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. – Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
Arthur Brisbane’s post today left me speechless and that’s not easy to do.
It’s the most important piece you can read and it sheds light on our entire problem in the media and their complicity in helping politicians market absolutely rubbish.
Anyone who has read my book The Hillary Effect will see evidence of what’s happened throughout our media, which is represented in Brisbane’s remarkable acknowledgement that as public editor of the Times he believes that a snappy ap where facts are offered as a sidebar replaces truth that once was expected to be embedded in what people read.
Somewhere along the way, telling truth from falsehood was surpassed by other priorities to which the press felt a stronger duty. Arthur Brisbane, public editor of the New York Times, was unaware of this history when he asked users of the Times whether reporters should call out false statements.
That this breaks out on the web pages of the New York Times, no less, is truly remarkable. But that it does so in a flip commentary is…
No wonder people are uncomfortable when new-media writers like myself offer up uncomfortable truths. They seem to be optional, even for what used to be the paper of record, the New York Times.
We’re a stupid, lazy nation, but our media is worse. No wonder we’re getting the candidates and leaders we are today.
This inadvertent admission from Brisbane reveals why Fox News Channel has gotten away with it’s GOP cheerleading. It illustrates why MSNBC decided to throw gravitas to the wind and offer non-stop ideological nonsense, minus Chuck Todd and Dylan Ratigan, with Chris Hayes in there now too.
Truth is now optional.