A continual irritant to the community of people who can think straight is the pervasive journalistic norm that when prominent entities -- be they individual politicians, corporate executives or general billionaires, well-paid bloviators or even clearly partisan institutions -- say stuff, it has to be treated respectfully, and when said stuff is objectively false the journalist cannot say so, and even when some other prominent entity steps forward to speak the truth the journalist is not allowed to speak, said journalist cannot adjudicate between them. Some of you are old enough to remember when the New York Times "public editor" asked readers whether "the Times should be a "Truth Vigilante," implying that it was a bizarre idea that the newspaper's reporters should tell readers who is and is not telling the truth. (Really. "Truth vigilante.")
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.. . . [I get] 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. They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true. 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?
Literally, he was asking how it is possible to be "objective and fair" by telling the truth when somebody is lying. That does not seem to me a difficult problem. "Objective and fair" means telling the truth. If somebody is lying it's perfectly objective and fair to say so. But the New York Times reporters and editors find that idea baffling.
So credit where it's due to CNN, and business reporters Marshall Cohen and Oliver Darcy, for reporting on the judge's ruling in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Faux News:
Incriminating texts and emails have shown how Fox executives, hosts and producers didn’t believe the claims the network was peddling about Dominion. These revelations drove a dagger through the idea that Fox News is anything but a partisan GOP operation focused on ratings — not journalism.
The lawsuit is seen as one of the most consequential defamation cases in recent memory. Fox has argued that a loss will eviscerate press freedoms, and many scholars agree that the bar should remain high to prove defamation. Other analysts have said holding Fox accountable for knowingly airing lies won’t pose a threat to objective journalists who would never do that in the first place.
The case has elicited a mountain of evidence exposing Fox News as a right-wing profit machine lacking the most basic journalistic ethics — and willing to promote unhinged election conspiracy theories to preserve its lucrative business.
Fox Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch conceded in his sworn deposition that several of his top hosts endorsed election lies on the air that he knew were false. And after the 2020 election, its most prominent stars and top executives privately trashed the conspiracy theories that were being spread on-air, according to internal text messages and emails revealed in court filings. .
Our problem is that their reporters still have White House press passes, Democratic politicians continue to appear on their programs, and with the exception of what you have just read, other news organizations continue to treat them with collegial respect. This must stop.
I'll return anon with remarks about their Dear Leader.
Update: After I wrote this I happened to come across this from John Quiggin: The meta-view from meta-nowhere
. .
2 comments:
"Our problem is that their reporters still have White House press passes, Democratic politicians continue to appear on their programs, and with the exception of what you have just read, other news organizations continue to treat them with collegial respect. This must stop."
So how would you propose to do this?
It appears that Fox, the number one network is watched by twice as many viewers as MSNBC, which is the second most popular cable network. If the Whitehouse refused press passes and all of the Democratic politicians refused interviews, that would look like terrible. The public would perceive it as Soviet-style suppression.
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. Most people don't watch cable news at all, and Fox viewers are actually a small minority of all people -- the average daily audience is fewer than 2 million, and there are 330 million people in the U.S. The public would hardly see denying White House press passes as "Soviet-style suppression." Two million people might think that, but they're already lost.
Post a Comment