32 Comments - Lakeview - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 8:53 am: Oy gevalt. - Alexander Cut The Knot - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:02 am: Interesting how both examples he used in his column would rebut conservative or republican views, but no examples of challenging a “fact” offered by a liberal or democrat were used. So, if they are going to rebut, then they must rebut those “facts” that agree with their world-view as well as those that don’t - the problem is those they agree with will be viewed as real facts and not investigated. - Cincinnatus - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:12 am: The reporter should not rebut facts, but report rebuttals by the opposing view or using impartial factual sources. Otherwise, it’s called opinion. - Cheryl44 - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:14 am: Yes, you moron, The Times should check facts and print the truth. What’s so difficult about that? - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:14 am: I don’t know what Brisbane is struggling with. You’re supposed to “question” newsmakers, not just transcribe what they say. But there’s lazy journalism every day. Last year during the tax increase hysteria, it was widely reported for days that CAT had threatened to leave the state because of the tax increase. Lawmakers jumped all over it and repeated this “fact.” Problem was, CAT never made that threat. Not even close. And CAT pays next-to-nothing most years in state income tax, anyway. Yesterday, IPI released a “report” claiming that businesses were “fleeing the state” because of the tax increase. That was reported as a fact. IPIs report didn’t back up the claim at all. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:24 am: ==I don’t know what Brisbane is struggling with. You’re supposed to “question” newsmakers, not just transcribe what they say.== Well put. Too much of what reporters do today is either printing what was said, unquestioned, or, following cincy’s suggestion and reporting someone else’s contrary statement and framing the whole thing as a debate where both sides have equal merit. It would be much more appropriate for the reporter to dig into the topic and report what the facts behind the assertion are and, when appropriate, indicate where the more general consensus lies. Global warming comes to mind as a topic where lots of politicians weigh in with their opinions and many reporters refuse to question what is said or indicate where the scientific consensus lies. When someone suggests that there is no global warming, why aren’t they asked to explain their position in the light of specific, observable facts such as the loss of ice cover in the Arctic Ocean? - JN - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:33 am: “reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers?” should be “reporters should challenge assertions by newsmakers?” And the answer is most definitely NO. FOX, MSNBC, and their affiliates have that portion of the market cornered. All that needs to be reported are the assertions from other reliable sources which cover the same topic. Then let the reader/viewer reach their own conclusion. And stop obfuscating the word “facts” along with the rest of the English (’merican?) language. - Lakefront Liberal - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:46 am: ==The reporter should not rebut facts, but report rebuttals by the opposing view or using impartial factual sources. Otherwise, it’s called opinion.== Of course the report should not rebut facts, which by definition are factually true. The question is what to do when an someone they are quoting in a new story makes a statement that is NOT factual. Does the reporter point this out or let it go? Right now it seems like they mostly do what is suggested above — they wait for someother group to point out the error and then report their statement as a “rebuttal” when in reality one person’s statement is correct and the other is wrong. The problem with this is that it allows the reader to think that we don’t know which thing is correct. When, to use an example from “1984″, a news organization can’t say for certain whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 but instead lets speakers on both sides make their case the opportunity to move forward as a nation is gone. - zatoichi - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 9:50 am: The posters comments at NYT are pretty simple and consistent to Brisbane: it is very clear that challenging ‘facts’ is a basic part of the reporters job. If you do not do that maybe the people involved should not be reporters. Sounds like a public statement about intense behind the scene discussions at NYT about their future operations related to lawsuits or costs. If a newspaper is only going to publish whatever is given to them without fact checking or asking good questions, why bother being a newspaper? Just become an opinion rag. There are lots of them. - mark walker - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:09 am: Including an opposing assertion, and any information that appears to be less partisan (like economic data), might be what we should expect in a report. The reporter should have challenged the speaker to back up, or expand upon their claims in the first place. I’m more interested in whether Rich and others with press experience agree that this is a “difficult question”. - CircularFiringSquad - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:10 am: The real problem is reporters are now required to rush stuff to the web. twitter, facebook et al without much time to distill “facts” Some try to lag that job to those they call for comment (spin doctors in some circles) or academics who usually have little current real world experience. Just last week Medill rolled out some stuff on lobbying and quoted a MN academic who they touted as White House ethics lawyer. Turns out the “expert” was a junior lawyer who served in the White House while Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were trying to dump US Attorneys. The guy had little or no reason to be quoted. Social media has not really helped good reporting - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:21 am: Even with time, it’s not always possible because it’s not always immediately evident that a politico is lying. We can’t be 100 percent experts on everything. Illinois media is generally pretty good about making a candidate pay after he or she out and out lies. DC media, not so much. They just quote and that’s it. Considering how high those reporters’ salaries often are, and considering that they’re supposed to be our “elite,” they truly suck. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:29 am: I think Brisbane is trying to engage his audience in a discussion on when and how is activist media OK? On one hand, everyone seems to want reporters to challenge assumptions, but on the other hand they seem to resent a press corps that appears to have an agenda. Perhaps not the best way to frame the question, but my read is he’s passively aggressively building the case for why reporters do the things they do. - Wensicia - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:34 am: I don’t think readers should have to wait for the editorial or opinion piece to do the fact checking, if it’s done at all. Editorial boards and opinion columnists often have biases, which raise doubt about their columns. I understand time constraints. If reporters have a deadline to meet, they can always fact check with a follow up article. - MrJM - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:39 am: Just as New York Times public editor Arthur S. Brisbane is concerned whether his newspaper is printing lies or the truth, we here at V.F. are looking for reader input on whether and when Vanity Fair should spell “words” correctly in the stories we publish. Should Vanity Fair Be a Spelling Vigilante? – MrJM - mark walker - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:01 am: “they truly suck” Well, I guess that answers my question. LOL - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:03 am: ===but my read is he’s passively aggressively building the case=== That wasn’t my read. I think the guy really didn’t know that facts are important. - amalia - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:20 am: it’s easy to critique the NYT, especially with stuff like this, but this is kind of standard stupidity in journoworld now. could be that the discipline is losing it’s way with actual reporting instruction. the state of schools of journalism…if one still calls a journalism school that in some cases…..is often dismal. there is a focus on electronic media where speed often triumphs accuracy and opinion triumphs reporting, and a lack of teaching of the actual work necessary to get at facts. look at Northwestern where there is a huge controversy on the electronic issue and where an investigative journalism class was actually a defense attorney branch. everyone is a pundit, on tv, on line, so many in print. few are actual reporters. who what when where why and just the facts is something unknown to many who have been blogging since they were in grade school. - James - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:27 pm: It’s interesting that no less than the NYT publisher is asking how, rather than leading by example, and presumably they all went to j school. I’m sure they’ll get lots of advice to weigh. But if there’s actual confusion, I am glad they’re asking. There’s a refreshing humility to it. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:29 pm: Brisbane could have worded his column better, but it’s been clear for some time the news media has abdicated its traditional role of being the arbiter of truth. The reasons are complex, but as Wordslinger and others noted, too many reporters are simply stenographers. “Candidate A said this. Candidate B responded by saying that.” No independent checking, or maybe a third party quote from an academic at most. It used to be that we could all agree on what the facts were, but disagree on what conclusions to draw from those facts. Now we can’t even agree on what the facts are, and it seems like whichever side says it the loudest wins. Think about it: how many people think Obamacare proposed “death panels?” How many people think Obama raised taxes? The whole birther thing, whether he’s a Muslim, etc. The very idea that some pretty large slice of the electorate believes this stuff is evidence that something is fundamentally wrong with the news media. The First Amendment protections afforded to the press were recognition that self-government requires an informed public, and a misinformed public is a threat to democracy. I’m not sure reporters can take the time to fact check everything. If they did, we might see the end of daily newspapers because stories would take days to file. But some stuff is so ridiculously wrong it should never be repeated by so-called reporters or journalists. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:07 pm: As the editor / publisher and also occasional writer for a small hobbyist journal the past 5 years, I view part of my job as correcting obvious problems with the articles submitted. Those corrections include grammar, spelling, and clear mis-statements of facts. When I correct or challenge factual statements, I make it very clear by using the following form: (Ed. Note: yada yada). I’ve never been challenged by the writer on my corrections … mostly, I assume, because I do research questionable statements. If the writer is expressing an opinion and it is clear it is an opinion, I let it go. If it is not so clear it is the writer’s opinion, I edit the language so it is clearly expressed as an opinion. So my reaction to Mr. Brisbane’s comments / questions is simply: DUH? - Keyser Soze - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:54 pm: Paraphrasing a famous author, there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. The political class traffics in self-serving half-truths, often spun by slick professionals. Of course these newsmakers should be called into question. That is a legitimate and expected role of the free press. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:04 pm: As one who dabbles in science, it appalls me when reporters are willing to accept and report, without questioning, statements that are clearly counter to observable facts and the scientific consensus. Some of these folks seem to have been intimidated by politicians and others who scream “BIAS!!!” whenever they are contradicted. Why have a reporter when they just regurgitate what they are told. A transcription device would work just as well and would save money. - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:06 pm: The Washington Post’s Fact Checker and Five Myths features are pretty good. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker http://www.washingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/ABCCtvO_linkset.html?hpid=z12 - soccermom - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:55 pm: This also reflects the ridiculously prevalent idea that “there are two sides to every story.” Sometimes there is just one side — as when the evidence available proves that one side is stating a fact. Sometimes there are many sides — as when someone wants to know “what makes a state business-friendly.” Rarely are there two, and only two, sides to a story. I sometimes amuse myself by applying the “two sides to every story” approach to crime reporting: “Police said one man was killed and two others injured when an armed man attempted to rob the bank. “That guy didn’t look dead to me,” the gunman responded in a written statement later Thursday. “If he’s dead now, he probably was sick or something. My shooting him had nothing to do with his death, and I believe that this incident reflects the growing influence of the anti-gun lobbyists.” - Charlie Wheeler - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:00 pm: As someone who covered state government and politics in general and the Illinois General Assembly in particular for more than 20 years for the Chicago Sun-Times, I believed part of my responsibility to our readers was to present accurate information. If a legislator expressed an opinion, I reported it as such and attempted to provide information/comment from others with different opinions, in order to offer our readers as complete a picture of the issue as possible. On the other hand, if a newsmaker presented as fact something that was not objectively true, I believed my obligation was to note the misinformation, usually by following the untruth with a paragraph starting “Actually,” or “In fact,” followed by the correct information and its source. To be able to report in that manner, of course, requires that the journalist know enough about the topic to recognize a factually-incorrect statement, or in the case of suspect statements, to have enough time to check their accuracy. Good reporters work constantly to learn as much as they can about the subjects and issues they’re covering so that their stories are as complete and accurate as possible. The bigger problem as I see it arises from the social-media need to put something out immediately, before the reporter has a chance to fact-check suspect statements. Thankfully, that was a problem I rarely faced, back in the 70s-80s-early 90s! - Retired Non-Union Guy - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:08 pm: Slightly off subject, but I was just struck with the thought that reading Rich’s blog for one year should be a requirement for students in both journalism and political science … - steve schnorf - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:23 pm: Thanks, Charlie - steve schnorf - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:29 pm: Perhaps all news stories which attribute “statements of fact” to a particular commenter should simply contain a general caveat: “Readers: be aware that it is not out of the question that Commenter X is as ignorant or ill-informed as a rock”. That should cover it nicely. - Anonymous - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:39 pm: My childhood friend had a sampler hanging in her kitchen which read “Don’t worry if you aren’t understood. Worry if you aren’t understanding.” Perhaps I”ll dig out my embroidery kit and needlepoint one for Mr. Brisbane. “We repeat, you decide!” journalism is the primary reason I devote the majority of my news gathering time to sources other than traditional newspapers. It must take an immense amount of willful ignorance on the part of editors to avoid connecting the decline of circulation with their public relations style of reporting. I know she’s a trite target, but I think Sarah Palin illustrates the current state of print journalism. She has no problem getting groundless, ad hominem packed tirades published in the same papers of record she refuses interviews. That reduces newspapers to free public relation tools for any celebrity de jour. - Anon III - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:57 pm: “My inquiry related to whether The Times, … , should … rebut facts … . I consider this a difficult question, not an obvious one.” Mr. Brisbane’s question may be difficult only because he is imprecise about what are facts. At the get go, reporters are not supposed to be advocates advancing their opinions. Being a reader of the Times, I don’t think they believe that. They are shameless advocates for every shabby notion. The Times has to be read as if it were written in a foreign language, translating NYT code words as we go. To revisit Joe Friday, “just the facts, ma’am.” Statements of facts are statements about reality. The statement either corresponds to reality and is a true fact, or does not and is a false statement of fact, commonly known as a lie. A fact is something that is capable of proof – corresponding to reality – or disproof, not corresponding. “My opponent is a knucklehead,” is not a statement of fact because it cannot be proved, except in the case of a rare cranial deformity. It is a statement of opinion. Surely the cited opponent’s mother does not share the opinion. And statements about the future are not statements of fact, but necessarily opinions because – with the possible exceptions of death and taxes – we cannot prove or disprove the future. So when a candidate states that there will be jobs and prosperity when he is elected, it is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion. Similarly, when a District says that a proposed bond referendum will only raise taxes $20 per average household, that is not a factual statement, but is an opinion because it is a forward-looking statement. Most importantly, the context in which a supposed statement of fact appears may clearly signal that the statement is opinion and not fact. In the example cited by Mr. Brisbane, a political speech by Mr. Romney, the political campaign context clearly signals that the statement is opinion as much as if had been on the op-ed page of the NYT. I think that is Journalism 101. If a newspaper is going to report facts, statements about past or present reality, they are capable of checking the correspondence of those statements to reality and should. If a reporter is reporting opinions as facts, and “corrects” the opinion, he is injecting another opinion, not facts. If Mr. Brisbane’s paper does not distinguish between facts and opinion, he truly has a “difficult question.” - Anonymous - Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 4:02 pm: “…That reduces newspapers to free public relation tools for any celebrity de jour.” The newspapers and other news media reduce themselves by publishing statements made by “newsmakers” without appropriate vetting. Rushing to be the first out with a story many times takes precendence over be the first with the “right” story, whether on the internet or in print. And it was like that before the internet had any impact as a source for getting the news. And really a “newsmaker” is made by the news media, not by some intrinsic trait of the person in question. Remember the Maine? It is the news media’s decision to report what they report. Just as I might get deleted from this blog, it is not my decision to be heard, it is the decision of the reporter/editor/publisher/owner to let me be heard. If someone wants to get at the truth, he or she should read as many viewpoints on the subject as possible. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.