One of my main complaints about the Main Stream Media is their tendency to regurgitate the data they get from their sources, without concern for accuracy. This does a disservice to those who depend on them for information. It biases the news significantly in favor of Republicans, because without the fact checking necessary to identity their lies, they get away with extraordinary disinformation. A major news source may be rethinking their role in fact checking.
The Public Editor of the New York Times (not as glamorous a position as the title might suggest) asks how deeply reporters should delve into whether or not the subjects of their reporting are baldly lying to them. The title:
Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
I have heard of Truth Squads, and Truth Posses, and Truth Seekers, and Truth Commissions, and Parliamentary Committees for Truthiness, and Truth Truthers, but this is the first time I have ever heard the term truth vigilante. The image I have is of a drunken man on horseback, waving a pen in one hand and an almanac in the other, riding over the range in an angry stupor, hot on the trail of some truth that nobody else in the town gives a damn about, but a truth that killed his cousin’s sister-in-law’s daughter, and so he is a man on a mission. A Jack Daniels-fueled, New York Times-sponsored mission.
But the question posed by the Times‘ Public Editor is considerably less colorful.
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.
He goes on to explain that an opinion columnist, like Paul Krugman, clearly has the “freedom” to call out untruths in a way that mere, factually-based reporters somehow do not. His example is Mitt Romney constantly claiming that Barack Obama has been “apologizing for America” when in actual fact that has never, ever happened, as the Public Editor himself points out… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
I see real irony here that reporters, who can check facts, are considered “opinion columnists”, while reporters, who merely parrot sources, are considered “factually-based reporters”. Obviously there is nothing factually-based about reporters who do not check for or challenge falsehood. Furthermore, reporters who do reporting far more than opinion.
Many lies have become commonly held opinions, because Republicans have been repeating them for so long without challenge in the press. One example is that there were no terrorist attacks on the Republican watch. (We won’t mention September 11.)
Any reporter who does not call out sources for untruths is an propagandist, not a reporter.
You can contact the Times here:
Please feel free to leave a comment below [in their article, not here] or send me an e-mail at public@nytimes.com with the subject line: Readers Point the Way: Correcting Untruths. Please adhere to my comment moderation policy when posting.
12 Responses to “News v. Propaganda”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The basic problem with the MSM is that they have allowed themselves to become PR vehicles for dubious think tanks and other advocacy groups of a questionable nature. There is very little vetting of most of the “experts” they present on their shows or in their pages. Instead, they present whatever they are spoon-fed as fact, and all we ever get (if we are lucky) are two opposing viewpoints on any given topic, as if all our choices on any given issue are limited only to two choices. Thos isn’t even journalism, but a misuse of public relations! It was sickening, as an example, for me to see MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough just an hour ago becoming a willing waterboy for Mitt Romney and some of the other Republicans who have questioned Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry for asking very real and valid questions about Romney’s predatory capital equity practices. By trying to frame the argument as a stance against free enterprise or capitalism itself, these water carriers are not only badly missing the crucial point but are also deflecting the thrust of the argument cpmletely away from where it should be – namely, the evils of vulture capitalism. SScarborough ought to be boiled in oil for such an attempt, but he and others like him won’t be in the less-than-truthful MSM!
Jack, and excellent point and an excellent example.
I totally agree with you Jack.
We usually do! 😉
They foist their opinions on the public as truth instead of really being just opinions. And the American people believe their propoganda. They accept opinions as truth.
I suppose we could call them political whores instead of journalists.
It’s worst than that. I have no problem with journalist stating opinions. I do when they regurgitate lies without debunking them.
If we can ever get the money out of politics, we might get it out of the media as well, which then might create a possibility for more truth to be excreted from their rectums!
Lee the only way to get the money out of media is to rely on subscription media or all volunteer media. Sadly, the front line research required for a good investigative piece is expensive.
very interesting– thank you
YVW, Phyllis.
I was in a conversation with a Dr Larry Devereux, the Dean of Continuing Education at the University of Victoria. While many years later (this happened about October of 1978), I cannot recall the exact issue we were talking about however I do remember my response. It was “I take everything with a grain of salt, just sometimes it has to be bigger than at other times.”
When I listen to or read something, I try to listen/read critically. Does it make common sense? Is it logical? Is it consistent with other information I have at my disposal? Is it from a reliable source? I try to distill the information and will go after other sources or opinions if it is very important. That is probably why, in reading articles for here or Care2, I get caught up in all sorts of information that I find interesting or just plain bull. I tend to be an information junkie.
One thing that we all have to remember is that reporters have opinions too and may only see what they want to see. Not right when you’re doing a fact based report, but inevitable given the nature of people. I read a comment on Care2 from someone who it appeared worked for ABC News at some point. She said it was about getting the stories that mattered so she left. I took it to mean, and yes I am making an assumption based on tone and full content of the comment, that there was little time alotted for checking the veracity of facts, just getting the story. Let that be a lesson to us all.
Lynn, I am much like you are. Not satisfied with what is served, I go digging.
Bias is inevitable. So I do not admit my bias. I proclaim it. Knowing that I am biased makes me more vigilant to ascertain that my bias is limited to opinions and is not exacerbated by giving incorrect facts.