A Discussion About NY Times "Truth Vigilante" Op-Ed

Shoq and I discuss the op-ed in which the NY Times Public Editor asks the readers if reporters should play fact checker in their stories.
journalism Truth nytimes
1
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
Sick of this "Truth Vigilante" noise. All this piling on does is discourage papers from even talking about an important issue.
Broadway Carl🇺🇸 @BwayCarl
@Shoq Well, he did ask for the readers' opinions. I find it fascinating that reporters "imposing judgment" on a piece means fact checking.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl Everyone interprets what he said to suit. It's a perfect example of why discourse by comment threat is asinine.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl I feel like the issue is absolutely vital, and rather than discussing it rationally, people are mocking the guy who brings it up.
Broadway Carl🇺🇸 @BwayCarl
@Shoq "Vigilante" in the title doesn't help his cause. I don't consider journalistic accuracy vigilantism, but requisite to their profession
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl The title was stupid.. and like many sites, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else wrote it.
Broadway Carl🇺🇸 @BwayCarl
@Shoq I think the mock is a reaction to the shock that he would ask such a question.
Broadway Carl🇺🇸 @BwayCarl
@Shoq I didn't read the comments so much (for obvious reasons which you point out) but I did send him an email to voice my opinion.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
I wasn't. I welcomed it. RT @BwayCarl: @Shoq I think the mock is a reaction to the shock that he would ask such a question.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl But I think about the media and how it makes messes every day. What is seems mockable to some, is a serious problem to me.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl However inartfully he may have asked it, his question is still valid, and his example still a good one.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl Find me a reporter who can tell you with certainty what Thomas's intent was, and I will show you a biased reporter and a liar.
Broadway Carl🇺🇸 @BwayCarl
@Shoq In the Thomas case I happen to agree with you, it's speculation and hence an opinion piece.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl He wasn't speaking of matters of pants on fire fact checking. But of much less obvious situations where it's very hard to do.
Broadway Carl🇺🇸 @BwayCarl
@Shoq But I think he WAS speaking about pants on fire fact checking, using the Romney's "Obama apologizing for America" as an example.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl if conservative papers had a policy of a reporter always using his judgment about "facts" in every story we'd be furious.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl But that's an easier call to make, and that's why he used it. Because even it COULD be cast subjectively
Broadway Carl🇺🇸 @BwayCarl
@Shoq I'm not talking about "judgment" about facts, I'm talking about actual facts. Reporters can/should research an accusation without spin
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl It SEEMS like a slam dunk, until you ask "is this about was SAID? perceived? Implied? It raises all sorts of protocols
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl Of course, but then where do they stop? Should they also assess the veracity of the fact checker, or the data behind it?
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
RT @allanbrauer: @BwayCarl @Shoq My impression is that the NYT writer was raising valid points but did a terrible job of expressing them.
Broadway Carl🇺🇸 @BwayCarl
@Shoq There can be many gray areas, but my take on it is that reporters have an obligation to include actual facts to obvious distortions.
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl I agree.. but I don't think he was really saying they don't,
It's Fox News, Stupid! @Shoq
.@BwayCarl No matter what we agree is a valid case, there are many invalid, and lots more fuzzy. That's why it's a good discussion to have.
Load Remaining (3)

Comment

No comments yet. Write yours!

Login and hide ads.