- Karen Schlosberg
- Natick, MA
As someone who graduated with a BA in Journalism (back in the days of typewriters), I am speechless and horrified that the Times feels it needs to ask that question.
Has the Times that they've forgotten the most basic tenets of journalism? Of course reporters/editors have to question and find the facts and the truth. You don't "choose to correct one side over another"--you check both sides for accuracy. If the truth shows that one side is correct, the public needs to know this. The Times can't allow itself to be bullied by people who like to ignore facts. Do we need to remind you of Watergate yet again?
The Times is known as the paper of record. I thought reporters were always checking facts. Apparently I was wrong. I suspected it during W's regime, when no one questioned him, so I guess I'm glad the Time's is admitting it fell down on the job. But when exactly did the Times stop doing this? And, more importantly, why?
This quest to be so-called "balanced" has unhinged the media. Sometimes both sides have valid points, but sometimes the other side is just crazy, eg, the birthers. Why give them equal time without questioning them? If they refuse to answer, stop including their lies in serious conversations.
Do we like the fact-check sidebar for the campaign? Yes. Should it be incorporated into "regular" reporting? News flash--that IS regular reporting. If it hasn't been included up until now, you haven't hired reporters--you've hired stenographers.
I'm appalled.
Has the Times that they've forgotten the most basic tenets of journalism? Of course reporters/editors have to question and find the facts and the truth. You don't "choose to correct one side over another"--you check both sides for accuracy. If the truth shows that one side is correct, the public needs to know this. The Times can't allow itself to be bullied by people who like to ignore facts. Do we need to remind you of Watergate yet again?
The Times is known as the paper of record. I thought reporters were always checking facts. Apparently I was wrong. I suspected it during W's regime, when no one questioned him, so I guess I'm glad the Time's is admitting it fell down on the job. But when exactly did the Times stop doing this? And, more importantly, why?
This quest to be so-called "balanced" has unhinged the media. Sometimes both sides have valid points, but sometimes the other side is just crazy, eg, the birthers. Why give them equal time without questioning them? If they refuse to answer, stop including their lies in serious conversations.
Do we like the fact-check sidebar for the campaign? Yes. Should it be incorporated into "regular" reporting? News flash--that IS regular reporting. If it hasn't been included up until now, you haven't hired reporters--you've hired stenographers.
I'm appalled.
No comments:
Post a Comment