“Why do we have to tell the people what they need to hear?”
Category: Journalism
Should The New York Times be a truth vigilante?
A belated public response to The New York Times public editor, Arthur S. Brisbane:
Mr. Brisbane,
Ignore the morons who were quick to call you a “moron” regarding your blog posting “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” They’re playground bullies who never grew up. Your question sailed 10 feet over their collective heads while they were bent over and engaged in the act of delivering cheap-shots below the belt. They missed it completely. So let’s forget them and move on to your question: “Should The Times be a truth vigilante?” It is a seemingly simple question and I must confess that when I tweeted the link to your blog posting I somewhat flippantly added the hashtag #yes to that tweet. But the answer, I believe (and as you articulated in your follow-up posting), is far more multi-faceted and complicated.
Journalism’s first and most elemental principle is an obligation to the truth. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that statement; excepting, perhaps, Karl Rove. This is not some freshly minted idea, nor is it mine. Obligation to the truth is the first of the “Principles of Journalism” as outlined in The Elements of Journalism, a brilliant book by Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach that should be mandatory reading for all Americans. Certainly it should at least be read by all practicing journalists.
While “obligation to the truth” may be self-evident, people tend to disagree on what, exactly, “the truth” is. This is due, in part, to human beings being subjective individuals. We are subjective because we are constantly subjected to the beliefs, morals, and traditions of the culture we were born into. For better or for worse, we are indoctrinated into the culture we live within. For example, a Christian’s truth is radically different than an atheist’s truth. A Christian’s truth is rooted in the existence of God. An atheist’s truth is that God does not exist. This monumental difference fundamentally changes how Christians and atheists view the world. And it is our view of the world that shapes our actions. If that sounds like philosophy that’s because it is. Any discussion of truth is a philosophical discussion.
Journalism, however, is not philosophy. It is the practice of gathering and reporting news.
“News and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished,” wrote Walter Lippmann in his 1922 book Public Opinion. “The function of the news is to signalize an event. The function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each other, and make a picture of reality upon which men can act.”
Truth in journalism, or “journalistic truth”, is not the same as truth in the absolute or philosophical sense. “Journalistic truth” is a practical and functional form of truth by which we can operate day-to-day.
Achieving journalistic truth is a process, a journey toward understanding of an event that begins with the first reporting of an event and evolves as new “hidden facts” come to light. A “fact” is an event or thing that is known to have happened or existed because it is verifiable. Verification is the key. In journalism, an unverifiable “fact” is not a fact and should not be reported. Verification is the essence of journalism. If you are not verifying the “facts” you are reporting, then you are not practicing journalism. In fact, you may inadvertently be engaging in an act of propaganda.
How do you verify a fact? From reputable sources. What is a “reputable source”? A source that can be trusted to provide you truthful information about an event or topic. How do you know if a source is a reputable source? By verifying the information a source provides you against other sources. Over time, you learn what sources can be trusted and which ones cannot. It is this discipline of verification that makes journalism such a pain in the ass, which explains why there is a withering supply of good journalism in a world of exploding information.
Truth is elusive. It is the Holy Grail of journalism that serious practitioners of journalism must pursue. And they pursue it by adhering to the discipline of verification.
Just like any other newspaper, The New York Times has had its share of failings in the discipline-of-verification department. Judith Miller’s articles on there being WMDs in Iraq during the lead-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion come to mind. She and the editors at the time took those “facts” emanating from the White House hook, line, and sinker. If The New York Times had been adhering to the discipline of verification, if they had been vigilant, then that would not have happened. If all journalists had been diligently (and vigilantly) practicing the discipline of verification, I’d argue that the Bush administration would not have been able to muster enough popular support to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq and it would never have happened. This is how powerful and important the discipline of verification is. As the “first draft of history”, journalism has the power to change it.
The New York Times and other news providers will continue to have lapses of judgement and outright failings when it comes to the discipline of verification and pursuit of the truth because of the simple and unassailable fact that news is gathered and reported by human beings who are just as prone to mistakes and failure as anyone else in any other profession. This is not a blanket excuse; rather, it is a challenge to those who have chosen to make journalism their life’s work and news organizations such as The New York Times that endeavor to report “All the News That’s Fit to Print”.
Regards,
Scott Dewing
Blur: How to Know What’s True in the Age of Information Overload
In a world of information overload from the digital deluge of the Internet, this is next up on my reading list.
Here’s the blurb from Publisher’s Weekly: Veteran journalists Kovach and Rosenstiel (The Elements of Journalism) begin their intelligent and well-written guidebook by assuring readers this is not unfamiliar territory. The printing press, the telegraph, radio, and television were once just as unsettling and disruptive as today’s Internet, blogs, and Twitter posts.
But the rules have changed. The gatekeepers of information are disappearing. Everyone must become editors assuming the responsibility for testing evidence and checking sources presented in news stories, deciding what’s important to know, and whether the material is reliable and complete.
Utilizing a set of systemic questions that the authors label “the way of skeptical knowing,” Kovach and Rosenstiel provide a roadmap for maintaining a steady course through our messy media landscape. As the authors entertainingly define and deconstruct the journalism of verification, assertion, affirmation, and interest group news, readers gain the analytical skills necessary for understanding this new terrain.
“The real information gap in the 21st century is not who has access to the Internet and who does not. It is the gap between people who have the skills to create knowledge and those who are simply in a process of affirming preconceptions without growing and learning.”
Don’t shoot the messenger
“There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the information by which to detect lies.”
-Walter Lippmann
Before being arrested in London today, Julian Assange, the globe-trotting and dogged founder of WikiLeaks, had an op-ed published in The Australian.
Assange began the article by quoting Rupert Murdoch: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.” Murdoch purportedly said that in 1958, long before his beloved Fox News was launched and the world was plunged into a “fair & balanced” rush to truthiness.
In his op-ed, Assange claims that WikiLeaks has created a new type of journalism: scientific journalism.
“WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism,” wrote Assange. “We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?”
This is not a new type of journalism. This is what journalism is. (Well, or should be anyway.) Journalism is the discipline of verification.
According to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), “Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information–a transparent approach to evidence–precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment.”
There is no real journalism without the discipline of verification.
Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. “Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context,” according to the PEJ. “Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts.”
Without this pursuit of “journalistic truth”, the primary purpose of journalism–to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing–is gutted and left for dead.
“Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media,” wrote Assange. “The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.”
@scottdewing 