Now, it’s worth noting that Brisbane’s question makes perfect sense, considered from the newsroom’s perspective. Romney’s claim that Obama makes speeches “apologising” for America isn’t readily amenable to fact-checking. Instead, Romney relied on what are sometimes called “weasel words”, in which an allegation is alluded to, without being made head-on. (Romney, for instance, never quotes any of the president’s speeches when making this assertion.) For Brisbane, the open question was whether a hard news reporter should be calling out those kinds of statements, or should simply quote the source accurately.
This is what was so extraordinary about his original question: he is evidently so steeped in newsroom culture that he does not understand – literally, does not understand, as we know from his subsequent clarifications – that this is not a hard question at all, considered from the readers’ perspective. Readers do not care about the epistemological differences between lies and weasel words; we want newspapers to limit the ability of politicians to make dubious assertions without penalty. Judging from the reactions to his post, most of us never understood that this wasn’t the newspapers’ self-conceived mission in the first place. —The New York Times public editor’s very public utterance | Clay Shirky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.
The Case for Slow Journalism: When to Unplug from the Endless News Cycle
Auditioning in Pittsbugh (flanked by shots from recent performances).
Fire Chief Grants Fireman 3-Day Extension On Difficult Fire
LGN Launches Quandary to Develop Ethical Thinking through Play
A serious summer activity.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales wants new Facebook feature to burst 'filter bubble'