Scary: It's 'Newsworthy' That A Newspaper Prints Facts

from the what-has-the-world-become dept

Thu, Jul 15th 2010 2:28pm — Mike Masnick

It's really incredible how much "he said/she said" reporting is out there these days, where some (certainly not all) reporters seem to think it's their job to "report both sides of the story." Of course, there are all sorts of problems with that: a story may have a lot more than two sides (or perhaps one fewer). And, some of those sides might not be telling the truth. But some (again, not all) reporters act as though as long as they report what the different sides are saying, they have no obligation to point out when any of the parties are being less than truthful. At times, it gets even worse, when reporters just report one side of a story... and that one side isn't even close to truthful.

The problem is that some have decided that "objective" reporting means not actually pointing out false statements. Unfortunately for those who believe that, it seems pretty clear that people like it when reporters actually call people on blatantly false statements, as they find that very useful. But it's still a pretty sad day when the fact that a newspaper has started fact-checking what politicians say is considered newsworthy. It shows just how far some newspapers have sunk. Equally amusing, of course, is the claim from one politician that such fact-checking represents "a new low," and that kind of thing belongs "on the editorial page." Calling someone out on a blatantly false statement is not editorial and doesn't belong just on the opinion pages. People look to news organizations to report the news, and that means highlighting the truth and calling out lies. Just because you point out that someone is not being truthful, it doesn't make it opinion or bias. It makes it useful.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fact checking, journalism

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2010 @ 2:44pm

First for the second time today...hehehe....on topic.. I believe that the linked article is an exaggeration and whatever maybe Mike's personal belief, there are always two sides of the story...always.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 2:51pm

Re:
First: Once upon a time, many months ago, doing the "first" thing was declared offensive. Please desist.

Second: Your view is simplistic, usually there are myriad sides to a story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
darus67, 15 Jul 2010 @ 2:56pm

Three sides
The great philosopher, Don Henley, said,
"There's three sides to every story:
Yours and mine and the cold, hard truth"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 2:58pm

Re: Three sides
Yeah, but nobody could hear him over the sound of Joe fucking Walsh belting out some tasty licks on his axe while also snorting a line of blow....

God Joe Walsh is awesome....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2010 @ 2:58pm

now imagine if you could do that in a blog. nahh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alias (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 3:05pm

Agree
>>Just because you point out that someone is not being truthful, it doesn't make it opinion or bias. It makes it useful.

Word.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan Gerow, 15 Jul 2010 @ 3:09pm

Re:
There's always only one side to a story ... and an unlimited number of variations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamR (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re:
Always thought they were three sides, mines, yours and the truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2010 @ 3:21pm

Re:
Exactly. Everything is bipolar. Everything boils down to a yes or no question. No doubt about it.

Now answer this with yes or no:

"Are you still a cannibal?"

Remember, there are only two sides to any question. :p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 4:31pm

Eh, given that reporters aren't any more immune to believing what they want regardless of the truth than anyone else, I prefer they not even bother.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Muir (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 5:33pm

The function of a newspaper
Obsessed with "new" information, newspapers often ignore a key function that they can still serve pretty effectively: that of archivist. Whether or not something is a blatant lie is one thing, but merely showing how inconsistent a person's position has been over time can be useful too. The information is usually out there on the net for any of us to find, but for reporters to do that little bit of extra work in the archives is one of the few remaining ways they can prove their value-add.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2010 @ 5:40pm

Indeed scary.
I think people don't even realized yet what the politician person just said there.

Basically he finds unacceptable that people go out and dig some facts that contradicts what he said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 15 Jul 2010 @ 6:22pm

Scientists Should Be More Like Journalists
Scientists are a group that traditionally has been fond of coming down firmly on one side of a question or the other. I think science should work the way journalists work, giving equal time to both sides of the argument, and letting people make up their own minds, and forget all these needless “fact-checking” distractions. That’s the only way to prove how objective you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gak, 15 Jul 2010 @ 7:21pm

Re: The function of a newspaper
Explains why The Daily Show is so popular. They regularly dig out video to show pols and/or pundits stating outright lies or exhibiting tremendous flip-flopping on issues over time.

Servicey!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 7:39pm

Re: Re: The function of a newspaper
the daily show:
the hardest hitting news show on the air..
....and thats pretty sad.

and thats also blatantly ripped off from the daily show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 7:49pm

The press has abdicated its "estate" status. We are now back to three estates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2010 @ 8:43pm

Re: Re: Re:
THERE ARE EIGHT SIDES IN THE OCTAGON OF TRUTH!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tor (profile), 15 Jul 2010 @ 11:42pm

Lost jobs in the EU music industry more than twice the EU population size
The largest morning paper here in Sweden (Dagens Nyheter), which is probably by many viewed as our most serious one, published an article the other day where it was claimed that according to a study performed on behalf of the music industry there is a risk that continued music piracy over the next five years will put 1.2 billion jobs in the music industry in the EU at jeopardy. Many bloggers now question if there is any fact checking at all being done, noting that this number corresponds to more than twice the number of citizens in the EU (500 million).

I guess this shows that the numbers are often so blown out of proportion that many journalists have stopped even trying think about what's reasonable and what's not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2010 @ 1:38am

Re: Re: The function of a newspaper
Come on, they only show one side and are very biased. As for being so popular, only 1.5 million viewers is hardly what is called popular.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2010 @ 3:38am

Re: Re: Re: The function of a newspaper
Yes, they are biased. Biased against stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2010 @ 3:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but there is only one side on the mobius strip of truth. And no matter how much you go around it, you always come back to the same place you started in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2010 @ 3:47am

Re: Lost jobs in the EU music industry more than twice the EU population size
1.2 Billion jobs? Isn't the world population about 8 billion? And about half (my estimate) of the world population is currently jobless (Spain has an unemployment rate of about 20% for example and my country has about 12%) or unable to work (too young/too old).

If 1.2B people out of (estimated by me) 4B people work in the music industry, then abut 30% of the world works in the music industry. Which is a blatant lie.

That number IS completely bogus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tor (profile), 16 Jul 2010 @ 5:17am

Re: Re: Lost jobs in the EU music industry more than twice the EU population size
I did some checks and it seems that the number comes from the report covered in this Techdirt post. Somewhere, somehow the 1.2 million lost jobs, which was a quite questionable number to start with, must have been changed into 1.2 billion. Anyway, I don't think the exact number in itself is that important in this context. What's interesting is how something so obviously wrong can be printed without anybody in the editorial staff reacting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 16 Jul 2010 @ 5:27am

Hot News Rules!
You guys are crazy! Don't you know how much work fact-checking involves? This writeup is blatant discrimination against journalists with lives, families, tee times, constrained happy hours, and the thirst to be first in print.

That's what she said, and that's a scientific fact!

de-sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]