The Times’ Arthur Brisbane posed a question last week that had keyboards blazing.

“Should the Times be a truth vigilante?” 

The important thing is not to take the question at face value — a metaphor unto itself.

(It was appended later that day to clarify that the question at hand was not whether the media should chase the truth, but rather if it is an obligation of a journalist to rebut false statements.)

Mr. Brisbane’s first inquiry delves right into the gut of journalism ethics, and a larger question of personal and press integrity. Do journalists have the wherewithal to know when to set the record straight in the case of rampant campaign soundbites, and further, do they have the tools (i.e. education, resources) to do so? This trickles down into so many secondary questions: are journalism schools the answer? How do you ‘teach’ journalism anyway? How would we go about writing the rebuttal delicately but willfully, so as not to promote bias?

In considering the troves of blog posts and comments related to this question, it occurred to me that an important distinction begs recognition. 

There is a wildly marked and vast difference between the titles of a journalist and a reporter. Using them interchangeably isn’t entirely accurate, and has mislead me for years — until this piece finally clarified the difference without even trying.

We need reporters to deliver news objectively, reporting (there it is!) verbatim the happenings and goings on of local entities. Reactionary quotes. Human interest pieces. Arts and entertainment. Natural disasters. Community perspectives. Essentially, reporters serve as the necessary, informative intermediary between a people and their papers, no interpretation necessary. It seems that the majority of reporters take on a more local flair; I would say this is mostly true.

We need journalists to deliver news objectively, but responsibly. For the love of God, fact check statements before they even leap off the notebook and into the typed document. When a story becomes more than just a national disaster — when it starts to evolve into a public official’s quotes on disaster relief funding, an organization’s degree of aid, or a claim made by a Senator — you’ll know whether to act as a reporter or a journalist.

Verify a source’s credibility. Use off the record information from anonymous sources sparingly, and when necessary, interject when a stump speech goes off the rails into false territory. We need journalists to be public servants, ombudsmen who understand the difference between organic free speech and erratic, unchecked statements before they even make it to the presses. Honest, dogged journalists are savvy filters — not talking heads. They quietly verify a piece of information from a credible source, they consult their editors, and they cut the fat on erroneous information that could go awry in the hands of the blogosphere, or 24-hour news cycle.

But most importantly, while the responsibility falls on the desks of reporters and journalists to do their jobs, editors are the ones that ultimately need to be at the helm. Grill (yes, grill — are we too politically correct to say it?) your journalists when necessary. Take an austere and ruthless approach to digging for public records. Hell, use phonebooks once in a blue moon! Request that the Library of Congress pull parchment for you. Call the resident newsroom fact checker to confirm a piece of information on a lede. Find old papers from the archives to match the Now with the Then. While the internet is an abundant cornucopia of information, it isn’t flawless. Don’t be afraid to get ink on your fingertips. Just wash them before you touch your iPad again.

The profession of journalism is in danger. After all, it’s a job duty with a split personality. Not for the faint of heart when your name is sitting on the byline. 

Despite what the Internet revenue race may say, I bet the candid truth would sell harder, garner attention faster, and yes, sometimes displease the country stronger than half-truths ever could. 

Time for a gut check.