"Should the Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" is the heading and central question Arthur Brisbane, Public Editor of The New York Times asks in his column today, that has since sparked a number of responses from reporters and editors alike. Brisbane's lead, if you haven't yet seen it, is this:
"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."
Craig Silverman's post at Poynter describes the response by journalists as 'incredulous' from a collection of tweets come through his stream today. NYU Media Professor Jay Rosen said, "Everyone in my feed now saying, "Huh? Calling out falsehoods is a reporters JOB!" hasn't quite grasped how deep the View from Nowhere runs." Rosen also wrote more extended thoughts at his Press Think blog.
Vanity Fair's Julie Weiner took a different approach from most criticism and parodied Brisbane with, "Should Vanity Fair Be a Spelling Vigilante?" For more commentary on this issue, check out Mediagazer's aggregated discussion.
Updated: Brisbane responds to his critics, and NYT boss Jill Abramson.