The Times’ public editor is asking, in the form of a blog entry, whether the media should be in the habit of pointing out when a subject is lying. That is, a politician says that black is white, should the reporter covering it point out that, in fact, black is black? It’s shameful that this question even needs to be asked. Websites like Richmond Sunlight are in the business of reporting straight-up facts. That has value, no doubt. But the job of media outlets is to take that information, review it, interpret it, package it up, and provide that to readers, to help them to understand the world around them. And the Times is wondering if it’s necessary to point out when their facts are wrong? Yes, yes it is necessary. Get on it, Times. →
Comments are closed.
Are you sure that was the Times,not The Onion? Oh yeah, “All the news that fits, we print” (I think that was from Mad Magazine). The truth doesn’t fit, I guess. Besides, it would make it necessary for the reporters to do some thinking. Maybe they don’t consider that to be part of their job description. The NYT is hardly the only media outlet that has this problem.
Despite this thinky veiled “op-ed” on proper journalism, President Obama HAS, in fact, apologized for America, despite not using the words, “I apologize.” Anyone denying this plain and obvious fact is operating with an agenda.
This piece is a weak attempt at defending future NYT pro-Obama, anti-Romney spin.
Fat-fingered my iPad. “thinky” = “thinly”
I. Publius, which specific speeches are you referring to when you say that “President Obama HAS, in fact, apologized for America”? Which portions of those speeches? Could you provide quotes?
If Obama didn’t say “I apologize for America..” or “I’m sorry that America…” or “I offer my apologies on behalf of America” or a variant thereof that uses the words “apology” or “sorry” or “regret,” then he has not “apologized” for America. Anyone denying this plain and obvious fact is operating with an agenda.
News reports should be just that, news. If the topic of the article is covering an in accuracy, sure, report on that. If you want to fact check during an article, sure do that. But don’t add an opinion on if a statement is a lie. Give me good, fair, objective, and in-depth reporting and I’ll be able to make the call if I feel a statement is a lie.
Seems to me that whether or not something is a lie is provable based on the facts, so to call out a statement that’s a lie isn’t just opinion. Determining whether something is a lie or not should be based in objectve truth, not feeling. A newspaper’s job should be to point out the objective truth behind the statements of our leaders (and those that aspire to those roles) so that we can be as informed as possible.
This is an important question. Politicians frequently play fast and loose with the truth. There is a feeling in newsrooms, however, that we can’t call them out on that, that it’s the job of their opponents. Due to the demands of “objectivity,” which some take to mean that all statements are created equal, we’d try to find someone on the other side to say the statement isn’t true. In my view, this isn’t the best way to handle it. When Joe McCarthy was waving that sheet of paper with the “names of the communists in the State Department” around, some reporter should have reported, “actually the page was blank.” I think objectivity means we have a duty to the truth, not always to give both sides equal time. Because sometimed one side is obviously right and the other wrong. But mine is a minority viewpoint in newsrooms. I also don’t think we should print letters to the editor with demonstrable errors in fact, but every newspaper in America does.
Dear Roger and Claire: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html
Are you both channeling Hillary Rodham Clinton? “I don’t recall.”
Really I. Publius? A WSJ opinion piece, penned by Mr. Rove, as evidence that Obama apologized for America?
Thank you, Noah! I love it–if Karl Rove sees it that way, it must objectively be true!
That Karl Rove! While he is widely acclaimed for his ability to make a turd into a sweet blossom, I see he also gets paid to reverse the process. Do you have a better witness than the Chief Apologist for George Bush?
I went ahead and did the actual work of tracking down these statements, so we could see them in context instead of looking at isolated phrases.
First:
Second:
Third:
Fourth:
Fifth:
Now, needless to say, I don’t think any of these amount to apologizing for America; I think they are more in the nature of effective diplomacy. I am curious which specific parts you object to, with an explanation of why, in your opinion, they are objectionable.
(I have also not yet looked to see which of these statements are similar to statements made by Republican presidents, but I bet many or all of them are.)
Wow, go Roger! :) Yes, as you surely suspected, context is everything.
Sudan
Tunisia
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Yes They Can!
Nicely done, Roger.
Pubilus is, as always, bereft of integrity. Good thing he doesn’t attach his name to all those ridiculous things he says, I suppose.
I agree with the first four statements of Obama as quoted by Roger. (I’m totally confused about the fifth by Gibbs and how it bears relevance.) As you guys know, I’m very conservative. But I’ve lived abroad a lot, 8 months in Thailand, 5 months in Israel & Palestine (working with Palestinians), and am currently in India for 2 months. I’m delighted by Obama’s tone and substance in most of his foreign policy. (I’m cautious about Egypt’s 75% Islamist vote, but I still think Obama did the right thing, even if it produces undesirable results. Doing the expedient thing instead of the right thing is not a viable long-term strategy.) His policies fit very well with the “realities on the ground” that I’ve observed around the world. People want so badly to love the U.S.*, but the U.S.’s elitism and arrogance gets very old, very quickly. (The crazy thing about conservatives’ is that they tend to be the down home folks against liberal elitism, which makes no sense when they talk about proud American exceptionalism.) We need to keep the exceptionalism, but drop our arrogance.
Where I’m dead-set against Obama is all in re: to domestic policy. In fact, when I explain Obama’s domestic policies to my overseas friends (in Thailand, India, or Palestine), they’re dead-set against his domestic policies as well.
* As a further point, the place where I’ve felt the most pro-American fervor of anywhere in the world was in Iraq. As I walked down the street in Kurdistan, Iraq, people would yell out to me in English, “America the best!” “USA number one!” “I very like Bush, I very hate Osama bin Laden!” A random Kurdish guy told me on my flight from Dubai to Erbil, “The Turks hate us, the Arabs hate us, the Iranians hate us; if it weren’t for the Americans, we wouldn’t have any friends in the world.” I think this illustrates the value in providing an auxiliary support to the locals rather than a takeover. The no-fly zone for Northern Iraq was the perfect medicine for Kurdistan since it protected the Kurds from genocide (I saw the destroyed villages) with very little effort from the U.S., but allowed the Kurds to self-govern without providing a U.S. face to blame the problems on–inevitably those in charge will get the blame when things go wrong, fairly or unfairly in that situation. Afghanistan, IMHO, would have gone much better if the U.S. would have stopped at supporting the Northern Alliance from the air and with Special Forces on the ground. The scenario that followed was that the Taliban was able to add the U.S. to the long list of repelled foreign empires along with the Soviets.