It’s pitiful that this is even a question someone would think to ask.
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.
One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.
[…]
This message was typical of mail from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The 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?
Journalism died a long time ago. What we have now is political and corporate propaganda writers and entertainer-reporters putting twists and spins on events, facts don’t come into play.
Agrees
It fell prey to punditry and the other bullshit that passes for reportage these days.
The other bullshit is that there are always two (or more but we’ll says that there are always two diametrically opposed.) views on any issue.
Sometimes there isn’t.
Like in science reporting. There’s no debate, there may be some discrepancy about the rounding, but there’s no debate. The introduction of debate is punditry raising its ugly head.
The debate over global warming is wrong. Its stupid and wastes ink and time.
They’re debating when they should be asking the right
ARRGH! I have NO IDEA what happened there… The entire comment occurs later.
Fox proved that the big money is to tell the sheeple what they WANT to hear, with entertainment, but call it “News”.
Another gift to American culture by the conservative sheep herders.
Actually what Fox News proves is that reporting everything with a liberal (I no longer consider most “liberals” to be liberal thinkers. They have falsified that theory.) bias and trying to hide anything that doesn’t support their/your partisan views is an effective way to be marginalized which is what has happened to most other networks.
I’ve been expecting some greedy person (there are still plenty of those.) to at least try to give Fox a major run for their money by moving to the middle or going conservative but so far no takers.
It is not at all clear to me why not in a business in which ratings are as important to the bottom line as it is with the networks and they obsess about them constantly.
“It is not at all clear to me why not in a business in which ratings are as important to the bottom line as it is with the networks and they obsess about them constantly.”
In a sense I agree, I no longer think of liberals as liberal thinkers. But FOX News as liberal? Maybe, just maybe, they don’t have to depend so much on viewer support. Maybe they are subsidized for their “opinions”.
IOW Federally funded propagandists. It’s as likely a scenario as any.
I believe it was Dan Carlin who pointed out to me that reporters are not paid to report the news. They report news ‘stories’.
I say too many companies have gotten so caught up in pushing their product that they’ve forgotten what they were selling.
Think about this: they have to ask the question.
It fell prey to punditry and the other bullshit that passes for reportage these days.
The other bullshit is that there are always two (or more but we’ll says that there are always two diametrically opposed.) views on any issue.
Only, sometimes there isn’t.
Like in science reporting. There’s no debate, there may be some discrepancy about the rounding, but there’s no debate.
The introduction of debate is punditry raising its ugly head.
The debate over global warming is wrong. Its stupid and wastes ink and time.
They’re debating when they should be asking the right question, like what are we going to do with the people when the Maldives get drowned, what are we going to do when our coast lines get pushed three meters* higher?
They’re debating when they should be asking the right question, like why do we insist on building nuclear reactors in flimsy buildings above ground when they leak radiation if anything happens and would be much safer in huge concrete caskets below ground from the beginning.
They’re debating “The public will never buy cars with all of the money if would cost to install things like collapsible steering columns and crumple zones.” Oh yeah, the public already are ready are, aren’t they?
Punditry, aka bullshit, aka debate, has its place, here on blogs or in editorials.
It does not have any place in reporting.
Example of reporting: “Two males, one approximatively in his sixties and one in his mid forties died of two gunshot’s to the head by the side of interstate 95 north of Bangor Maine.”
Example of punditry: “Have the dreaded yellow jacketed <bBumblebee Gang been able to chalk up two more victims in their cross country rampage of kidnapping and murder targeting internet radio hosts. When will it all end? Who’s next? Is Rush Limbaugh safe from these predators. <yaddah, yaddah>”
Example of blogging comments: “ROTFL The dudes git shot for telling “Yo mama’s so fat…” jokes.”
Example of debate: Joining is tonight, in our series “Defending the Indefensible,” are Sister Maria Immaculata of the order of the Sisters of Perpetual Motion, and Scrote Anguish of the wearers of “Red Handkerchiefs in the Left Ass Pocket”. Sister Immaculata, do I understand corectly that you might be for nun rape?”
Am I making my point here?
*) Did you read that? Three meters, not inches, not feet, not even yards, though that’s very close, three meters. How much coast line of the US is too low too save? How are we going to deal with all the people suddenly moving to the interior. All of Florida is coming here! Every last aligator, manatee, Disney character, retard, COPS, uh, contestant, and retiree…
you are just another kool-aid drinker…
Fine, call me a kool-aid drinker if you must, but if they offer you any land in Florida, take my advice, don’t buy it.
I have friends in Pensacola who live a hop skip and a jump from the beach.
They’re moving while they can, selling the house and the land to Whitey, and buying up in Alabama, up being the operative word.
They know where the water level rose up to by looking at the hills around there.
Rich people plan for the long term, the very long term. Its called multi-generational risk assessment.
In the long term, thumbing your nose at me and going nyah nyah and calling me names is not worth your losing everything for all time.
I live up on top of tall escarpement, which was actually an ancient shore line less than 30,000 years ago. [Land ownership is forever, baby! If I was you, I’d be making sure that my descendants can actually use the real-estate instead of ocean bottom.{Look at all the real-estate in Cairo, formerly Alexandria, around the Colossus of Rhodes that is at the bottom of the harbor there.}])
But I’m living up here due to my niggling worry about the “Caldera de Taburiente” volcano on the island of “La Palma” in the Canary Islands wich will, not could but will, take out most of the eastern seaboard when it goes. (And its rumbling now)
I would have survived he 3/11/11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan too, because I’m smart, not because of luck.
Of course when the next ice age comes, my descendants will be screwed as the land may very well be scraped out onto the grand banks in Atlantic by a mile-high sheet of ice.
And so it goes.
“I would have survived he 3/11/11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan too, because I’m smart, not because of luck.” /// Ha, ha. Different theme, but just as repetitive and one note as Pedro. I can think of 3-4 informational/situational items that would have allowed you to avoid the tsunami BUT what if you were “unlucky”?
Can you imagine 3-4 circumstances in which you would have been “unlucky?”
Or do you simply mean living in New Jersey avoids the Japanese tsunami? btw==just how smart is living in New Jersey?
Ha, ha. Some say the world will end in Fire, others say ice. Quite the contrarian going with flood.
The world won’t end. I’m not espousing an apocalyptic vision or other kind of nonsense.
The volcano on La Palma has a structural flaw that means that next time it blows* half of the mountain may slide into the Atlantic, and there’s nothing between the billions of tons of water displaced by the earth slide and the east coast of the US. (Imagine a ten meter wave which would wipe out of the Chesapeake and Washington DC** and cause severe water damage along most of the eastern seaboard.)
How smart is it to place your property, your real estate and your life in the way of a tsunami when all it takes is moving to a location that a few hundred feet up?
Its one thing to throw your life away, (so you actually like bungie jumping,) its another thing entirely to throw your inheritance away.
That’s a decision that your descendants would hate you for.
That’s why bottom lands, like flood plains***, the feet of mountains where rock falls kill people and coast lines like the cliffs of Dover, were always held in common and were the property of the state or manor.
I can tell you don’t think of the future much. S’ allright…
That difference in vision between the landed gentry and the commoners is at the root of the class war in this country.
Right now the landed gentry are winning … because they think long term.
*) Its not like a Hawaiian volcano which makes lava floes, its the explosive kind like Krakatoa or Santorini (which wiped out the entire Minoan civilization.)
**) The location of this nation’s capital is truly unfortunate. Its existence is threatened and will be ended under a tsunami at some point in the future.
***) The USA is the only country with the hubris to think that something like the Amy Corps Of Engineers is a long term solution. But, like the Tragically Hip sang “New Orleans is sinking, and I don’t wanna swim“
I’m way above sea level and was not all that concerned about the issue before the last set of measurements from NASA showed global sea level was now falling. They did explain this by claiming it was due to flooding, cough, gag, retch.
Gore bought a seafront mansion. So much for generational planning unless of course he doesn’t think the oceans are going to rise all that much.
Climate has always varied and always will. Sea levels go up and down and low lying coastal areas have always been the subject of flooding and reshaping by storm and tide along with natural subsidence.
Any effort to attribute everything to the minute increase in the tiny fraction of the atmosphere that is CO2 is not going to stand up to an informed examination.
Any time that anyone claims that every scientists agrees about anything they are obviously spreading propaganda. The most one can hope for is a consensus.
Hey, I live in Pensacola. When you come to visit let me know. I’ll pick up the bar tab.
I would love to see good journalism checking facts and reporting fairly on them. But I think first they should push for reporters to report and stop interjecting their own opinions and theories as “facts.”
I think podcast has it bout right: all hail the pod. Course, Animby too with first post, wrong about second. 50% right is a pretty high standard we should all shoot for.
Regarding the former: good and bad to all we do. First Reporting, In Depth Reporting, Daily Newspaper, Magazine Article, Books, new reporters, old reporters, reporters who know, reporters who don’t. All quite different. Same with Debates: there are formats with follow up questions, and formats without. Same with everything you can think of: a whole continuum from excellent to poor with most in the middle==how could it be anything else?
Thing is, society/tech has already moved on. EACH and every one of us CHOOSES the type of reporting we watch and regardless of what is out there, we will all narrow it down to our choices===as much as we can. As as we do that, the leading edge creating our choices already has our Political Class choosing to do less and less interviews/availability/responding anywhere near on point. Michele Bachman demonstrated this to the max this last run up and by and large in complimented for being “on message” and “disciplined.”
Pro’s and Con’s to every problem, every solution. Every solution the premise for the next challenge.
Heard a good one just yesterday: “Let’s get the money out of Politics.” Good idea Yes? Then a commentator said they got the money out of politics in England in 1983 (?) by some law and that provided the environment for the rise/control/influence/near monopoly of Rupert Murdock.
“Its always something”===and isn’t that the challenge of life?
Same as it always was.
#16–bobbo, “50% right is a pretty high standard”
Thank you. We all aspire to your high standard of being 100% correct. But life is sooo hard.
I’m in a good mood. Wine cooler freezing in the fridge, pizza in its rising stage right now before adding cheese, chicken and pineapples: what a too easy case of projection.
Actually, I’m into being 50% right, and 50% wrong and seeing who takes me apart.
All I am is 100% unchallenged. Well, thats too egotistical. I was told it was impolite to call an ass wipe an ass wipe. And thats true…..you know….not enough beer.
Bla. Bla. Bla.
Who the hell reads The New York Times? Half of their subscribers buy it just so they don’t have to buy toilet paper for their pets. About a quarter use it for packaging or blankets. And the ones who might actually buy it for any actual content really just stock it in their public waiting areas for the poor occasional schlemiel who forgets to bring his cell phone. Anyone who actually does read it though might read maybe 3 sentences and then feel educated or “enlightened” for experiencing better grammar.
But “reporting”? Ha! Give me a break.
Even the National Enquirer does a better job reporting any actual news. That’s probably because The New York Times has been spinning their lib-tard vomit for so long that they couldn’t get it right to save their lives. They couldn’t draw a straight line if they were aided by earth’s gravity even. Only a complete moron would believe that the New York Times would be objective and thorough.
Please!
“Who the hell reads The New York Times?”
Look at the circulation figures if you’re really interested.
People do read read the paper edition and millions more go to the website.
They’re also affiliated with other publications like the LA Times.
You really don’t come across as credible if you’re too lazy, then you’re just another opinionated ignorant fuck a la Rush Limbaugh but without a shred of popularity.
Try and avoid that, back up your opinions with some research and some facts and you won’t be so easily dismissed.
Oh–and Pro’s and Con’s about Pedro as well. I kinda look forward to his attached theme. Kinda parallel to Dallas’s which gets the same criticism about being monotone==but its like music, setting a beat if you will. It provides a rhythm, a back beat you can’t miss it, thats why I like R & R.
And I’ve never thought of it as “bullying.” Tiresome, funny, repetitive from time to time but if Pedro likes it, and Dallas himself doesn’t seem to matter so much given the inconsequentiality that it is. Seems to me Animby you were more bullying in one comment than Pedro has been in 50? Yeap–pro’s and con’s to everything we do: bullying, commenting on bullying, pontificating, advocating the status quo, speaking from talking points.
And same with Animby. He could have let it go but didn’t. I can let THAT go or not. I try to see the good and bad in EVERY comment, take the good, leave the bad.
Yes, I do. I truly do. And now, its your choice.
ain’t life grand?
Bobbo – you have me confused. A couple of days ago you praised my bedside manner and now you think I’m a bigger bully than Pedro? And, aren’t you the one who frequently suggests Pedro is into cross-species fornication?
Life is really hard.
Animby–so rarely do I get a chance to parse you:
Bobbo – you have me confused. /// I can see that trap a mile off!
A couple of days ago you praised my bedside manner /// did I praise it or merely assume it existed? A small dithering point not worth the electrons==as I do assume it, all to the point of:
and now you think I’m a bigger bully than Pedro? /// See how its not so much the absolute quality of what you posted but rather how out of character it is? We all function best in our little cocoons==and yours is World Healer. Not consistent with eviserating the shoeless.
And, aren’t you the one who frequently suggests Pedro is into cross-species fornication? /// Thats a postive spin permitting Pedro the decision as opposed to being too passive or drunk to avoid the advances of his penned in domestic(ated) partner. With the ample time you have spent in isolated foreign lands, I doubt you have anything against bestiality. And note: if criticism it be, its only for the actions, not the character. Big Huge difference enough to throw a caduceus through. Hmmm–thats usually not so large, not proportionate to ego anyway…..let’s make it a Barber’s Pole? Ha, ha. How much blood have you spilled on that top knob? Ahhh–I’ve wandered too far in my revelrie, and its not even oh drink thirty?
Life is really hard. /// Well, isn’t that why you should try to help Pedro and his Donkey? But you weren’t doing that so out of character as you were. Dallas can take care of himself. Moderators to shape the meme.
Certainly you can’t help yourself by comparing yourself well to me. Thats a universal.
Bobbo – thanks for the laughs. I will here publicly admire your broad experience. Not many know about the knob on top of a barber pole. You will, henceforth, be the DU authority on knob jobs.
I will correct your misinformation, however. Despite “common” belief, the medical profession does not use the caduceus as a symbol. In fact, the caduceus was the staff carried by Hermes – patron of thieves, which could make it ideal for many doctors. The healing professions use the Staff of Aesculapius – the father of medicine. The caduceus is usually a short wand with wings and two snakes intertwined. The medical staff is full length and has a single snake winding it’s length.
You are forgiven in advance for the mistake. When I was in the Army, my badges used a caduceus as did many other medical organizations. But, now, most have switched over to the correct symbol. Of course, as difficult as caduceus is to spell, Aesculapius is even worse!
I wouldn’t want to hear Pedro with a mouth full of chicharrones try to pronounce either one.
As for your assertion, thinly veiled, that I might have indulged in bestiality during my long travels, I have to admit it is true. I eventually even married that Scottish bitch. Thank god it didn’t take.
Bravo and Kudo’s and whatever correction you wish to apply to my common misunderstanding.
There ya go with that bedside manner just oozing out of every pore. Makes me almost want to be sick so you could treat me–Munchhausen by Peregrination? I think with that House breaking into Cynthia Nixon’s house to form his working diagnosis reference, we both understand Munchhausens. Certainly, what is posting here but a cry for attention?
You do make me laugh. Well done.
this lil note sums it up well
http://techdirt.com/articles/20120108/00533117331/study-confirms-news-networks-owned-sopa-supporters-are-ignoring-sopapipa.shtml
Here ya go … I fixed your hyperlink so it will work:
Study Confirms: News Networks Owned By SOPA Supporters… Are Ignoring SOPA/PIPA
Example 1:
If Clarence Thomas says he misunderstood a form and you have no conflicting info like co-conspirators to leaving his wife’s income out. You can ask CT about it. But your story will probably still be “Clarence Thomas says he misunderstood form.” You are done. Time to move on.
Example 2:
Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America.” Should a news organization check every speech Obama ever made for apologetic content? No. If you find apologetic content you appear to have taken Romney’s side. If you don’t find apologetic content you appear to have taken Obama’s side. Easy thing to do is ask a fair question. Mr. Romney can you give an example of an apologetic speech made by President Obama?
I once watched an old TV News Director try to explain to two “bubble headed bleach blondes” how their opinion on the oppression of women was not exactly the same thing as a fact.
One of the BHBBs qualified due to youth the older one was the prototype.
We need to go back to distinguishing between a Reporter and a Journalist. Any idiot can be a Reporter and regurgitate like a parrot. If you want to be a Journalist and a respected information source you have to seek the truth and that means not letting someone use you as a tool.
When someone tells you something that doesn’t make sense that’s because it doesn’t and they need to be called out for it.
Used to be the biased reporting was saved for the editorial page. Now that page is the front page. But let’s face it America is taking political sides everywhere you look. From TV news to comedy and print. The news media does not just report news anymore. It changes it to fit their political viewpoint. Either by eliminating certain facts or just drawing their own conclusions. Politics have been like that forever, but now the media seems to be getting involved. Everybody gives Fox news a rough time for being biased. But that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Sure, they probably are biased, but their just rooting for the other team that’s all.
Fox news can “root for the other team” all they want. They just need to skip the mock outrage when someone questions their “fair and balanced” slogan.
FM Scout Ship BZ-73
TO Intergalactic HQ
RE Earth
Planet appears to be dominated by large, avaricious bipeds. Still looking for signs of intelligence. Out.
The worst thing that could happen to the SOPA/PIPA supporters would be to win.
Then they’d have to give their sources for every single deal that they make, ever book or article that’s written, every song that is recorded, every picture that is taken, every movie made.
It would stop everything as the lawyers tear into each other like a pack of rabid dogs.
They’d be trying to copyright the alphabet and every neologism.
SOPA/PIPA if applied consistently would be a disaster for its promoters as
• we all know that laws have to be applied consistently or they’re not worth the trouble to enforce, and
• if they’re not worth the trouble to enforce, they’re just ignored and
• they become as irrelevant as the law “requiring someone carrying a red flag on the end of a stick to walk in front of an automobile to warn people of its coming..”
Only a retard with barely enough brain cells to support autonomous functions could believe mankind is causing Global Warming (TM). However, SOPA/PIPA just might destroy the place. Talk about laws that only Hitler/Lenin/Mao could love…
Charmers and magicians are continuously casting magical spell from inside Rajasthan Police Force. I, my friends and relatives have been suffering for more than six years. Already reported the case with Delhi Police. What I believe is that they have murdered not only my maternal uncle (Nanaji), but many people nearby me. Please help me, I am in urgent need. Moola Ram along with his friends are taking full advantage of Rajasthan Reserved Force ( Gajipur, New Delhi) from inside without caring for any legal proceeding and constitutional laws. What I believe is that they are looting people from here and grabbing lacs of money from them and have strong association with dacoits and murders. If you have any review, please revert to me with some help.
Sunil Kumar Dogra
Richard Threlkeld, the veteran television journalist from CBS and ABC News, died on Friday, January 13, 2012.
There is very little true reporting going on anymore. There is little or no middle ground. Factual reporting has devolved into something more like a debate where you select only those facts that support your idea and totaly ignore and deny anything that doesn’t.
Way too many on the left think their philosophy is irrefutably correct and self evident when in fact, they haven’t analyzed anything and are quick to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. The left has a great tendency to replace thought with pure sentiment. The ethics on the left are closely aligned with believing that the end justifies the means. Some of the most conflicted people I know are high tech people whose work must follow very analytical processes while their politics are based on little more than mushy sentiment. Most of the media and way too many educators are from the left.
Those on the right tend to be far less sentimental, a lot more analytical and try to look at both sides unless it conflicts with biblical scripture. The right is handicapped by the means justifying the end, the constitution, the rule of law, logical reasoning and religious principal because it believes things must be either right or wrong. There is very little tolerance for shades of gray.