Dear @ThePublicEditor Of The New York Times

Image via Wikipedia

I must have read your column titled “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” three or four dozen times today and only one thought comes to mind.

How far has the craft of journalism fallen that you actually have to ask this question?

Isn’t that the point of the 4th estate, to be the “truth tellers” in American society so that the public can be educated on the issues affecting them and the country in general?

You ask in your article:

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

[snip]

Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?

To answer your question, yes, yes, for God’s sake, yes!

When a “newsmaker” states something that is outright patently false, like the example of Romney saying Obama “apologizes for America”, it is your duty to call them on it. It’s not a matter of choosing “one correct fact over another”, it’s about choosing facts, period.

With the rise of corporate media over the last 30-40 years, truth and honest journalism have been tossed aside for whatever the ratings bonanza of the week is. Money, ad revenue, ratings, circulation numbers… all of these have risen to prime importance in Idiot America.

Sidenote – The book by the same name is definitely worth a read!

The side affect is that the most extreme, asinine, and whack-a-doodle things people say are given priority whether they’re true or not. This allows deliberate distortions and outright falsehoods to gain traction and validity in the public discourse.

It dumbs down the citizenry and we end up in a world where up is down, black is white, where everyone is an expert and the worst thing anyone can be is an actual expert.

Allowing these misrepresentations and falsehoods to stand unchallenged is part of what has brought about the toxic and deeply divided political climate we have today.

So, again, not to put too fine a point on it, the answer is yes.

Challenge people to provide evidence to back up their claims, give investigative journalism priority over flash and sizzle, dig, dig, and dig more until the truth is uncovered.

It’s what the founders wanted you to do. To keep those in power honest, no matter whether it cost you a seat at the next correspondence dinner.

Benjamin Franklin once said:

If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it, whenever our legislators shall please so to alter the law and shall chearfully consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself.

We, the public, trust you to report truth and fiction, as long as the fiction is called out for what it is.

The fact that you have to ask this question makes me sad.