Yes, the Times Should Selectively Fact-Check
But
only Republicans:
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.
Get the examples he cites:
One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak
article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas
had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report
his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it
not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply
chose not to report the information.
That is not a fact, it is an opinion, and an unsupported opinion at that. And the second example?
As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call
out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news
reporters do the same?
If so, then perhaps the next time Mr.
Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country,
the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:
“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.”
Yes, how could anybody possibly
consider this an apology?
So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've
allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest
disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something
more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a
failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead
of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you
to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has
shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
And it was only a few months ago that we learned that in 2009 the Japanese government had to nix
Obama's plan to apologize to Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
