Should reporters challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about?

[Marley23]

I’m not sure I would consider any of those to be apologies, and you posted one of them three times.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Actually, this is pretty illuminating. If an admission that one’s country isn’t perfect–especially an admission in specific circumstances–is a shameful thing to do, it tells us more about the accuser than the accused.

[Kozmik]

@Simplicio

If I want to find out what Mitt Romney or Obama has to say, I’m sure their campaigns have website full of speeches and unchallenged assertions.

“What Romney has to say” from a front page article in The New York Times. Good reporting by Nicholas Confessore and Jim Rutenberg:

“I think everybody in the race right now has a legitimate shot,” Mr. Romney said to reporters at a news conference in South Carolina on Thursday. “And I wish them all well.”

:dubious:

[John_Mace]

@Marley23

I’m not sure I would consider any of those to be apologies, and you posted one of them three times.

I agree. This is what an apology looks like:

“We also talked about what has been on the TV screens recently, not only in our own country, but overseas – the images of cruelty and humiliation. I told His Majesty as plainly as I could that the wrongdoers will be brought to justice, and that the actions of those folks in Iraq do not represent the values of the United States of America,” [George W.] Bush said. “I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners, and the humiliation suffered by their families.”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@John_Mace

I agree. This is what an apology looks like:

“We also talked about what has been on the TV screens recently, not only in our own country, but overseas – the images of cruelty and humiliation. I told His Majesty as plainly as I could that the wrongdoers will be brought to justice, and that the actions of those folks in Iraq do not represent the values of the United States of America,” [George W.] Bush said. “I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners, and the humiliation suffered by their families.”

Rest assured that if US soldiers torture prisoners under Romney’s watch, he won’t apologize for it.

[Magiver]

@Jas09

This is not a fact. There is no information regarding where the idea to apologize for Hiroshima came from, and no indication it came from the administration. All the wikileaks document said was that the Japanese government told our ambassador it would not be a good idea to do so, perhaps in response to speculation from anti-nuclear groups.

If you read the document the Japanese said it would not be a good idea to visit Hiroshima even though it would convey the right message.

Call it what you want but the Japanese ambassador was nixing the idea.

[Simplicio]

@Magiver

If you read the document the Japanese said it would not be a good idea to visit Hiroshima even though it would convey the right message.

Call it what you want but the Japanese ambassador was nixing the idea.

OK, but I’m not sure what that has to do with Obama apologizing for anything. Some anti-nuclear groups were speculating that Obama would apologize, and the Japanese ambassador told the admin they should make it clear before hand that that wasn’t going to happen. There isn’t any evidence of Obama doing much of anything in that cable except planning to visit Japan.

[Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji] Yabunaka pointed out that the Japanese public will have high expectations toward President Obama’s visit to Japan in November, as the President enjoys an historic level of popularity among the Japanese people. Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation. He underscored, however, that both governments must temper the public’s expectations on such issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a “non-starter.” While a simple visit to Hiroshima without fanfare is sufficiently symbolic to convey the right message, it is premature to include such program in the November visit. Yabunaka recommended that the visit in November center mostly in Tokyo, with calls on the Emperor and Prime Minister, as well as some form of public program, such as speeches, an engagement at a university, or a town hall-like meeting with local residents. [WikiLeaks, accessed 10/13/11, emphasis added]

[Magiver]

@Simplicio

OK, but I’m not sure what that has to do with Obama apologizing for anything. Some anti-nuclear groups were speculating that Obama would apologize, and the Japanese ambassador told the admin they should make it clear before hand that that wasn’t going to happen. There isn’t any evidence of Obama doing much of anything in that cable except planning to visit Japan.

The Ambassador was responding to the idea of going to Hiroshima and went on to say such a visit would convey the right message.

[Simplicio]

@Magiver

The Ambassador was responding to the idea of going to Hiroshima and went on to say such a visit would convey the right message.

The cable gives one source for the idea of visiting Hiroshima, and thats :“Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima”.

You said: “Despite the fact that Obama tried to apologize for Hiroshima”.

A cable suggesting that the Obama admin should try and tamp down expectations of a third party that he will apologize because its a “non-starter” is not “Obama trying to apologize for Hiroshima”.

[Magiver]

@Simplicio

The cable gives one source for the idea of visiting Hiroshima, and thats :“Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima”.

You said: “Despite the fact that Obama tried to apologize for Hiroshima”.

A cable suggesting that the Obama admin should try and tamp down expectations of a third party that he will apologize because its a “non-starter” is not “Obama trying to apologize for Hiroshima”.

The cable was in response to something. Obviously the WH is going to deny it but Ambassadors don’t just suggest stuff for no reason. It’s logical to assume it was on the table as a stopping point.

[foolsguinea]

RTFirefly says,

@RTFirefly

If their job is mainly stenography, then they should do it whole-hog, and print PDFs of politicians’ press releases, labeled as such.

Of course, I don’t think that. But if the newspaper doesn’t add value of some sort, there’s really no reason for it to do reporting.

Can anyone suggest a source of added value they’d provide that didn’t involve comparing quoted statements with known facts, and similar provision of context?

I can’t see that it would be that difficult. It isn’t like reporters don’t have access to Google.

Am I journalist for repeating that?

[What_the]

@Marley23

Two Times readers sent letters asking the paper to take a harder line against perceived Republican falsehoods while reporting them. The public editor used those letters as a jumping off point to ask how readers want the paper to handle claims made by politicians. Conclusion: the Times hates Republicans. Got it.

The NYT gets lots of letters… those are just two they decided to address.

[Simplicio]

@Magiver

The cable was in response to something. Obviously the WH is going to deny it but Ambassadors don’t just suggest stuff for no reason. It’s logical to assume it was on the table as a stopping point.

This is getting a little silly. The cable itself explicitly explained what the Ambassador was responding to, the expectations of Japanese anti-nuclear groups.

Your bending over backwards to see what you want to see in the cable, it doesn’t say or even hint that the Obama admin said anything about apologizing, it doesn’t say they administration mentioned anything about Hiroshima, it doesn’t say that a putative visit to Hiroshima involve an apology. What it does say, explicitly, in the first two sentences, is the reason that the topic is being discussed. The reason given has nothing to do with the plans of the Obama Administration.

Your initial statement that Obama wanted to apologize for Hiroshima is false.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Magiver

The story was an opinion piece in itself and has nothing to do with journalism or the theoretical question posed.

He talked about the view of Obama as an apologist for the United States. This is an opinion. Despite the fact that Obama tried to apologize for Hiroshima It’s not a function of him actually using the word “apology” in a sentence.

The writer was making an opinion about opinion.

From your own link:

A senior White House official asserts to ABC News that there was never any plan for the president to apologize for Hiroshima.

ETA: I see that this is already under discussion and that Magiver is trying to claim that his view, which ignores the evidence we actually do have, is the correct one.

[Magiver]

@Simplicio

This is getting a little silly. The cable itself explicitly explained what the Ambassador was responding to, the expectations of Japanese anti-nuclear groups.

There was no reason for such a cable regarding the subject beyond a prior discussion of it.

And the cable explicitly refers to the sentiment of such a visit to Hiroshima.

[Magiver]

@Snowboarder_Bo

From your own link:

"A senior White House official asserts to ABC News that there was never any plan for the president to apologize for Hiroshima. "

Well DUH. You think the WH is going to admit this? Beyond the idea that no politician has ever admitted anything without a video of it on the news first do you think he would have actually used the word “apology” in a sentence at Hiroshima? He would have gone there with one of his world-without-nukes speech. Which is what he did… but not at Hiroshima.

Clearly this was discussed: "While a simple visit to Hiroshima without fanfare is sufficiently symbolic to convey the right message, it is premature to include such program in the November visit.

[Simplicio]

@Magiver

There was no reason for such a cable regarding the subject beyond a prior discussion of it.

The cable itself explains why the subject is being discussed. Its in the first couple sentences. There’s no need to guess. And there’s certainly no need to make up back stories for it that happen to meet our preconceived notions.

I’ll just quote the cable again, since I don’t really see the value of going back and forth on this. Its meaning is clear and it doesn’t support what you claimed it did. It doesn’t even hint at it. Your graping at, I dunno, whats less substantial then straws? Cobwebs? Something like that.

[Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji] Yabunaka pointed out that the Japanese public will have high expectations toward President Obama’s visit to Japan in November, as the President enjoys an historic level of popularity among the Japanese people. Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation. He underscored, however, that both governments must temper the public’s expectations on such issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a “non-starter.” While a simple visit to Hiroshima without fanfare is sufficiently symbolic to convey the right message, it is premature to include such program in the November visit. Yabunaka recommended that the visit in November center mostly in Tokyo, with calls on the Emperor and Prime Minister, as well as some form of public program, such as speeches, an engagement at a university, or a town hall-like meeting with local residents. [WikiLeaks, accessed 10/13/11, emphasis added]

[RTFirefly]

@puddleglum

France April 3, 2009

France April 3. 2009

Al Arabiya Jan 27, 2009
summit of the americas, april 17, 2009

Editorial April 6, 2009
Five examples of his saying that American has been wrong and will start doing better, which is an apology. All of them just from the first six months of this term. We await Rufus T’s apology.

There is obviously some disagreement as to whether any of this acknowledgment of past imperfection constitutes 'apologizing for America," but as I said:

@RTFirefly

If they do produce a statement they claim is the basis for the Obama apology claim, the reporter can publish it in the story, and let the readers decide.

Seems straightforward enough. And far better than just leaving a claim like that unchallenged. It gives the reader enough information to decide whether, in his or her mind, Obama’s going around apologizing for America, or whether Romney and others who make this claim are full of shit.

[Marley23]

I am wondering if there’s been some confusion over what a public editor is. He doesn’t set policy or make decisions about what the paper’s editors and reporters are going to do. He discusses issues that are interesting to readers and helps explain the decisions the newspaper makes.

His bio:

The public editor works outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper and receives and answers questions or comments from readers and the public, principally about articles published in the paper. His opinions and conclusions are his own.

[RTFirefly]

Here’s another one: in last night’s debate, Romney said:

[QUOTE=Mitt Romney]
We’ve got a president in office three years, and he does not have a jobs plan yet. I’ve got one out there already and I’m not even president, yet.
[/QUOTE]

Obama’s stimulus plan wasn’t a jobs plan per se, but large components of it were - $100 billion for infrastructure projects, $50 billion to localities to keep teachers on the payroll rather than cut their jobs, $26 billion for health care IT investments, $5 billion for weatherizing homes of persons with low incomes, and the like.

And more recently and specifically, just last fall Obama sent his proposed American Jobs Act legislation to Congress.

IMHO, if you’re a political reporter, you should know off the top of your head about the American Jobs Act, and that the stimulus bill included a good chunk of job-related spending. So yeah, any news story that reports Romney’s claim should rebut it.