Interesting: Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, of New York Times asks if news reporters should be "truth vigilantes." Should the reporters expose lies of the people they are reporting about/on? Not only is he asking the question rhetorically, he wants your direct opinion, and his contact info is at the bottom of the article. It may not be as simple a question as you think:
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/...
or, shortened: http://goo.gl/...
How many times have we railed about reporters who don't challenge their interviewees on clearly misleading claims? News organizations seem to have taken the view that just reporting the obvious falsehood as stated, is news, so it's not up to them to correct the falsehood. But what is the best way for a reporter to do this? Mr Brisbane says that the NYT has included a "fact-check sidebar to assess validity of candidates' statements." But, should a fact-correction occur in the actual reporting of the story? How does a reporter choose to fact-check one claim over another? Would fact-checking, then putting results in the story lead to reduced access to public officials? If so, is it better for reporters to just report what the public official said, and let the public do its own fact checking?
Here's a chance to weigh in. Is it too much to hope that other news organizations would follow suit if the NYT actually does some true fact-checking and challenging in their articles? Probably.