This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should newspapers be truth vigilantes?
Arthur Brisbane, Public Editor for the New York Times wrote an interesting article OpEd today (January 12, 2012) asking "Should the New York Times Be a Truth Vigilante?"
The article can be found here: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/
In a time where people are being bombarded with information, what role (if any) should newspapers play in correcting un-informed, egregiously inaccurate statements? What implications would this have?
To quote Brisbane:
"...[People] look to The [New York] Times to set the record straight. They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.
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?"
Interested to hear your thoughts on this one...
Sojung Yun
Robert Cymber
David Grammer
I differ with you a little on just how "not self-appointed" or elected officials tend to be. To suggest that a largely white, upper class male with an advance college degree (very often in law) is representative of who the American people want to represent them seems unlikely. There is a screening process which tends to eliminate anyone outside that demographic with a few obvious exceptions. However, even the exceptions tend to be more a matter of appearance than substance. Through our own ignorance and apathy, we have allowed ourselves to be taken over by an small, narrowly self-interested oligarchy.
Salim Solaiman 50+
To survive newspaper have to in the erea of social network and connectivity....
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Even though I don't know much about New York Times(since I read Korean newspapers more), the things that have to be improved and changed are distributive throughout all of the media.
Personally,I prefer to read several kinds of newspapers as long as I can read, and compare those articles one another, and then organize the facts I recognize and the common position toward the same affair.
Because depends on the newspapers I choose to read, the reporter's take on how they perceived and analyzed the affair are more or less, or sometimes totally, different.
I suppose New York Times might not be able to be totally truth vigilantes,
So are other newspapers.
But only you can be a "self-vigilantes(so to speak)" only if you try hard not to be biased by one single article.
Simple put, rather than just blaming problems that are found in one single kind of newspapers, why don't you be more active to find out the truth and try to be more suspicious of the single story that are found in an article.
It's all up to you, if you ask me.
(Sorry for suggesting irrelevant opinion,btw.)
Richard Colley
It's interesting how our opinions differ on the usefulness of the excercise. Perhaps it's because of our methodologies?
You choose to read newspapers: I had to be bribed with a wage.You choose which newspapers to read: mine were randomly assigned. You choose which articles to read: I had to read every word or face the sack.
We've hardly read a word and already our opinions have been biased by choice and coercion.
Maybe we could control those and many other variables with randomisation?
Do we read a newspaper today or not? Toss a coin. Which newspaper? Roll a dice. Which article? Roll a 6, we read it. Info roulette.
Nice aphorism btw. Like it a lot.
Richard Colley
For several years I got paid to read national newspapers. On any given night it may have been: The Times, Guardian, Sun, Wall Street Journal (International ed.), Express. Colleagues would read the others. We'd then collate the articles on any given subject. Finally: attempt to produce a summary of those articles.
Getting the truth after it's been through a newspaper is like getting a mackerel after it's been through a shark.
Sure, you can have a good go at picking the bones out. You'll have to sift through a lot of faeces and everything's going to smell fishy afterward.
David Grammer
Richard Colley
The following statement is true:
the US military spends millions of dollars annually funding entomologists.
“What, in the name of (insert preferred deity/profanity here), are they doing?” You may well ask. I did. We should have asked a mountain of questions first ‘though. We should have checked our facts. Here’s some we could check before we start asking other questions:
1.Do they?
2.How many million?
3.What’s an entomologist?
Let’s imagine we have complete co-operation from the US military. Let’s imagine we can afford the army of forensic accountants. Let’s imagine the relevant curriculum was taught and the accrediting bodies did their job. Let’s imagine we asked all the relevant questions, to the right people and in the right places; and got sufficient answers to establish the truth of the statement.
You could even just ask George W. Korch Jr, Ph.D. at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response, if he’s still there (just ask for George Korch, you can drop the Lieutenant Colonel).
Cool, so what’s he going to say? How, yes, millions have been spent protecting you from disease vectors, in bio-defence and other things vital to national security. Interestingly, it’s quite possible he doesn’t know about the “other things”.
So who can find out for you? A truth vigilante? A blogger, a newspaper, Fox? For reasons that should be obvious to you by now: they can’t. Let alone should.
Good news America! There are people that can. They’re not truth vigilantes. They’re highly paid and motivated truth bureaucrats. They’re not self-appointed. You’re about to elect the most important one in the world. Choose wisely please.
Armistral .
Armistral .
This boils down to crowdsourcing news in the specific sense of crowdsourcing proof of the "truth" being presented by news. I would go further and say that any source of news that is not transparent about the process and open about sources and opposing information (not necessarily opinion) is at least disingenuous if not dishonest and should not be trusted as a source of "truth".
When this topic closes if anyone is interested in persisting it please consider continuing the conversation here: http://www.wesolver.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing_News
Eduardo Martinez
Ruth Barker
Ryan Turbiarz
I would think it's important to try and get such truths out there which will actually be of some importance to the people reading the paper. Make it clear what the article is about straight from the beginning. They should have clear and concise titles, and not go with something because they think it's 'punny' And most of all, offer references to any information that they pull out. The last thing I want to hear is "after a recent study...". Offer a direct link to a source if available. Little things that allow people to chase up the facts if they're interested.
tishe Hires 10+
Dan Jacob 500+
Actually, I live in Toronto, Canada. However I am in New York regularly.
Thanks for taking part in the conversation! Trust all is well.
Dan
tishe Hires 10+
William Kelly
On the website "Journalism.org" the first Principle of Journalism is :
" Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense. This "journalistic truth" is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built--context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need--not less--for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context."
This should not be a hard question, although the term vigilante indicates a desire or need to meet out punishment to those perceived to be wrong-doers, which is inflammatory, and negates the idea of unbiased journalistic integrity.
Laura Boytz
Robert Winner 50+
Like in politics what I see is not what you see. It is my responsibility to evaluate not the papers.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Absolutely.
But any institutions success at being "truth vigilantes" is inextricably intertwined with the cultures within which they exist.
As journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski puts it:
"We are (all) taking part in something of which we are both witness and creators"
Which means all who are affected by news media, communicate via it, or produce news must defend truth, and act, as you put it, as "vigilantes" for truth.
More critically, all must communicate with truth in all actions, and amplify the truth as persistently and publicly possible via whatever means -- and media is arguably the most publicly powerful means there is, these days.
Andrea
Walter Radtke
jennifer grigsby
Austin Kiesewetter
Thomas Brucia
Fair is *not* easy! Objective is in the eye of the beholder.
Which truths are 'relevant' depends entirely on one's feelings. Some care if Lindsay Lohan is dating and consider celebrity marriages a critical part of their lives. Many don't give a dang if an earthquake wipes out entire villages in Java.
Media constantly try to find what kinds of facts -- or stories, or lies -- appeal to their audience(s) and try to deliver them. And folks spend money to get what they want. End of story.
If you want truth, go outside... don't read or watch TV or listen to the radio.... and watch and listen. At least that way you eliminate *some* of the filters. (I can't see infrared as butterflies do, or hear trans-sonic vibrations of the air as bats do -- and that's fine!) If I want to know what's going on in London, England tomorrow -- and only want the truth -- I need to fly there. I bet the sun will rise there, too. And I'll bet that a wad of euros won't work if I try to buy some fish and chips.....
Mohammad Marohombsar
As to newspapers they should be too. But even if they are, newspapers (not to mention other media) spread truth too late.
Of course, nobody can be everywhere at all times. We have to have the initiative to tweet, text or email someone with first hand information. Better if they are witnesses.
It's not about how corrupt or true information from media should be. It's about fine tuning how we pass on or receive information. We have the resources for a global community. Contact someone you trust then confirm what the paper says.
If your neighbor got robbed, would you wait for the thing to land on your lawn?
The paper should be truthful but it obviously should not be the primary source of information.
Get on your feet and find the truth. Don't pay a writer to do that for you when you can do it yourself.
David Vail
Austin Kiesewetter
Zacharia Wilson
Silvia Marinova 20+
Tiago Landman
Silvia Marinova 20+
Tiago Landman
Tiago Landman
Luis Garcia
Jon Miner
Both politicians and diplomats know how to "speak between the lines." Sometime this is a useful strategy to sound out the other side without actually speaking out the question directly. It would be irresponsible for the Times or any reputable news source to change the words said into what was meant to be indirect. Of course this function of language can be used for nefarious purposes, and that is where the Times should editorialize to their heart's content, backing up their position with facts. If the original statements is in fact false, or a lie, then that In itself becomes news. The proper procedure at that point would be a fact filled news article or editorial putting the truth out there where people can see it clearly. News is history. It is totally irresponsible for a newspaper to restate any person's words so that they would be more "true." It would be just as wrong to editorialize within a news report. The news is the truth, even it what the person said is wrong, a lie, a slander, or an exaggeration. If I told a reporter "I believe Jodie Foster will get her fourth Oscar for her performance in Carnage. and it was reported as "Jon said "Jodie foster will probably get her third Academy Award for her performance in the movie Carnage." the article might be more correct, but it would not be what I said.
I believe people want more truth, and less moderation and equivocation by the both the media and the politicians.
Verble Gherulous 20+
In order to maintain this, we the people have to have a hunger for that information. In the last twenty years we have steadily engorged ourselves more and more on an unhealthy diet of entertainment. Fox News, born from a purported desire to provide balance to what they claimed was an unbiased media, actually changed media into purveyors of opinion, rather than fact. Now, we have this endless buffet of various viewpoints, rather than any unbiased, straight-up, "just-the-facts-ma'am" this-is-what-happened news.
In short, newspapers shouldn't have to be truth "vigilantes" - if the public demanded they be simple truth tellers instead of spin-doctors, then everything would be fine. But we must first retrain our appetite for information, not opinion.
(All these food analogies . . . can you tell I skipped breakfast this morning?)