Standards of truthfulness for op-ed articles

Great Debates
1

This open letter to the New York Times complains that “the standards of truthfulness with respect to facts, statistics, sources and quotations cited in Times’ editorials and op-eds…have declined to a point that would be seen as unacceptable on the news side.” In particular, it complalins about Paul Krugman’s column, but that’s not the point of the OP. The question for debate is how much leeway a partisan columnist should be given?

I think we would all agree that news article ought not to do such things as: [ol][li]Misstate facts []Present the result of a statistical study in a way that distorts its findings[]Use unsourced material inaccurately []Quote out of context or inaccurately in a way that distorts the speaker’s actual meaning []Use one-sided sources without revealing their political orientation[]Present only one side of an argument[]Use loaded terms favoring one side.[/ol] Which of these standards ought to apply to partisan columns? Which ones should apply to newspaper editorials?[/li]
I think #1 - #5 should always apply. I think #6 should generally apply to editorials. Certainly, the editorial will be stronger if it acknowledges the other side and counters their arguments. Regarding #7, I have no problem with editorials and partisan articles using loaded terms. Perhaps I’ve missed other practices that are inappropriate in news articles, but are fine for editorials or columns.

OTOH I’ve seen posters suggest that on partisan articles, the rule should be “Anything goes.” The Times seldom prints corrections of their columnists’ errors. Evidently, their practice is to give the columnists great leeway.

What do you think?

2

I don’t think there should be rules on columnist articles. It’s sort of self policing…after they write some columns, it becomes clear who is being correct and who is misstating facts, who tries to fairly portray the other side and who doesn’t, and readers can judge accordingly.

3

Capt:

I’m assuming Dec is referring to rules set by the editors. I doubt they want to have to weed out the incompetent only after there was a public outcry about distorted facts. Much better to set the standards in advance, no?

4

I’d say #1 through #4 should apply – that’s just good journalistic ethics. I agree with December on #6 and #7 – but “stronger” is not ethically better, except insofar as the point is to convince people to support your side. If one chooses not to address arguments on the other side, that’s one’s privilege.

The point where we differ is #5, and I feel that this, like #6, is a matter of judgment on the part of the columnist. Certainly readers benefit from having a partisan quote attributed and with its partisanship noted, but I don’t see it as an ethical obligation in an opinion piece. In short, if I were writing an opinion column, I’d pursue #1-#6, and use connotatively-loaded terms judiciously, but only #1-#4 are things I’d consider as mandatory for good opinion-journalism.

W/R/T #6, by the way, the Watertown Daily Times, the daily newspaper of my old home town, was notorious when I was growing up for one-sided local reportage but the editorial page, under Frank Augustine, was scrupulous in presenting a balanced argument in every editorial, sometimes to the point where no editorial view was evident – leading to the joke that “You can find objective journalism in the Times; just read the editorial page!” :smiley:

[minor hijack]
A completely separate argument in which December and I were on opposite sides, six weeks or so ago, related to the trashing of the Iraqi Museum of Antiquities. I need to acknowledge that, while there was extensive looting and damage, december was far closer to accurate in his analysis than I was. This article comes very close to documenting precisely what december posited as against myself and a group of others who were believing the original reports of enormous losses at that museum. I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my error, and say, “december, you were right.”
[/end hijack]

5

That’s big of you, Polycarp.

6

I would say that #1-4 are obvious requirements. #5 I only need in real news pieces, with editorials the name/source is fine. I can look the background up myself if it sways me in some way.

#6&7 I would also only expect of true news pieces. Indeed, following these suggestions would turn the editorial page into some “biased reporting page”- where the columnist has to present all sides but also intends to direct opinion. Numbers 5-7 would blur the boundaries in a newspaper.

But hey, just don’t be expected to be taken seriously using an editorial as a cite. They’re meant to be slanted. :wink:

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *

I think we would all agree that news article ought not to do such things as: [ol][li]Misstate facts []Present the result of a statistical study in a way that distorts its findings[]Use unsourced material inaccurately []Quote out of context or inaccurately in a way that distorts the speaker’s actual meaning []Use one-sided sources without revealing their political orientation[]Present only one side of an argument[]Use loaded terms favoring one side.[/ol] Which of these standards ought to apply to partisan columns? Which ones should apply to newspaper editorials?**[/li][/QUOTE]
Ah, the irony.

If only we could hold you, december, to the same standard you suggest for other…

8

I’ll ignore the slur, and get to the meat of the comment. I think we would like posters in GD to follow #1 - #5, even partisans, like myself. At least, when we don’t meet those standards, we sure get called on it. Professional columnists should have standards at least as high as what we amateurs expect or hope for.

One reason the professionals don’t always meet GD standards is that they can get away with it. They and their newspapers control their columns. Nobody can post “cite!” in their newspaper. Even if they print a correction, it may appear way after the fact, when the original error has been forgotten. And, nobody from outside can force them to print a correction (Their editor can.) They would do a better job if they had to directly face criticism and challenge.

9

It’s not a slur, it’s simply your modus operandi.

(If you’re looking for slurs, check out the numerous BBQ Pits dedicated to your “fair and balanced” point-of-view. If I were you, this would seriously make me reconsider my debating style…)

As for the OP, of course there ought to be integrity in journalism, even Op-Ed pieces. But then, there ought to be integrity in all forms of discourse.

10

Can we try applying that list to the president for a moment, or would you consider that too far “off topic” ? :wink:

11

I didn’t notice when this was moved to the Pit.

12

Of course 1-4 should always apply, as others have said. To me, these are the four that are ethically required.

I would add point 5 as something that should also always apply, but because of intellectual honesty rather than ethics. In fact, my own view is that intellectual honesty requires one to avoid biased sources whenever possible, and when it isn’t possible, sources biased in one direction should be balanced by sources biased in another. I recognize, however, that we don’t really expect our columnists to be intellectually honest (or that, if we do, we’re bound to be disappointed an unfortunately large fraction of the time).

The others aren’t, I think, required for a column, at least ethically speaking. Your 6th point is entirely a matter of taste; I agree that an argument is stronger if the probable counter-arguments are foreseen and defeated before they can be made, but, as Poly noted, that’s not an ethical issue at all. As for using loaded terms… well, that’s a key part of this kind of thing, although I’d rather see people use the most accurate terms, whether loaded or not.

Of course, I have little use for columnists of any ilk, but were I to read columnists, that’s what I would expect.

My personal preference is for people in GD to follow all 7 points, but I’m not so stupid as to expect it to happen. At the very least, the first 5 should be followed, as you’ve said.

(And leander, is it too much, really, to ask people to give december more than a couple of replies before hijacking his thread into another round of december-bashing? It’s hardly as if there aren’t plenty of other places for that, and almost all of them more appropriate.)