Readers should demand good journalism
I nsist on good journalism. That’s the part that you, the reader, should bring to your relationship with this paper. In my previous column, I described how I saw the role of the ombudsman. This time the focus is on you and what you should expect and even demand from this newspaper.
Among other things, a newspaper should provide its community a clear, accurate and reasonably complete overview of the main goings on in the world. A second general expectation is that news should be presented fairly and evenhandedly (more on the issue of bias in a moment). Newspapers should be doing other things, too, but these points provide enough for you, the reader, to respond to. Your part is, quite simply, to insist that your paper delivers good journalism to your door each day. How? Here are four suggestions.
• Know what you’re entitled to expect of good journalism. A good starting point is to read the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics, available on-line at
http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp. It’s worth looking at the standards that journalists set for themselves.
• Insist on accuracy. Every time I speak to community groups and ask if they’ve ever had dealings with the media where a reporter got something wrong, a sea of hands goes up. That’s understandable, as consistently accurate reporting is one of the toughest challenges facing any news organization. When one considers the amount of detail in any issue of the paper, it’s inevitable that errors will creep in. But good journalism does not use that as an excuse. If you see an error of fact, contact the paper by calling 459-5430.
• Voice your concerns or questions. Each week the paper runs an “Ask the Editors” column, which addresses a wide range of questions about news coverage or other content issues. If you’re angry, puzzled or offended by what you do, or don’t, see in the paper, use this vehicle. In addition, this column is a good way to learn about the editors’ thinking concerning their work. The answers are sometimes simple explanations of process; sometimes they’re acknowledgments of mistakes. Or they might even be pretty blunt disagreements with readers. You can see the full list of responses at http://www.spokesmanreview.com /blogs/editors.
• Come to terms with the paper’s biases, and your own. One of the biggest grumbles readers have about The Spokesman (and newspapers around the country experience the same thing) is that the paper is biased. Of course it is. Any human enterprise is going to reflect the values of those engaged in it. The Spokesman will inevitably mirror the values, prejudices, biases and quirks of its editorial staff. While there’s nothing you and I can do about that, it’s important to note the difference between news and feature coverage and the opinion pieces — such as the editorial stances that the paper takes. News and features require different treatment, and that’s an arena where readers could and should demand fair and balanced coverage. Regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, or what their religious views may be, ethical journalists are required to treat stories and the people they write about fairly, with balance and sensitivity. Good editors will demand these qualities of their reporters. Sometimes the biases slip through, and if you think that’s occurred, call the paper on it. But before you do, remember that not only the paper has biases; a quick read of the letters page on any given day tells you how passionate the paper’s readers are about a wide range of issues. The point is, if you’re on the far left or the far right politically, or if you’re extremely religious or highly irreligious, for example, you’re far more likely to see the paper as biased in those areas. Don’t expect the paper to mirror your closest held values, and you’ll save yourself a lot of anguish.
A few years ago someone came up with the admonition, “Deserve the First Amendment.” Just as journalists ought to do justice to the protection afforded by this country’s remarkable level of free expression, so ought the rest of us insist that journalists do justice to this privilege, which ultimately serves us all. We can do that by being demanding, thoughtful consumers of the news.
A few quick responses to this past month’s coverage:
• The Iraqi prisoner issue. Why such limited local coverage? All we got was a column by Rebecca Nappi (which didn’t fall in the news or features category) and a story on a local man who’s now working in the Abu Ghraib prison. That was mostly a non-story, as military regulations prevented him from saying anything substantive. But why no more initiative to localize this major story? Comment from present or former military personnel could have helped us better understand the “command culture” in which these abuses occurred. Or what of comments from a psychologist or psychology professor who could have helped us grasp how ordinary people could commit these kinds of acts? Or, because this story will have long-lasting impact on U.S. foreign policy, what about some comment and interpretation from a political scientist or two in our area. The paper ran some stories that provided interpretation, but the absence of more localized approach was a lost opportunity.
• The four stories on the young children beaten to death in our region, and the gaps in our state institutions designed to prevent these horrors, was a painful and deeply poignant series, and an important public service.
• The tragedy of Mike Cmos’ death at the wastewater treatment tank deservedly got major and detailed coverage. Kevin Blocker’s story on the funeral merited particular praise for its sensitivity.