GoldBod, the microphone and the media’s duty beyond ‘He said’ and ‘She said’

In a matter such as GoldBod, the journalist should be able to independently assess the IMF reports and other relevant records, establish whose losses were actually reported, explain that distinction to the public and, where the evidence warrants it, plainly call a misleading claim, the Minority Leader’s in this instance, exactly what it is.

But after the microphone comes the journalist’s harder duty: to examine, to explain and, when the evidence demands it, to tell the public what the records actually say.

This is particularly important because the ordinary citizen cannot reasonably be expected to independently examine every IMF report, audited account, government statement or parliamentary claim upon which public debate turns.