New York Times’ public editor Arthur Brisbane took the remarkable step of asking his readers whether they want the paper to be a “truth vigilante,” pointing out when public figures say things that aren’t true.
He has noticed a remarkable trend in the mailbag:
[The irate readers who are writing to the NYT demanding the paper call out falsehoods] worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.
Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?
Since you asked, Mr. Brisbane: Yes, the New York Times should be a Truth Vigilante! Although, I prefer the term “Truth Cop” because that implies that telling the truth is your full-time job, not just something you do once in a while, when you just can’t stand the bullshit anymore.
SPECIAL DEAL: Subscribe to our award-winning print magazine, a publication Bernie Sanders calls "unapologetically on the side of social and economic justice," for just $1 an issue! That means you'll get 10 issues a year for $9.95.
