Twice today, people in the midst of controversy around here - one public-sector, the other private-sector - complained to me about the daily paper's treatment of them, and paid me a compliment I don't take the time to appreciate nearly often enough.
They called me fair. And while fishing for compliments is a hazardous sport, with little chance of success, I (perhaps naively) don't believe they were simply sucking up. Too many times, I've heard how people in high-visibility positions simply pray that the media doesn't foul up the basic message they are trying to get across, much less agree with them on the editorial pages. And so many times, the press comes up short in the basics of accuracy and fairness.
As a reporter for a local Website for the past five years, I've been very blessed to have a boss who doesn't tell me what to write, or how to write it. I have no idea how many times he's bitten his tongue to keep from doing just that, but I've tried to make clear how much I appreciate his trust in my news judgment.
I can mess up, like any other human. (Oh boy, can I.) But when I tell folks "I don't play gotcha journalism," I mean it. I drool over a juicy story as much as the next reporter, but I don't believe, as some editors obviously do, that if you don't make the people you cover mad at you, you must be too cozy with them and not doing your job. That if the folks you write about like your stories - especially if they are in government - you must be doing something wrong.
Telling both sides of a story seems to be out of favor any more, as journalism magazines question the very worthiness of objectivity. I've engaged in my share of newslist fistfights with those who believe that reporters shouldn't give both sides equal weight if one side is "obviously wrong." Get real. We don't wear robes, and we're not on a jury. We fail in our mission if we pretend that we can sort out the crooks from the heroes, and I firmly believe most readers are smart enough to see right through one-sided "position journalism." They know when they are being spun.
Trouble is, if you believe what you read these days, a lot of folks are rather enjoying "preaching to the choir" news sources that do what the right-wing talk show hosts do: Tell you that you're right and the other side is wrong, that just about everything is black and white, and that one day, when your side prevails, Utopia will exist. Very scary.
The beauty, value and worth of objective news reporting is that you get to hear the other points of view, the other side or thought you hadn't considered. That it becomes less easy to live in your cozy world view of preconceived notions. That you realize that the problem you thought would be so easily solved if only everyone believed as you do ... isn't that simple at all. And maybe, just maybe, we all nudge a bit toward the middle, toward common ground, toward that far-too-maligned notion of compromise.
A friend who's a state senator points out that even the most black-and-white of issues have grays to them. Darn straight. If we buy simple answers, we'll be disappointed with the results every single time, IMHO.
Maybe I'm an old-fashioned dinosaur. Maybe "position journalism" isn't just an editorial or column masquerading as a fair, balanced story. Maybe a story without "spin" is too boring to be read by far too many folks. But I still believe it's the right way to go, and that the idea of all media proclaiming their political (or other) ideologies is downright chilling.
No comments:
Post a Comment