The NY Times public editor really set off a bit of a firestorm today with his column. In it, Arthur Brisbane asks, apparently seriously, whether reporters ought to be calling out sources for claiming things as “facts” that are demonstrably not true. The column appeared under the headline Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
The question Brisbane raised drew a huge range of responses, many of which could be summed up by the comment, “Well, duh!”
NYU journalism prof Jay Rosen has an excellent post up explaining why there was this explosive reaction and why the reaction surprised Brisbane. (In brief, Rosen says that Brisbane’s asking the question shows the failure of the concept of “the view from nowhere” in which journalists behave as though they can be completely detached in their reporting and take on no point of view.
- The Atlantic’s Wire blog has an interesting analysis of the column and the reaction to it as well.
- American Journalism Review has an article that puts the controversy in context of the fact checking movement.
- Greg Sargent at the Washington Post’s Plum Line blog gives some good examples of how not calling out candidates for falsehoods gives readers a false impression.
I love when an “emperor’s new clothes” issue explodes….