No Journalists Need Apply
I am not a lawyer, politician, economist, scientist, doctor, farmer, engineer, or otherwise certified expert in any field. But I am a reporter of their doings. Does that make me a liar?
In my student newsroom, the office of the Hill News, we like to stick to the facts as they are stated by our sources. I simply don’t like to print a lone, unattributed statement and on those rare occasions that I do, it’s because it’s a detail so onerously disseminated that even questioning it would be unethical. The radio seems to push that line a little further. “Are we comfortable with the wording, ‘most boaters weren’t even aware’?” I had to ask this morning.
This week was tough for me. Not because anything particularly bad happened, but nothing particularly good happened. But to be honest, what’s really going on is an internal conflict about the value and goal of good journalism. There will always be some bad journalism to hold up and say, “This is what we are not.” That’s how I feel as a consumer. As a journalist consuming news for eight hours a day and constantly considering the typical he-said-she-said, conflict-based reporting, balance is starting to feel like a burden. I mean, couldn’t there be truth down there somewhere?
On the other hand, truth is rarely an objective reality. I’ll use my story on rural broadband as an example. It was convenient that Congressman Bill Owens had fought for that measly $6 million, an undoubtedly essential aspect of the story. When the story goes live, though, the headline denotes GOP budget cuts without explaining their rationale. I didn’t venture down that rabbit hole because it would have boiled down to worldviews that are indecipherable in any timely sense. I can use the Croghan Dam as another example. Is the dam old and crumbling? Without a doubt. But would it hold in another flood? Only the dam knows. I’m not a dam or an engineer – my father and grandfather are the dam experts – so I can only report what each side said of their reality. Right?
Mother Jones’ Rick Perlstein argues that balanced reporting isn’t fair reporting when one side is lying (his article focuses on the cultural defense of GOP lies). This is a clear problem without a clear solution. But it get’s even more frightening; Julian Assange said he wants to archive the truth and he’s been libeled into submission. I can’t argue against Perlstein; the zeitgeist seems to appreciate subjective representations and polarized worldviews over the raw stuff. I guess to the end-consumer, journalists are subjective players and thus the objective facts are debatable.
So I’m not a lawyer, politician, economist, scientist, doctor, farmer, or engineer. But, readers, am I a liar?
Look for more reflection on American journalism as well as an analysis of the meme framework of ideas next week.
Stephen,
Some interesting ideas you are trying to confront.
Maybe part of the problem is the word “journalist.” Would “reporter” be more honest?
Perlstein arguing that “balanced reporting isn’t fair reporting when one side is lying” smacks of an opinion. He knows one side is lying? If that is true, does he dare accuse one side of lying and can he prove it?
I think reporters who prefer to call themselves journalists often have little respect for their readers/listeners/viewers in the sense they presume to know everything and act as evangelists who are preaching the gospel truth to the dumb masses.
No reporter can avoid a certain amount of subjectivity when covering a story because subjectivity will always come in when you decide what to leave in and what to leave out of a story. You can’t avoid it because to do otherwise would be no more than providing the minutes and we all know how boring the minutes are. So you pick and chose and get attacked by those who think you intentionally left out what they think was important. You are slanting the news, they say.
The only solution then is to tell them they should become a reporter or, if not, write a letter to the editor telling them what they think is important. There is no way around it.
Bret, I think it’s fair to say that reporters, let alone “journalists,” often know when one side is misrepresenting reality (lying).
Case in point: Two days ago, Mitch McConnell said “We’ve increased, under this administration, spending 35 percent in 2.5 years. We need to stop that.”
But when Obama took office in 2009, one of the first things he did was put the cost of the wars on budget– Bush had waged his wars off the books for eight years, which is why it appeared that spending increased under Obama. Actual spending in other areas has remained basically the same and is on track to decrease in coming years.
Now it wouldn’t be very difficult to report those facts, and doing so wouldn’t be opinion.