Comments on: Times public editor smashes himself with boomerang http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/ Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: matthewschafer http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-660 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:52:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-660 Proactive fact checking by journalists will no doubt ruffle the feathers of those on the wrong side of truth, and, yes, it might also bring charges of bias. What do newspapers really have to lose though? Most people already believe that newspapers are biased either to the left or the right (depending on who you ask) anyway. Moreover, most people already do not trust newspapers. Additionally, the increasing popularity of fact checkers like FactCheck.org and Politifact shows, if nothing else, that the public wants a clear answer when such an answer exists in the first place.

If journalists do choose to change their practices and routines, it will have to be a committed change. They must shed constraints of their traditional he said/she said approach that live within the walls of academia and newsrooms today, taking on a greater responsibility of actively searching for “the truth.” At the same time, though, newsrooms must know that their vigilantism must be tempered by an understanding that truth is so very often elusive.

Read more: http://lippmannwouldroll.com/2012/01/17/ political-pinocchios-fact-checking-and-j ournalist-responsibility/

]]>
By: SueSueSue http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-651 Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:17:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-651 I think a much more important point here is that statements by senior government statesmen, such as Vice President Joe Biden and secretary of State Hillary Clinton, previously could be taken pretty much as fact, which, when attribution was added, became unimpeachable reporting.

Now, they All lie, All The Time.

So how the hell is a poorly staffed newsroom suffering budget cuts and public abuse supposed to wade its way through the daily sludge of crap that consitutes public utterances, itself a basis for news these days?

THAT is the point. We are surrounded by lies, uttered by liars, and are simply out gunned by them.

And if, by remote and exceptional circumstance, the truth does actually manage to put in a respectable showing surrounded by all this dross, it gets hounded out by the liars. Who always seem to have lawyers on the payroll, and only a cellphone call away.

]]>
By: Robertla http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-650 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:12:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-650 the truly corrupt know you don’t have to censor or edit what a reporter says………

…….keep the pay low, keep out people with experience.

…….keep the workload high, they’ll never have the time to get beyond superficial details on any single story.

]]>
By: g3e http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-649 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:46:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-649 You would expect that as the “newspaper of record” the NY Times had actually *reported* on the facts of nearly every topic that politicians bloviate about. We’re only asking for Times reporters to check with their colleagues who did the on-the-scene observing. Or is what we’re seeing the final exposure that even the NYT is simply a rewriter of press releases, just like nearly every other “news outlet”.

]]>
By: sklein http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-648 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:41:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-648 I don’t know what he meant either, but …
might he be talking about whether a reporter should weigh in on the the truthfulness of whether the Ryan plan would “end’ Medicare and whether Obama “apologizes” for America. It is silly to assess their truth or falsity depending on whether the Ryan Plan would eliminate the word Medicare or Obama has used the word “apologize,” and the world is a stupider place when reporters and hacks frame the issue that way. I also don’t think it is practical or helpful for a report about a Dem campaign commercial saying that Republicans want to destroy Medicare to insert the opposing arguments about whether the proposed changes would so fundamentally change the government’s commitment to health care for the elderly as to “end” Medicare (or, more importantly, whether those changes are a good or a bad thing). There is a time and a place for framing and opining on the controversy, but not as part of daily reporting.

]]>
By: golfpapi http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-647 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:25:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-647 Somewhere along the line journalism conflated skepticism with fairness and went even further, by redefining fairness with the proposition that assertions should never be challenged.

Apologizing for this is ridiculous. When fact checking becomes too hard you have your sign it is time to go write novels for a living.

]]>
By: JeffreyME http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-646 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:35:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-646 Why do you need to be “fair” to Brisbane and try to interpret what he was asking? He asked a very specific question that he had time to think about. No where did he mention the difficulty of a reporter having to “tweeze every utterance” of a politician. In fact, Brisbane cited specific example of major political claims that were easily determined to be false.

The least the NYT should be expect its reporters to do is add the following statement at the end of every article. “Although Politician X’s statements may or may not be true, we at the New York Times have decided not to bother making the determination of the facts of the matter. Please be advised that the reader is on his or her own when it comes to discovering the truth.”

]]>
By: WeWereWallSt http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-641 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:30:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-641 Holy moly, we better re-think our whole premise. We thought we were the only serious news site to mock other news sites and big swinging you-know-what businessmen (business women rarely make fools of themselves), but now Mr Shafer here is giving us a run for our money.

Tell you what, we’ll fold and go back to insider trading if Ol’ Jack and Reuters make a full time go of NY Times mocking. If you get on those ultra lib guys at the Guardian, we’ll forget insider trading and come sharpen pencils for you.

You tell ’em, Jack. The whole Public Editor thingie is well past its use-by date. There’s nobody out there who remembers Jason Blair or will Google his name after reading it here. We think you should just fire this Aussie chap, Brisbane, and put Dowd, Krugman, and all the rest of your blathering columnists back behind the full-pay Orange Curtain. Then we’ll think about coming back. Until then, it’s Reuters and you-know-who’s WSJ, not necessarily in that order.

http://WeWereWallStreet.com

]]>
By: Brave_SIr_Robin http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-640 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:20:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-640 Leaders lying IS the news. The fact that this is a question shows how far away from actual reporting the media conglomerates have gone. When a leader bases his policies on lies then why even continue discussing the policy. WMDs and the invasion of Iraq. Extraordinary rendition. If the lies were known early these stories would have had a very short life so there is no reason for the media to seek the truth unless they want to bite the hand that feeds them. How long a paper can keep the story alive is what sells papers. The truth doesn’t sell one square inch of advertising space nor does it add one more subscription.

]]>
By: cautious123 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/01/12/times-public-editor-smashes-himself-with-boomerang/#comment-638 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:57:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=500#comment-638 It’s easy to pick on politicians, who never seem to find the line between truth and propaganda, but most reporters, in all major newspapers, contribute their bit to the “truth gap” when they write slanted and fact-thin pieces on certain issues, like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Middle East conflict, Israel’s military occupation of Palestine, climate change, Iran, and a host of other “hot” topics. Reporters become nothing more than secretaries before these issues. In today’s America, the press is just as untrustworthy as the Congress.

]]>