We know from stories of the Old West that newspapers of the time were more dedicated to sensationalism than facts. A good yarn sold papers, especially in areas for away from the place where the story occurred. But over time, journalism changed and "fact checker" became an occupation, although a grinding one usually relegated to women. Publications that wanted to build a reputation as reliable began to filter stories through fact checkers before publication, but it wasn't a popular innovation with everyone.
If writers were pitted against fact checkers, it was because the former resented a check on the idea of the lone genius whose words were unassailable. In the era of New Journalism, The New Yorker’s fact-checking arm came in for criticism from figures like Tom Wolfe, who saw in it a form of groupthink and regarded it as a cabal of women and middling editors all collaborating to henpeck and emasculate the prose of the Great Writer.
Read about the evolution of fact-checking, including some great stories of how it went wrong, at Columbia Journalism Review. -via Digg
(Image source: Library of Congress)
Comments (1)
i like the word poo. better than some alternatives. (also the british equivalent of 'poop,' from what i can tell. and that makes it funnier. proper impropriety.)
If your final resting place is close enough to carry buckets of crap to, why not dump there in the first place?