Should The New York Times call out politicians on blatantly false claims?

For-profit-news is just another area, like healthcare, and the military for instance that should -NOT- be "for profit". In a democracy "the media" are critical for getting truthful information out to the public. Information that those in-power often -DON'T- want you to know. There are basic conflict-of-interest's when you have "the media" owned by the very people who are doing the great deceiving.

http://www.tec-des.com/vb/tec-des4998/

Why not really get into your jobs instead of just punching in on your time clock, writing down some banalities and punching out...get into it, be proud of what you've put out there!!!

All News papers and news media should be calling out polititians on blatant false claims and any type of untruths, all forms of news media should provid us with unbiased truthfull reporting and keep their opinions in their pockets.

Absolutely Yes.

YES ! NO ! . . . .to close to call.

( Can we just poll that ? )

Since there is a big difference between everyday news and political news...maybe this question isn't as intellectually insulting as Cenk and others seem to think. After all, there's a difference between campaigning and governing - and we all OUGHT to know the difference, although some politicians don't seem to know where it is.

Campaign speech is of necessity persuasive and sometimes plays fast and loose with the actual truth. A candidate is trying to get you to vote for him - or against his opponent - after all. If we waste time trying to call out every politician on the hustings for every exaggeration...isn't that a bit stupid?

BUT, once the elections are OVER and the process of governing has begun; if politicians do damage to facts to serve their own political ends, then we absolutely DO want to challenge them!

Cenk was spot on. I can't believe this is even a question to be debated. Journalism is about reporting the facts, if a politician is claiming false information as fact, it's the journalist's responsibility to report the facts.

Should Journalists actually do their jobs? YES!

If an individual genuinely values correct information and logically sound reasoning, then yes, that individual has a duty to themselves to point out when information is incorrect and reasoning is unsound. If that individual is reasonably convinced that correct information and logically sound reasoning is valued by others, they also have the personal duty to point out to others when information is incorrect and reasoning is unsound.

Otherwise, their respect for both is a sham. Worse, others cannot rely on them for good information and good thinking. Their intellectual value to self and to others is null and void.

There was a time when journalists actively promoted the idea that others greatly needed and greatly desired good and timely information and good and timely analysis of the same. If journalists today still abide those values and those goals, they MUST attend to the accuracy of their own information, their own thinking AND to the accuracy and soundness of the information and analysis of others.

If they do not, they in the least are not the kind of journalists who rightly earn the name.

This is an old question, can we please move on.

If they still want to consider the paper as MEDIA; Have my doubts.

I can't believe it's a question! They all should call out politicians for blatantly making false claims!

ny times should always call out politicians on blatantly false claims.

Absolutely. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR had the same problems in their day. GOP liars and anti-worker criminals!

Yes, of course, if we wish to pursue "truth". But recall the fate of Socrates, who's reason for being was the pursuit of truth: one bitter, deadly drink. In general, the "people of the land...the common clay...you know...morons" prefer myths rather than the truth since it is less disturbing: e.g., that there is a benevolent Supreme Being, that lowering taxes on the rich will create jobs, that our economic enterprise system is free, that capitalism is the best system, that greed is good, that our Constitution is perfect, that conservatism (no change) is right, that some individuals should earn 10,000 times that of another, that there is an Easter Bunny, etc.

Responsible media have a legal and moral obligation to make sure sources are offering truly verifiable information. As much as becoming a vigilante or contributing to false claims and speculations, that will turn a newspaper as the New York Times in a repressive force or in a tabloid. This last ones, totally against the principles of journalism.

YES!

Isn't that their job??? The fact that we're even having this discussion says a lot about the media.

Not calling calling out a politicians on blatantly false claims reduces said newspaper to the level of the gossip rags (Star Magazine, Enquirer, etc).

I have a degree in Journalism, but fortunately for me I had enough of a science background to parlay my degree into a technical writing job. Interestingly enough, if I falsified information in my writing either through exclusion of information or inaccurate investigation, I (along with many others) would lose our jobs and the company would face potential fines. Reporting information to the public should be no different!

The only purpose for asking such a question is to gauge how intelligent the current readers of NYT are, other than that, you would have to presume Arthur Brisbane is a complete and utter idiot/fool/moron/stooge (you can use your own description if you prefer).

Should The New York Times call out politicians on blatantly false claims?

If you want to call yourself a newspaper you should. If you want to be labelled a tabloid rag and your publication to be used for soaking up dog piss then don't worry about it.

We would all say, "Yes, of course!" But at the same time we must recognize that the Times and others are confronting the beast. Truth is the beast in this time of fast changing media methodology when news fiction is highly profitable and our system has rightfully established "journalism" as a consumer product - caveat emptor.
Truth, facts, accuracy, reality are the expensive components of journalism. We get that but, in the end, if the Times does not bring the truth what is it's value to us? A crossword puzzle? We can get fiction anywhere.

Now, having said that somewhat in defense of an organization that I have long respected and trusted, there is this: the business with Wikileaks really pisses me off.

Every 'real' journalist should call out politicians on blatantly false claims! When they move along to the wrongs, they are enablers, not 'real' journalists.

Americans have been forced to search for truth on the Internet, because many so-called journalists are negligent in seeking truth. Reporting without distorting may be a thing of the past.

Too few, own too much of our media. We are spun daily with distortion, instead of facts, which lead to truth. Spinning by MSM has distorted facts to the point, no one trusts any media outlets.

It's time for 'real' journalists to come forward and turn things around. Honesty should be a requirement, not just an option. Trust is earned!

The practice of fact-checking "newsmakers" by reporters within their articles, isn't at all unusual, but it's not entirely common either, except in more investigative publications. But this is something that should be easy for Brisbane to answer himself, instead of being "a difficult question" he has to put out there to readers--the New York Times calls itself the "paper of record", and what good is a record, both for immediate perusal and for reference in the future, if it's full of noise and uncontested lies? If Brisbane had been thinking, the moment the idea began to be kicked around at the NYT, he should have taken the initiative and said "yes", instead of trying to paint the issue as some kind of hard, abstruse thing that he had to ask readers about. At best, I'm guessing he's asking "should we address facts, instead of being stenographers, within the main news article, or should we split out the fact-checking into a separate article in the paper?" If that's what he's thinking, that may be a workable method, as long as the fact-checking article is on the same page as the news article, but it's still not the best method--usually it doesn't take much extra text, in-line within the body of a news article, to briefly examine the truthfulness of the statements made by the people quoted in the article, and this may save some time, effort, and print space. But a separate fact-checking article does have some advantages, in that the facts can be examined in much greater detail than using the method of in-line fact checking.

Now if Brisbane is suggesting the alternative of no fact checking--not even in a separate article accompanying each news piece--then that would obviously be an absurd abrogation of his duties.

Ahhh ... YES ... If a newspaper, like the NY Times can't provide useful insight, context, and perspective, then they are nothing more than a "wire service". I'm as well off to take the raw stories from the AP Wire (from an information stand point) and better off financially.

I'm just saying ... Where's your value added NY Times?

Yes! It still proports to be a 'news paper' which has responsibilities within its own community...it IS still a news paper...isn't it?

This is an intellectually insulting question...and if the Times has to ask it, mayber they should just shut down and fade away...is there something potentially dangerous to Rupert in that question...what a damn joke...

.@thepubliceditor Should the NY Times be a Truth Vigilante? Seriously? WTF?! Will you just please resign? You're completely unqualified.

Is this a rhetorical question, or did I miss something? Even to ask a question like that reflects something wrong somewhere. If the question has to be answered is even worse.

They most certainly call out anyone who makes blatantly false claims.We the people are now almost universally badly served by our vaunted Fourth Estate now.

Absolutely!

of course they should

Yes! I remember in the 1970's when I heard that the people of Iran were only allowed 'NEWS' that their government approved of and not the truth, and I thought how great it was to be a citizen in the United States of America. Now I am sickened by what the United States of America broadcasts as 'NEWS'. If this country is so patriotic, freedom loving, and supportive of the constitution, why are we not afforded the truth?

Of course they should, as should all -REAL- journalists!

Absolutely! Where is the real journalism?