kateoplis: Should Vanity Fair Be a Spelling Vigilante?
Just as New York Times public editor Arthur S. Brisbane is concerned whether his newspaper should print lies or the truth, we here at V.F. looking for reader input on whether and when Vanity Fair should spell “words” correctly in the stories we publish.
One example: the…
Ugh. The Grey Lady is going senile. But huzzah to Vanity Fair!
Ummm…Did anyone actually read the New York Times article? Because if you did, you would notice that Arthur S. Brisbane isn’t proposing that the New York Times not fact check but rather should they explain when quoting someone else whether or not they are correct.
This is actually a very important question to pose especially heading into an election. If the New York Times is quoting a speech made by one of the candidates and that candidate makes a statement about the other candidate that is incorrect, should the New York Times quote that speech directly or include a footnote explaining that that quote is incorrect and why? THAT WAS THE QUESTION ARTHUR S. BRISBANE WAS PROPOSING. Not, hey should we just post whatever we see or hear and call it fact?
Arthur Brisbane was questioning journalism and ethics. Because if the New York Times did start including footnotes, would they favor one side over the other? How much of the article would be taken up by footnotes explaining the inaccuracies of politicians? Would that constitute journalism or commentary on the event itself (similar to those cable news networks)?
Let’s remember that the New York Times has the most Pulitzer Prizes than any other paper here. These are smart people posing smart questions. Everyone else is jumping down the New York Times’ throat because they didn’t understand the question or didn’t bother to take the time to understand it.
Oh, and this post has nothing to do with the Vanity Fair Article that I actually reposted…