NY Times Asks Readers If It Is Supposed To Check Facts. No, Seriously.
In a shocking column published yesterday, The New York Times asked readers to respond to the question, “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” Readers, commenters, and bloggers have been shocked to learn that the Times apparently doesn’t always check facts, and has been publishing, possibly for decades, the unchallenged utterances of politicians and pundits as fact.
“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.,” Arthur S. Brisbane, the Times Public Editor — a public, in-house ombudsman — asked.
(Brisbane was forced to issue an update, solving nothing, and certainly not improving the ludicrous situation.)
Brisbane poses as an example, that, “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.â€
Commenters were rightfully astonished.
Perhaps one of the best and most-encompassing responses came from Karen Schlosberg of Natick, Massachusetts:
As someone who graduated with a BA in Journalism (back in the days of typewriters), I am speechless and horrified that the Times feels it needs to ask that question.
Has the Times that they’ve forgotten the most basic tenets of journalism? Of course reporters/editors have to question and find the facts and the truth. You don’t “choose to correct one side over another”–you check both sides for accuracy. If the truth shows that one side is correct, the public needs to know this. The Times can’t allow itself to be bullied by people who like to ignore facts. Do we need to remind you of Watergate yet again?
The Times is known as the paper of record. I thought reporters were always checking facts. Apparently I was wrong. I suspected it during W’s regime, when no one questioned him, so I guess I’m glad the Time’s is admitting it fell down on the job. But when exactly did the Times stop doing this? And, more importantly, why?
This quest to be so-called “balanced” has unhinged the media. Sometimes both sides have valid points, but sometimes the other side is just crazy, eg, the birthers. Why give them equal time without questioning them? If they refuse to answer, stop including their lies in serious conversations.
Do we like the fact-check sidebar for the campaign? Yes. Should it be incorporated into “regular” reporting? News flash–that IS regular reporting. If it hasn’t been included up until now, you haven’t hired reporters–you’ve hired stenographers.
I’m appalled.
To be appalled is certainly an appropriate response, but readers need to remember that the Times has not only installed a tiered “paywall,” requiring payment in order to read its content — allowing subscribers of its paper version unfettered access, but charging others depending on the number of articles accessed.
So, the Times has been charging for content that is, apparently, not always fact-checked?
That is equally appalling.
Distressing too, hardly anyone knows this, but bloggers and other journalists have just learned that the New York Times has entered into a mainstream media-only consortium that will be sending bills to publishers — including bloggers and publications like The New Civil Rights Movement — should we choose to quote their content, regardless of whether we link back and attribute them.
This development is offensive on its face — and questionably legal as well.
The concept of “fair use” has been an industry standard for decades.
As you know, and often see on these pages, we will quote a portion of an article, opinion piece, or other news item, linking to the original source, providing them attribution and traffic — which is only fair and a standard industry practice, one which the members of the new consortium, called, amusingly, “Newsright,” themselves often violate.
“The Associated Press and 28 news organizations, including The New York Times Co. and The Washington Post Co., are launching a company that will measure the unpaid online use of their original reporting and seek to convert unauthorized websites, blogs and other newsgathering services into paying customers,” the Washington Post reported last week.
“More news is available more ways than ever in history. But if reliable information is to continue to flourish, the companies investing in creating content need efficient ways to license it as broadly as possible,†[the head of Newsright, former ABC News president David] Westin, said in a statement. “NewsRight’s mission is to make sure consumers continue to benefit from the all the original news reporting they want while ensuring those who republish content do so with integrity.”
And by, “integrity,” Newsright means, payment.
I’d like to send a bill to every mainstream media publication that has published without “integrity” the work of The New Civil Rights Movement. You’d see a transformed site with all the cash we’d be swimming in.
After Elton blogger Ed Kennedy called the Times piece, “what may be the most incredible New York Times piece I’ve ever read.”
Joe.My.God. merely posited, “Seriously, New York Times?”
Poynter, one of the most-respected journalism sites, spoke with former Times executive editor Bill Keller, and offered a must-read response.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent asks, “What are newspapers for?,” noting that “the Times [has] helped the GOP candidate mislead its own readers — with an assertion that has become absolutely central to the Republican case against Obama. Whatever the practical difficulties of changing this, surely we can all agree that this is not a role newspapers should be playing, particularly at a time when voters are choosing their next president.”
And as to the self-righteously monikered NewsRight potentially-illegal consortium, GigaOm, one of the most-respected tech sites around, asks if the new consortium is a “carrot, or a stick to beat aggregators with?” But the term “aggregators” is misleading.
The unmitigated gall of the traditional media, the mainstream media, whatever you’d like to call them, asking if they should check facts, while jacking up rates for readers — and now, attempting to illegally (in my opinion) charge publishers — is astonishing.
Â
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.