, I don’t buy it, either. Not for a second. Yet, there must be a reason why a writer for the Grey Lady thinks their fact-checking function, as one of the most widely-read newspapers in the world, is an interesting experiment.
After 278 people commented on the post, feedback was disabled on the post. Perhaps someone at the Times thought the question was silly as well.
I think Orwell might have been off-target by thinking government would be filling the role of Big Brother. As media companies consolidate, and accrue multiple TV networks, dozens of radio stations, and powerful online presences, a few voices dominate the conversation. Is it that farfetched to see someone like Rupert Murdoch firing up Thinkpol? Citizen media – yes, Virginia, I’m including bloggers in the conversation – has to fill in the gaps left by media consolidation.
I’m reminded of a quote from “Contagion.” Elliot Gould’s crotchety doctor, Ian Sussmann, is plagued by Jude Law, a rogue blogger who sniffed out the global pandemic early and knew Sussmann was working on a cure. Sussmann, on hearing Law’s Alan Krumwiede had spilled the beans: “Blogging is not writing. It’s graffiti with punctuation.”
Many writers for traditional press outlets, as well as elected officials… Hell, a good chunk of the populace has the same opinion. The main reason is the lack of any accountability. Bloggers can post up anything online. It’s easy.
So, what exactly, separates a blogger in a free Internet café posting to a WordPress site from The New York Times,if not constant accountability and fact-checking?
