January 13, 2012 · 0 Comments
By Chris Spannos:
Tomorrow, January 14th, this project turns three months old. I think it is safe to say that once NYT eXaminer (NYTX) came into existence we hit the ground running.
As if to vindicate our mission, in case there were any doubts, New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane wrote a column yesterday titled “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” where he wondered if Times “news reporters should challenge ‘facts’ that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.”
NYTX aspires to serve as an “antidote to the ‘paper of record’” by holding mainstream media accountable and offering new editorial standards, not just on daily news and events, but on major issues that have long been decided.
Announcing NYTX three months ago, we wrote that “we believe that the application of ‘impartiality,’ ‘objectivity,’ and ‘balance’ to settled legal and scientific issues-such as the international law prohibition against aggressive war and the global scientific consensus on human-induced global warming-is an ongoing folly with catastrophic human, political, and environmental consequences.”
So through our work we advocate standards such as international law regarding aggressive war and occupation, scientific consensus on climate change, truth and social justice, and more.
Although we think that the answer to Brisbane’s question is obvious, it has stirred controversy at the Times and has illuminated the crisis in mainstream media.
Brisbane’s question also highlights the purpose of our project.
Today we gathered a number of commentaries on Brisbane’s column, including two by NYTX writer’s Marie Burns and “Fire Tom Friedman.” These are linked here and from our homepage.
We hope you will agree that these pieces provide important clarity and context for Brisbane’s question: