This is a sign at how low journalism has sunk, though it might also be a sign that things might improve. Arthur Brisbane, an editor at the
New York Times -- a
highly regarded source of news -- wrote an
editorial wondering "Should the Times be a Truth Vigilante?" He wrote it because a reader wrote:
In other words, if a candidate repeatedly utters an outright falsehood (I leave aside ambiguous implications), shouldn't the Times's coverage nail it right at the point where the article quotes it?
Brisbane continued:
This message was typical of mail from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight. ... Is that the prevailing view?
This left commenters bordering on speechless.
Didn't you learn to do that in Journalism 101? Have we sunk so low we
don't know what a fact is? Something is wrong if you even have to ask this question. Better yet, don't repeat candidate lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment