well, duh... ---- [Public editor column] Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
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.
Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches "apologizing for America," a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the "post-truth" stage.
As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?
------- rest (and make sure to read the devastating reader comments): http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/ _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key [email protected] [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World News Now Discussion List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wnndl?hl=en.
