New York Times Asks: Should Journalists Challenge False Statements Made by Policymakers They Report

[ljm2002]

8. I don't like the way Brisbane phrases it...

...the part where he suggests what a reporter could say when calling out Romney's lie, i.e.: “The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

It's in line with Brisbane's phrasing of the question at hand: “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?”

Since when is it vigilantism for reporters to help the public sort through truth vs. lies? There is still plenty of gray area to be navigated; surely it is helpful for the public to know when a statement made by a public figure is contradicted by known facts.

In the above case, I'd have the reporter to ask Romney for specific examples where the President apologized for the U.S. Then when he comes up with one, point out that it does not say what Romney claims. Or if he does not come up with one, go on to say something like "we have found no speech in which President Obama apologizes for the US" and leave it at that.

In other words, I don't need the reporter to bloviate either. All I ask, is that they have a familiarity with the facts around the area they are concerned with; and when a statement from an interviewee does not comport with the facts, that they point this out.