Fact-checking: NYT found wanting

By Srinal Peiris

With Donald Trump’s foray as President of the United States, the words fake news is much talked about. Journalism departments in universities as well as media rights groups throughout the world have delved on the subject in depth.

The concept of fact checking became the order of the day. Media institutions employ Fact Checkers. And for those world-renowned titles like The New York Times, that has become sacred. They publish what is fit to print, in terms of their own vow. Is that altogether true?

For the lack of a better word, I would like to describe myself as a watcher of the media and political scene in Sri Lanka.

I refer to a tweet from The New York Times which said “Even in dark times there are lines you hope journalists won’t cross. Attempts to publicly disclose even erroneously – another reporter’s source should be a line in the sand.” Ting a ling a ling!!

True or fake? This is an obvious reference to the Sunday Times which published in their gossip column Café Spectator about how former Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) told actor turned politician that he had given facsimiles of two cheques written in favour of the Rajapaksa’s by a Chinese construction firm. This statement is recorded on tape. The Sunday Times DID NOT say this was the source of The New York Times.

Wait a minute. When this story was published in the prestigious NYT, there was a follow up story in the Sunday Times. It revealed facsimiles of two cheques. The story said cheques have not been paid only to Rajapaksa’s but to all political parties. Tingle Eyes may not see to point because they believe in the religion of hating the Rajapaksa’s – not the responsibility of an independent, objective journalist. True or false? This part of the story was later pulled out of their website. Why? Obviously, they were wrong that cheques were given only to one party.

If the then head of the CID is on the record as saying he gave two facsimiles, there is more. Just after this story, NYT ran another shocker. It said that the “white van abductions have resumed” after Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected President. True or fake?

The claim was based on the fictitious allegations made by Swiss Embassy staffer Garnier Banister Francis. Whilst Embassy officials watched and her own lawyer saw it happen, Francis made a statement to the CID. It has made it absolutely clear that there was no such abduction. But the Reporter who wrote the article claims the Swiss still say there was white van abduction. She has obviously not seen the Third Person Note from the Swiss government to their Sri Lankan counterparts regretting the incident. Is this accuracy or an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of readers.

Now comes the bombshell. That is what transpired in the Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday. Well, well there is some NYT strings that are surfacing. So much for fake news and disinformation. Tingle eyes may believe the other are blind. They are not.