When the record of this ridiculous time is written (assuming we still have writing implements, which is an open question at the rate we’re going), I sincerely hope that this piece from the public editor of the New York Times is included.
Should The Times Be a 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.
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.
It goes on in a similar vein, and ends with a chirpy set of questions requesting reader guidance on how the Times should handle this apparently baffling challenge of “vigilantism.” It is rare to see such a bald admission of the establishment media’s current function in promoting government interests. It’s as though the Iraq War, Judith Miller, etc. never happened.