dangerousmeta!, the original new mexican miscellany, offering eclectic linkage since 1999.

NY Times: Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?

“Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign debates, The Times has employed a separate fact-check sidebar to assess the validity of the candidates’ statements. Do you like this feature, or would you rather it be incorporated into regular reporting?” The Times is asking for input on this. I say, incorporate into the reporting, so I don’t have to click and winnow again.

01/12/12 • 02:48 PM • General • News • Politics • (5) Comments

Comments:

I have to side with the comments - “You are asking US?”

I love fact checks, but if embedded one risks editorializing, if side bar hopefully it remains separate from the reportage.

Posted by Emmett on 01/12/12 at 11:59 PM

As you know, I prefer straight-facts reporting, no shading, no opinions. It’s been years since I’ve encountered such an article.

That being said, straight-out BS should be flagged in-article, IMHO.

Posted by Garret P Vreeland on 01/13/12 at 12:57 AM

I agree
With the current attention span if it is not flagged immediately it will simply enter the mainstream.

Posted by Emmett on 01/13/12 at 09:10 AM

“Truth Vigilante”

I thought that was journalism. Perhaps I’m old…

Posted by Hal on 01/13/12 at 05:00 PM

You remember when I posted this, oh so many years ago?

http://www.mdn.org/jschool/CREED.HTM

Posted by Garret P Vreeland on 01/13/12 at 05:14 PM

 

Leave a comment:

name:

email:

url //:

Your email is not published.
Basic HTML is allowed. Smileys are available, if you're so inclined.

Save personal info (so you don't have to keep entering it)?

Send an email if someone else comments on this thread?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Previous entry: SF New Mexican: Proposal would require background checks on foster parents, relatives.

Next entry: Klip.me - Enjoy Mobile Reading. >>