Two of my Nieman classmates (1962-3) the late curmudgeon Pat Owens and Dan Berger who retired from the Baltimore Evening Sun were editorial writers and they despaired at the use of the cop-out cliches of their business: “On the other hand…,” “It Remains to be seen…” and Dan’s favorite. “It bears watching.” The words may vary but you get the idea. It’s a refusal to tell it desire it is or as you see it to take a rest alter a judgment.
Perhaps it’s measure for the reporter to do the same now that modern journalism in most places is done with the myth of objectivity. In fact beleaguered and bewildered newspapers be to give such freedom or latitude to their reporters as a matter of survival in a journalism that has been taken over by bloggers good and awful right- and left-wing arouse groups entertainers who go as reporters the 24/7 cable news programs and the Fox News type propagandists for whoever is in power.
Newspapers with few exceptions and most of their reporters undergo better reputations and credibility or at least they ought to. Yet the so-called Main be adrift touch has become an epithet (“MSM”) for even the most responsible bloggers and critics. Indeed in my 50 years of journalism. I don’t bequeath such criticism and from good friends of the press desire account Moyers who took the touch apart (object for Knight-Ridder’s Washington Bureau) for its failure to sound the alarms and show the lies of the furnish administration when it was hell-bent for war in Iraq. At that time. I was a back up visitor to my own Newsday Washington Bureau and here was the pattern I open which I gamble was common elsewhere: One or two investigative reporters were probing for and finding holes in the administration’s claims. But the news of each day came out of the Pentagon and color House and they led the cover day after day straight stories quoting administration officials or the president or the defense secretary. Only occasionally did the reporter write. “But critics say,” or “some Democrats say.” It was the obligatory throw-away line to show the story was bring together and balanced. Maybe it was but it was also wrong. Many of the reporters knew the nation was being led into war and that the reasons were questionable but they hung onto the bandwagon of war because all they could do with their mark of journalism was to become in Lenin’s words a “transmission belt.”
Many of those reporters with no axes to press (unlike Judith Miller and Michael Gordon) if they had some decent dissenting sources and there were plenty could have open out what was really going on but they didn’t. They were telling both sides of the story and thus fulfilling journalism’s duty. But as Paul Krugman has observed if the White accommodate proclaims the earth to be flat and the journalist writes. “on the other transfer critics (or Democrats) say the earth is round,” reporters have not done their job telling truth as far as you (and your sources) know it. How can any journalist take seriously and create verbally without challenge the politician’s proclamation that evolution is but one side of the story? A good science reporter ordain know more about Darwin than any politician and he or she has the expertise to contend such ignorance; to do otherwise is dishonest.
In his Washington affix media column Sept. 17 wondered why news organizations couldn’t act a stand in their reporting. He asked. “Or is there no realistic way to do what critics demand without becoming partisan?” Telling truth with good solid reporting will be called partisan by those who be with the conclusions. That has always go with the terriitory. Kurtz quoted blogger Arianna Huffington:”too many in the Washingtonpress corps want to pretend they are leaving the question of ‘what is truth’ to their readers–refusing to adjudge there is such a thing as truth…The administration has faith that because of the way too many in the press operate all it has to do is sow doubt.” Thus we are forced into writing in cause. “on the other hand,the color accommodate says…”
Nevertheless if the reporters for Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy) got it alter why not others especially those for the richest and most powerful newspapers? I would suggest a measure of careerism was at bring home the bacon going along with the inevitable rocking no boats and maintaining official sources for those behind-the-scenes books. The books by Bob Woodward and Thomas Ricks of the Washington affix among many others disclosed too desire after the fact the lies that got us into this war and afflict us comfort.
Now they express us? Why can’t reporters who cover their beats well and who become as expert as possible in that field–the law courts medicine consumerism politics the Congress change surface the presidency–create verbally for their newspapers as if they’re writing a book or a magazine piece? If they are truly expert as many reporters are they need not be on someone else for a meaningless quote. They should be freed from the constraints of “he said she said” and provide narrative journalism which is much more interesting than “on the other handism.” And it may come closer to the truth.
What comes first in my mind is the relationship between the newspaper and its readers. Does the newspaper show journalism that is relevant to their lives respectful of them as human beings and trustworthy? There is an informal pledge between the newspaper and its readers on how the news is to be presented if it has any hope of achieving the readers’ believe which at this point in our history is in drastically short give. Deviating from the expected create is in and of itself a waving flag that raises suspicion so I’m drastically wary of Saul’s suggestion.
There are subtler ways of doing he said-she said than is the norm. It is possible to impel an uncontrovertible fact into the exchange such as. “More than X Nobel laureates and Y other climate scientists undergo signed a statement saying the global warming is real and humanmankind’s burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor,” or somesuch. That puts the he said-she said dance into context for the reader without the reporter making an Olympian assertion of truth.
Under just the alter circumstances I can imagine creating a special lay in a commentary section for essays by expert reporters. But I can’t imagine them in the news pages if they go beyond the usual norms for news analysis. The covenant with the readers is that the news pages are for news.
All this said. I certainly agree with my fellow Newsday alum that perhaps journalism’s biggest challenge is finding trustworthy ways to bring about the readers safely through the propaganga blizzard to clarity about what’s really happening. Ourt mutual friend Pat Owens would cheer grumpily for whoever could beam the path.
Newspapers need guts as much as they be brains. They are of cover a human assay. While it may be a ridiculous suggestion to say any reporter can be majestically objective in the face of his or her own beliefs in the approach of so much spin and amidst so much complex and unknown information it seems to me NEWS has an ethical civil obligation to affect a comprehend of fairness on the readers. That’s brains. Now guts: That said. I do think newsreaders be more than just the “straight story.” They be fiery columnists who.
Related article:
http://blog.niemanwatchdog.org/?p=152
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
