[Lamuella]

I'm trying to make this particular topic as apolitical (or as non-party-political) as possible. As such I'm not going to use real world examples although I have a few that prompted this.

All right, let's say you are a reporter for a major newspaper, and you are covering a speech that a politician makes, and in that speech they say something that is factually incorrect. Not trivially incorrect, but incorrect in a major way and which would, if correct, change the course of their argument. To pick an example, let's say that they claim a particular piece of legislation would allow sex offenders to work as schoolteachers, when the legislation does not.

Do you, as a reporter, have a responsibility to point out that this claim is incorrect?

It seems that a lot of times when this kind of thing happens, a compromise is reached by essentially giving a counterpoint from whoever the incorrect statement is about, but often this seems inadequate, making it seem like they are two statements of equal worth rather than an inaccurate statement and a correction of that statement.

I'm all for the press wanting to take as neutral a viewpoint as possible, but this should be neutrality towards opinions, not neutrality towards factual inaccuracy. If someone is factually wrong, shouldn't the press point it out?

I am of course aware that most of the time it is not a matter of correct and incorrect. Most of the time it is interpretation, opinion, or inference. Sometimes, however, someone is simply wrong.

I didn't make this a poll because I'd rather see people discuss it than simply vote on it. What are people's thoughts?

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Technical question - how much of a difference is there between journalist and reporter?

[NewPoseidon]

When it is clearly empirically incorrect, obviously yes. When it seems, at first glance, to have logic and empiricism against it, probably.

[El Pilchinator]

Arcturus Jefferson, on Aug 9 2009, 10:55 PM, said:

Technical question - how much of a difference is there between journalist and reporter?

i was going to ask the same question.

perhaps its not a correct distinction i make, but a reporter simply gathers the facts, a journalist is more involved in the dissemination of those facts, and would be the one to correct anything.

[bkphysics]

Journalistic integrity implies that only the facts are used and brought forward to the reading/viewing public. I would think that a reporter or journalist should take on the responsibility of adhering to the facts and if the said subject they are reporting/writing about is making false claims it is their journalistic responsibility in my opinion to correct these claims.

Now, whether or not this is done immediately, or they give the subject a chance to correct their wrong, that is up to them and would lie in the difference between a journalist and a reporter.

[SilverHawk]

They have an obligation to make the correction, but good luck getting that to happen in these days.

[Lamuella]

so what about in situations where it's slightly more ambiguous, like let's say the legislation I was talking about didn't let sex offenders work in schools, but did mean that if two people who are underage have sex with each other and are caught they don't automatically get added to the sex offender's register, so conceivably one of them could grow up to become a schoolteacher. You could make a very tenuous argument that this is "allowing sex offenders to teach in schools" by an extreme stretching of terms. Should it be pointed out that the speaker is incorrect in this case?

[SilverHawk]

Lamuella, on Aug 9 2009, 10:56 PM, said:

so what about in situations where it's slightly more ambiguous, like let's say the legislation I was talking about didn't let sex offenders work in schools, but did mean that if two people who are underage have sex with each other and are caught they don't automatically get added to the sex offender's register, so conceivably one of them could grow up to become a schoolteacher. You could make a very tenuous argument that this is "allowing sex offenders to teach in schools" by an extreme stretching of terms. Should it be pointed out that the speaker is incorrect in this case?

Yes, if the facts are distorted in ANY WAY the journalist has the obligation to correctly report what it REALLY means.

[Foggers]

They should report any mistakes that are made and as for something that is unclear then they should say it is unclear and can lead to confusion.

[Isildur]

Yes, they should point out the error as long as they research the facts carefully and make corrections equally regardless of their own political biases.

[Jakevy Jacob XXVI]

They should correct it when they come to publish the material for the public's consumption

[bkphysics]

Even the ambiguous example that you allude to would require the journalist/reporter to make a correction or a point of possible confusion before sharing their work with the public.

I really feel the field of journalism has come far from the integrity they once worked under. Now it seems it is more about getting 'ratings' then reporting with due diligence. The worst part of it though is the retractions. These are usually very short and barely visible when they are done.

IMHO, journalist/reporters should be held more accountable for incomplete or miswritten stories and focus on getting all the facts straight instead of being the first one to get the headline.

[America]

Yes.

[alpreb]

For a journalist, to make an incorrect statement (Either factual things or false quotes/sources) is against Danish law, so I rarely see this issue being debated.

Quote

Do you, as a reporter, have a responsibility to point out that this claim is incorrect?

I don't think that it is necessary to demand such responsibility. The best stories comes when a reporter catches someone off guard, so I don't think there is a lack of encouragement to do so. More often than not when they don't correct the one they interview it is from the lack of knowledge rather than an agenda.

Quote

It seems that a lot of times when this kind of thing happens, a compromise is reached by essentially giving a counterpoint from whoever the incorrect statement is about, but often this seems inadequate, making it seem like they are two statements of equal worth rather than an inaccurate statement and a correction of that statement.

You cannot make misquotes from an interview, so you pretty much have to make a counterpoint and let your own weight more (you're a journalist, should be easy). By saying he is flat out wrong (sources plz would be the Boiler response) You might fall into the trap of letting your piece to smell of bias which you really don't want.

[edikroma]

Yes. Considering the profession is around reporting facts and correct information to the public...

Sadly, however, I think a lot are willing to let facts slide, in preference for ratings and reviews...

[Mack Truck]

They should. Maybe if the paper has misgivings they could just keep the report straight and put the correction in the editorial.

[Foggers]

I'm not sure how much of a problem this is in the UK. We have either very good papers (The Daily Telegraph and The Times) or pieces of paper that are use than used loo paper and tend to be celebrity gossip.

[JEB90]

Some of the responses to this confuse me, because they seem to be addressing a different question than what I suspect you're asking.

As I understand your question, your scenario is something like this: Politician X makes a statement claiming that bill Y will result in situation Z.

Reporters can either run a headline that goes:
1) "Y will result in Z," which is biased, dishonest and inappropriate.
2) "Politician X: Y will be Z;" which is totally honest, but runs the risk of giving too much credibility to an argument that may be inaccurate.
3) "Politician X says this, but I believe it to be false," which is a dangerous game.

Most of the "inaccurate" statements made by politicians aren't factual claims, they're really matters of opinion. Very rarely does a does a politician come out and declare "2 + 2 = 5." Whether it's "politician A will raise taxes" or "bill B will result in money being spent on this or that" or so forth, the only "factual" response is what the opposite side says, but that's not really factual. It's the basic problem I see with many of the so-called "fact check" articles that come out. They're constructed along the lines of "So-and-so says this about the bill. But the bill proponents say it won't happen. So the claim is false" or whatever. A slippery-slope arguement, for example, is sometimes fallacious, but it's hardly ever, objectively, "wrong," at least not without hindsight.

My point, which I may not be expressing well, is that attempts by reporters to correct inaccuracies often gives the impression of bias. Even if it is not biased, the perception of neutrality is important to credibility. In fact, it's the only thing that separates a "reporter" from a pundit.

Therefore, I'd say the answer to your question is "yes." However, most of the situations that I imagine you have in mind aren't as clear-cut as they perhaps seem. I think that the most responsible technique is to report facts, i.e. my example 2 above.

[EMGhb]

What are the criteria for determining a 'major' inaccuracy?

[Lackistan]

Agreed with JEB90. Another question: how do you define "reporter"? Newspaper only? News Anchor? News Personality?

This post has been edited by The Observer: 10 August 2009 - 11:05 AM