Remember how, in the past, journalists routinely called out public figures who said things that just weren’t true, and that were trivially proved false? Yeah, that was awesome. Back then, we called it “journalism” when, in an article about John Doe quotes him as saying “the sky is green,” the reporter inserted a note stating that the sky is in fact blue.

This wasn’t controversial. Of course, that was also before ninnyhammer right-wing douchebags started insisting they had their own set of facts.

In this op ed, the Times’ public editor Arthur Brisbane wonders if they should engage in what he terms “being a truth vigilante.”

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.

The most WTF moment in the article comes here: “Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?”

A reporter cannot correct “one fact over another.” Only one fact is true. Fact checking is not vigilantism. Fact checking is a public service.

Hey, Arthur? How about you sack up and do your fucking job and stop the descent of journalism into a pit of PR?

HEADDESKBANG