Put down the steno pad
Inquirer political reporter, Dick Polman, posted a note on his blog, American Debate, Goodbye to Journalism 101 stenography, regarding his view of the "role" of journalism. He was responding to a comment posted by "someone" (an anonymous poster). Anon. criticized Polman's remarks about an AP story on Dick Cheney which merely reported Dick's words, without checking the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of what he said. As Polman explained:
Anonymous complained that "the AP article was a straight news story. Straight news stories are supposed to report facts and what was said. Separate analysis or commentary articles would then debate the merits of what Cheney said. That's journalism 101."Polman nicely expresses my own view of the importance of the Fourth Estate's role in society as a "keeper of the watch" for its citizens. It's a far cry from providing the relevant facts to infusing the story with an opinion or view. If the only role of the press was to report someone else's words, then papers could just reprint Press Releases, with a few photo-ops to add flavor (and we've had a few instances of just that happening). Checking information provided (i.e. facts) beyond what one is told is doing one's job well, not crossing the line. This is a subject that I have written about several times, (see Leader of the Pack and We Had a Heads-up), and is one I am very concerned about.
I disagree. Anonymous tell us that "straight news are supposed to report facts and what was said," but, under that outmoded definition, journalists are mere stenographers, copying down whatever a politician wants to say, and passing it along to readers who often lack the time to determine whether the remarks were true. Under that so-called "objectivity" standard, a politician is free to dissemble without being challenged.
I don't feel that we should be content with passing along misinformation in "straight" stories. The reader deserves a full context, and that means politicians should be fact-checked -- a job that's relatively quick and easy to do, in the Google era. Providing accurate factual context is not "commentary." It's what "straight" reporting should be about.
It always helps to remember the lesson of Senator Joe McCarthy. The 1950s demagogue, whose inaccurate red-baiting wrecked careers and drove people to suicide, was enabled at every step of the way by journalists who believed their job was to only report "what was said." McCarthy was a senator, therefore, if he said something (true or not), it was deemed news. When he made wild charges about 60 or 80 or 100 communists in the State Department, it was reported as news. The "fact" that he was making such charges was considered sufficient; as the New York Times wrote back then, after reviewing their own McCarthy coverage, "It is difficult, if not impossible, to ignore charges by Senator McCarthy just because they are usually proved false. The remedy lies with the reader."
Washington reporter Richard Rovere, in a book he wrote two years after the senator's death, complained about "the system that required (reporters) to publish 'news' they knew to be fraudulent but prohibited them from reporting their knowledge of its fradulence."
In today's world, given the credibility problems that have plagued administrations of both parties, that "system" is not an adequate. Nor was it then.
The McCarthy Era, like today, was a low point in journalism, when reporters were afraid to question authority. They didn't delve into the facts beyond what those in power told them. Today, the "spin" of politics has been elevated to an art form. It has reached levels of excellence that are astounding. In fact, I have said before, in Beam me up Scotty, that I worry about the future of the press because it has abdicated it's vital role in informing the public about "the facts" or the truth of events of importance to the future of this country.
We need more Polmans to keep us honest and informed. Once we read the facts, we are free to interpret them, or disregard them, as we please. So long as we get those facts.
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment