Comments on: Should The New York Times tell you when politicians are lying? (Updated) http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Sun, 19 May 2013 18:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: lubricious http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1321975 lubricious Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:34:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1321975 It's fairly obvious (at least in Australia, where I type this) that many news outlets simply repint politicians' press releases with little critical input, and very rarely bother to investigate what's behind them. We're all familiar with the reasons: control of access, costs, competition to "break news" and so on. There is also a uniquely Australian problem (a bugbear of mine which is why I can't help mentioning it, although not strictly relevant for NYT) - defamation laws that punish journalists for "lowering the public standing" of high profile figures. It seems to me that the NYT is simply taking the step of attempting to validate this approach with its readership. If validated, I dare say it will provide a significant opportunity for cost savings and news turnaround times. Also, I suspect that more deeply there is the issue of breadth of readership and advertising revenue. The past ten years has completely changed the way that people consume news - in particular the traditional format disctinction between broadsheet and tabloid no longer applies in the online market. Interestingly online consumption of news is fairly consistent whether visitors are going to a "broadsheet" or "tabloid" site - people spend more time reading about things like sex, celebrities and inflamitory or contraversial content than other stories. The NYT is probably doing some market research before increasing its competitiveness in the new environment. All that out of the way, I agree it's the end of civilisation. It’s fairly obvious (at least in Australia, where I type this) that many news outlets simply repint politicians’ press releases with little critical input, and very rarely bother to investigate what’s behind them. We’re all familiar with the reasons: control of access, costs, competition to “break news” and so on. There is also a uniquely Australian problem (a bugbear of mine which is why I can’t help mentioning it, although not strictly relevant for NYT) – defamation laws that punish journalists for “lowering the public standing” of high profile figures. It seems to me that the NYT is simply taking the step of attempting to validate this approach with its readership. If validated, I dare say it will provide a significant opportunity for cost savings and news turnaround times. Also, I suspect that more deeply there is the issue of breadth of readership and advertising revenue. The past ten years has completely changed the way that people consume news – in particular the traditional format disctinction between broadsheet and tabloid no longer applies in the online market. Interestingly online consumption of news is fairly consistent whether visitors are going to a “broadsheet” or “tabloid” site – people spend more time reading about things like sex, celebrities and inflamitory or contraversial content than other stories. The NYT is probably doing some market research before increasing its competitiveness in the new environment. All that out of the way, I agree it’s the end of civilisation.

]]> By: David Dunham http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1320338 David Dunham Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:05:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1320338 Then he is absolutely correct. Because tax cuts for the wealthy don't work. Then he is absolutely correct. Because tax cuts for the wealthy don’t work.

]]> By: noah django http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1319753 noah django Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:22:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1319753 has the whole entire world gone CRAZY?  Jeez Louise, now I understand why "May you be born in interesting times" is considered a curse in China. has the whole entire world gone CRAZY?  Jeez Louise, now I understand why “May you be born in interesting times” is considered a curse in China.

]]> By: GawainLavers http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1319404 GawainLavers Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:57:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1319404 Or a joke? Or a joke?

]]> By: John Smith http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1319187 John Smith Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:37:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1319187 It is perfectly fine for them to point out discrepancies when their CIA handlers allow it It is perfectly fine for them to point out discrepancies when their CIA handlers allow it

]]> By: Guest http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318861 Guest Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:39:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318861 an apologetic tone is not an apology, unless you're a passive aggressive jerk with an obvious agenda AND find apologies a sign of weakness.  an apologetic tone is not an apology, unless you’re a passive aggressive jerk with an obvious agenda AND find apologies a sign of weakness. 

]]> By: Guest http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318858 Guest Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:36:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318858 That's not what he was doing. See, you can't actually apologize for what the right hand did, when the left hand is still beating the hell out of the human spirit. That’s not what he was doing. See, you can’t actually apologize for what the right hand did, when the left hand is still beating the hell out of the human spirit.

]]> By: YanquiFrank http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318617 YanquiFrank Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:18:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318617 but is it a "true fact"? but is it a “true fact”?

]]> By: AnthonyC http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318597 AnthonyC Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:48:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318597 Any such guidelines would almost certainly not be simple. I don't see, however, why that should be a showstopper. Journalists are humans, humans intelligent who have spent a lot of time and effort learning how to do reporting. They ought to be sufficiently expert in their field to deal with a moderate level of ambiguity, and their (presumably even better at that) editors are supposed to catch it when they make mistakes and bad judgment calls. Any such guidelines would almost certainly not be simple. I don’t see, however, why that should be a showstopper. Journalists are humans, humans intelligent who have spent a lot of time and effort learning how to do reporting. They ought to be sufficiently expert in their field to deal with a moderate level of ambiguity, and their (presumably even better at that) editors are supposed to catch it when they make mistakes and bad judgment calls.

]]> By: AnthonyC http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318595 AnthonyC Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:41:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318595 Wrong news organization. Or is that a NYT motto, too? Wrong news organization. Or is that a NYT motto, too?

]]> By: t3kna2007 http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318547 t3kna2007 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:37:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318547 Follow-up post from Brisbane:  http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/update-to-my-previous-post-on-truth-vigilantes/ EDIT: Also, just because it came up as an example: I thought Obama's speeches and foreign travels in the year after his election were clearly apologizing for American activity during the Bush administration, whether he actually used the word apology or not. Making amends, making peace, restoring relations, pointing out to the world that, yes, many Americans think the actions done in our names during the Bush administration were deplorable and grounds for apology to the world they were inflicted on, because they never should have happened and we're sorry they did. Follow-up post from Brisbane: 
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/update-to-my-previous-post-on-truth-vigilantes/

EDIT: Also, just because it came up as an example: I thought Obama’s speeches and foreign travels in the year after his election were clearly apologizing for American activity during the Bush administration, whether he actually used the word apology or not. Making amends, making peace, restoring relations, pointing out to the world that, yes, many Americans think the actions done in our names during the Bush administration were deplorable and grounds for apology to the world they were inflicted on, because they never should have happened and we’re sorry they did.

]]> By: awjt http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318373 awjt Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:54:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318373 No one has spouted the punchline, "When their mouths are open" yet?  Sheesh, people come onnnnnnnnn..... No one has spouted the punchline, “When their mouths are open” yet?  Sheesh, people come onnnnnnnnn…..

]]> By: C W http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318313 C W Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:34:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318313 Are their presses a'flappin? Are their presses a’flappin?

]]> By: C W http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318309 C W Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:33:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318309 "Or, I don't know, the Daily Show" "appeal to sanity" centrist Daily Show? No. Just no. “Or, I don’t know, the Daily Show”

“appeal to sanity” centrist Daily Show?

No. Just no.

]]> By: C W http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318306 C W Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:32:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318306 the NYT fails at each one. the NYT fails at each one.

]]> By: Mark A http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318308 Mark A Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:32:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318308 But then you would be lying about the lies. "Possibly with his fingers crossed" is clearly not true. Obama speaks openly and confidently about preserving human rights before signing bills that take away human rights. In all these cases you just have to write that the facts don't match the spin. But then you would be lying about the lies. “Possibly with his fingers crossed” is clearly not true. Obama speaks openly and confidently about preserving human rights before signing bills that take away human rights. In all these cases you just have to write that the facts don’t match the spin.

]]> By: jimmoffet http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318293 jimmoffet Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:27:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318293 I totally agree Tom Whipple above. I think the Public Editor brings up a really interesting question that most of the commenters here and on the NYT blog seem to have whiffed on completely. What are the guidelines for determining when a fact warrants checking? No one is addressing the Public Editor's example, which is a reasonable one. What do you do to fact-check a statement like that? It's essentially saying that the president's past rhetoric implicitly acknowledges that U.S. policy was wrong and makes implicit apology for it. This can't really be fact checked... even though it appears to be an assertion of fact. The fact-check would be something like, "While the president has never literally said, "I'm sorry for past U.S. policy." some conservatives believe that several speeches had this implicit meaning." But is this really useful? How demonstrably true/not true does an assertion need to be in order for it to be a fact capable of being checked, versus simply more rhetoric to be parsed. I think it's a valid question. There's obviously a gray area between statements of fact and strongly worded assertions of opinion, and this area is actually the proverbial wheelhouse for most politicians... So, smart folks, what are some simple guidelines to determine when an assertion is a statement of fact and when it is a statement of opinion? The rubric of "if it can be verified, it's a fact" is great for teaching primary schoolers, but it doesn't lend much practical guidance to journalists. I think this could have been a useful conversation... Perhaps it's just the crappy title and presentation, but I would have hoped boingboingers (if not NYT commenters) could have cut through the chaff and found something interesting to discuss. I totally agree Tom Whipple above. I think the Public Editor brings up a
really interesting question that most of the commenters here and on the NYT blog
seem to have whiffed on completely.

What are the guidelines for determining when a fact warrants checking? No one is addressing the Public Editor’s example, which is a reasonable one.

What do you do to fact-check a statement like that? It’s essentially saying that the president’s past rhetoric implicitly acknowledges that U.S. policy was wrong and makes implicit apology for it.

This can’t really be fact checked… even though it appears to be an assertion of fact. The fact-check would be something like, “While the president has never literally said, “I’m sorry for past U.S. policy.” some conservatives believe that several speeches had this implicit meaning.” But is this really useful? How demonstrably true/not true does an assertion need to be in order for it to be a fact capable of being checked, versus simply more rhetoric to be parsed.

I think it’s a valid question. There’s obviously a gray area between statements of fact and strongly worded assertions of opinion, and this area is actually the proverbial wheelhouse for most politicians… So, smart folks, what are some simple guidelines to determine when an assertion is a statement of fact and when it is a statement of opinion? The rubric of “if it can be verified, it’s a fact” is great for teaching primary schoolers, but it doesn’t lend much practical guidance to journalists.

I think this could have been a useful conversation…

Perhaps it’s just the crappy title and presentation, but I would have hoped boingboingers (if not NYT commenters) could have cut through the chaff and found something interesting to discuss.

]]> By: Mark A http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318289 Mark A Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:26:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318289 The answer is to fact check early in the campaign season. If a politician keeps repeating a lie, then print in the story that the politician repeated a lie to the crowd, and cite the truth. If the politician and his/her supporters wants to keep repeating the lie, he or she will have to provide evidence to back it up. The answer is to fact check early in the campaign season. If a politician keeps repeating a lie, then print in the story that the politician repeated a lie to the crowd, and cite the truth. If the politician and his/her supporters wants to keep repeating the lie, he or she will have to provide evidence to back it up.

]]> By: singe_101 http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318170 singe_101 Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:40:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318170 But being a stenographer for Mitt is easier, and his financial sector sponsors will buy ads to help privatize SS. But being a stenographer for Mitt is easier, and his financial sector sponsors will buy ads to help privatize SS.

]]> By: Ambiguity http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318171 Ambiguity Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:40:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318171 <blockquote>'Correction' is a form of epistemological violence, used by ivory-tower intellectuals to privilege their beliefs...</blockquote>Every time the terms "epistemological violence" and "ivory-tower intellectual" is used together in a sentence, a kitten is killed by the Irony Machine, and the late RAW receives another download from Sirius.

‘Correction’ is a form of epistemological violence, used by ivory-tower intellectuals to privilege their beliefs…

Every time the terms “epistemological violence” and “ivory-tower intellectual” is used together in a sentence, a kitten is killed by the Irony Machine, and the late RAW receives another download from Sirius.

]]> By: KWillets http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318152 KWillets Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:25:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318152 I agree, there's an art to sliding between the verifiable truths, to the point where verifying them would distract from the actual point being made.  The real message is often "we don't care about the facts; we're going to force it through our way as a display of power".  Hence the humiliating phrases like the Defense of Marriage Act.   I agree, there’s an art to sliding between the verifiable truths, to the point where verifying them would distract from the actual point being made.  The real message is often “we don’t care about the facts; we’re going to force it through our way as a display of power”.  Hence the humiliating phrases like the Defense of Marriage Act.  

]]> By: Ryan Lenethen http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318140 Ryan Lenethen Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:17:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318140 I thought the whole point of journalism was to go after a story, and try and find the truth. Which I expect would involve checking facts. Ipso facto (pardon the pun) there is currently no point to journalism, which is part of the reason it is dying off. I thought the whole point of journalism was to go after a story, and try and find the truth. Which I expect would involve checking facts. Ipso facto (pardon the pun) there is currently no point to journalism, which is part of the reason it is dying off.

]]> By: chgoliz http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318106 chgoliz Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:55:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318106 By quoting them and then quoting the truth.  Which would double the length of every article, but at least they'd be doing their job. By quoting them and then quoting the truth.  Which would double the length of every article, but at least they’d be doing their job.

]]> By: VicqRuiz http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318095 VicqRuiz Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:42:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318095 <i>it can be very easy to lose the objectivity on which news articles rest their authority</i>I honestly think we are better served with a wide variety of news sources who unashamedly wear their loyalties on their sleeves, than with a handful of news sources who piously proclaim a hypothetical "objectivity". it can be very easy to lose the objectivity on which news articles rest their authorityI honestly think we are better served with a wide variety of news sources who unashamedly wear their loyalties on their sleeves, than with a handful of news sources who piously proclaim a hypothetical “objectivity”.

]]> By: VicqRuiz http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318083 VicqRuiz Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:36:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318083 “Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you,”the president told residents of the Garden State. “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you." -Barack Obama, 16 July 2009 How exactly would you fact check and report on that quote?? “Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you,”the president told residents of the Garden State. “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”
-Barack Obama, 16 July 2009

How exactly would you fact check and report on that quote??

]]> By: Shay Guy http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318068 Shay Guy Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:28:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318068 "Representative Smithjones said, 'These tax cuts for the wealthy will reduce unemployment, just as surely as 51 is the largest prime number.' 51 is in fact not a prime number, and there does not exist any largest prime number." “Representative Smithjones said, ‘These tax cuts for the wealthy will reduce unemployment, just as surely as 51 is the largest prime number.’ 51 is in fact not a prime number, and there does not exist any largest prime number.”

]]> By: wysinwyg http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318058 wysinwyg Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:25:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318058 I find very little support for this thesis in the text of the editorial in question.  In fact, Brisbane is pretty clearly trying to make the truth look somehow dirty or illicit by calling fact-checking "truth vigilanteism."  I find very little support for this thesis in the text of the editorial in question.  In fact, Brisbane is pretty clearly trying to make the truth look somehow dirty or illicit by calling fact-checking “truth vigilanteism.” 

]]> By: wysinwyg http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318054 wysinwyg Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:23:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318054 <blockquote>And I suspect the NYT would.</blockquote> You clearly haven't been paying attention.

And I suspect the NYT would.

You clearly haven’t been paying attention.

]]> By: Shay Guy http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318047 Shay Guy Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:20:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318047 Plus the "lie of the year" thing, which was basically "Well, this completely new system will still be NAMED Medicare!" Plus the “lie of the year” thing, which was basically “Well, this completely new system will still be NAMED Medicare!”

]]> By: patter http://boingboing.net/2012/01/12/should-the-new-york-times.html#comment-1318036 patter Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:15:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=138627#comment-1318036 The NYT (and any news reporting outlet) shouldn't even have to ask, it should be required to highlight the lies presented by politicians, corporations and advertisers. There's a word for wrong-facts:  Fiction The NYT (and any news reporting outlet) shouldn’t even have to ask, it should be required to highlight the lies presented by politicians, corporations and advertisers.

There’s a word for wrong-facts:  Fiction

]]>