Idle Ramblings

A journalistic 'well, duh!'

Earlier this week, I heard one of those radio news stories that had me yelling at the radion in my truck the same way I yell at my television or the Internet (or according to Dubya "the Internets") when they really discuss something stupid. Last week on one of the public radio talk shows (I don't remember which one) they were discussing the latest trent in the national "news" media of fact checking the candidtes' statements made during the debates. This is something that has been happening on the web for a while, both by partisan and non-partisan sites. The mainstream news organizations are just now catching on to this trend.



This discussion was about whether or not it was the media's job to fact check the candidates or if the national media powerhouses should just simply report what the candidates were saying. If I remeber correctly the fact checking started at either the Times or the Post when a senior editor spoke up about the blatant lies coming from one camp about the policies proposed by the other camp. (Guess which one was telling the lies :) ) After that the newspaper started checking the claims made by both candidates and printing the facts along with the rhetoric spouted by the candidate.



What really got me shouting at the disembodied voices coming out of my dashboard was the argument made by one that fact checking should not be the function of the media, but of the consumer. It should be up to them to basically keep the candidates honest about their "facts." To do otherwise would introduce an element of bias against candidates ont he part of the news outlet, and would be patently unfair.



Okay, now I realize I've only spent 16 years of my life in journalism and only practiced it professionally in small town Mississippi, but, if I remember any of the lessons learned in any of my classes (with the possible exception of one or two taught by a certian professor. My fellow j-students know who I'm talking about), checking the facts of a news story was kind of part of the job. If farmer Bob claims to have a 50-pound turnip shaped like Elvis, you don't just take his word for it. You have him load it up in the back of his pick-up, bring it to the office and you actually see for yourself if his claim is valid. In addition, you run a photo of farmer Bob holding the turnip up while sitting on the tailgate of his truck above the fold on the front page along with the story as proof to the reader. If you do this, it gives the reader more information at their disposal as they consider farmer Bully's claim that farmer Bob's turnip is actually only about 30 pounds and looks more like Jerry Lee Lewis than Elvis and that farmer Billy's turnip is actually 60 pounds and looks like the young, skinny Elvis.



The argument that it's not the media's responsibility to fact check politicians, candidates running for the top office in the land, smacks me not only of laziness and irresponsibility, but also of that superior attitude sported by many I've met in the national press that gives journalists such a bad name. I remember meeting one journalist while in school who came to talk to us. He talked about how he and many others inside the Beltway isolated themselves from the rest of the world to help keep themselves "unbiased." They only fratanized with other members of the media. They didn't attend social functions unless they were there on the job and many of them didn't vote because they considered that a bias.



I remember thinking at that time what a ridiculous idea that was. Rather than eliminating bias, it introduced an element of extremeism into the media which has given people the impression of intellectual snobbery. The truth is even the best journalist is going to be biased. They are humans. They have opinons. It might be a subtled bias like prefering thin young Elvis-shaped turnips over old, fat Elvis-shaped turnips. You can't eliminate bias, but you can learn to recognize it in your reporting and try and compensate for it.



I always acknowledged my bias while in the business. Maybe not publicallyh, but I would be the first one to hand my story to others in the office to look over when I had to report on someone I couldn't stand or an issue I felt strongly about. I know they would be biased as well, but not exactly the same as me, and the more people who looked at it, the better chance you would get as fair a story as possible.



We also checked facts. Sure, maybe it wasn't as big a chore in small-town Mississippi covering an Alderman race as it is in Washington covering a presidential election, but the principle is the same. If a candidate gives you a "fact," check it out and take the candidate to task if they stray from the truth. The follow-up question seems to be a lost art.



More and more as I watch the media from the outside today, I am more and more glad I work in a library.

posted by Joseph @ 10/17/2004 07:01:00 PM