{"id":6745,"date":"2012-01-13T00:04:48","date_gmt":"2012-01-13T08:04:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=6745"},"modified":"2012-01-13T00:46:37","modified_gmt":"2012-01-13T08:46:37","slug":"news-v-propaganda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2012\/01\/13\/news-v-propaganda\/","title":{"rendered":"News v. Propaganda"},"content":{"rendered":"

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.\u00a0 This does a disservice to those who depend on them for information.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 A major news source may be rethinking their role in fact checking.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\"13truth\"The Public Editor of the New York Times<\/em><\/span> (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<\/a>: <\/span><\/p>\n

Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/em><\/span>. 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<\/em><\/span>-sponsored mission.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the question posed by the Times<\/em><\/span>‘ Public Editor is considerably less colorful.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge \u201cfacts\u201d that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2026 [emphasis original<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Daily Kos<\/a>><\/p>\n

I see real irony here that reporters, who can check facts, are considered \u201copinion columnists\u201d, while reporters, who merely parrot sources, are considered \u201cfactually-based reporters\u201d.\u00a0 Obviously there is nothing factually-based<\/em> about reporters who do not check for or challenge falsehood.\u00a0 Furthermore, reporters who do reporting far more than opinion<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many lies have become commonly held opinions, because Republicans have been repeating them for so long without challenge in the press.\u00a0 One example is that there were no terrorist attacks on the Republican watch.\u00a0 (We won\u2019t mention September 11.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Any reporter who does not call out sources for untruths is an propagandist, not a reporter.<\/span><\/p>\n

You can contact the Times here:<\/span><\/p>\n

Please feel free to leave a comment below<\/a> [in their article, not here] or send me an e-mail at public@nytimes.com<\/a> with the subject line: Readers Point the Way: Correcting Untruths. Please adhere to my comment moderation policy<\/a> when posting.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.\u00a0 This does a disservice to those who depend on them for information.\u00a0 It biases the news significantly in favor of Republicans, because without the fact checking necessary to identity […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6745","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6745\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}