Gayle Falkenthal, a multimodal media maven for many moons, made some pertinent remarks to my column about John Culea at last week’s media panel. I’m going to give you the comment in full and then elaborate. (I’m bolding especially important points)
Take it away, Gayle!
“As a veteran (!) former broadcaster who also spent time representing elected officials and public organizations, the cavalier attitude and the egregious errors of fact relayed to the audience by the panel shocked me. I would have been fired for lesser offenses. The many journalists doing good work in San Diego should take their peers to the woodshed for embarrassing them with such a lack of professionalism.
“Let me also use this post to offer comments on another part of the dialogue at this forum. John Culea informed the audience that due to being misquoted repeatedly, Supervisor Horn would only issue answers to questions from reporters in writing, with rare exception. Culea also mentioned there were several reporters Supervisor Horn would no longer respond to at all. Several journalists in the audience howled in protest, saying as an elected official Supervisor Horn had no choice but to respond to reporters.
“The last time I checked, interviews with journalists were still optional in the United States. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom NOT to speak if one chooses. Voters can judge for themselves whether they feel shut out of the political process by not being able to hear from Supervisor Horn via the news media, but giving interviews isn’t a requirement for holding elected office.
“Media gatekeepers better figure out fast they are becoming optional. News coverage isn’t the only way to communicate with voters. Culea described how Supervisor Horn gets his say on his own website. Thanks to online and social media, you have unfiltered access to your constituents. They can balance this information versus more critical coverage from opponents. And in many cases, voters have MORE access through the ability to have a dialogue online with their elected representatives. Many of you reading now have engaged in Twitter conversations with officeholders.
“Media coverage provides value through verified, sourced information and analysis, with assertions that can be independently proven. This is what differentiates it from other forms of communication with built-in bias and a lack of vetting. Introducing undisclosed bias, errors of fact, and disrespectful name-calling puts true journalism on an even playing field with the most extreme published views parading as “news.”
“It pains me to see the waters muddied in this way. Journalism is a noble and honored profession. Is there still room for it?”
———————————-
Well said, Gayle!
I recently experienced what Gayle said about social media supplanting traditional journalism. A court decision invalidating a state gun law received virtually no media coverage the day it was announced. I could find just one MSM entry, a blog post by the LA Times at 7:32 p.m.. I found out about it hours earlier through a Facebook entry. And nothing from the Associated Press.
Whatever the traditional reporters responsible for that beat were doing that day, they weren’t doing their bread and butter coverage — anywhere. Since the media had abdicated that role, it was filled by those most interested in the decision, namely gun-rights groups. The next day, the journosaur media chimed in with its accounts; the Associated Press did its usual lame spin with a story that added nothing but the lefty reporter Garance Burke’s anti-gun bias, gratuitiously dragging in the Arizona shootings.
The San Diego Union-Tribune ran a story inaccurately claiming the decision was handed down late Tuesday; it was announced Tuesday morning. Yes, it’s a minor error, but still curious.
The media was aware of the impending decision, so surprise can’t be the reason. Media outlets ran stories about the law’s implications earlier this month, some mentioning that its legality was up for review.
My educated guess as a real life reporter is that the bread and butter coverage is being de-emphasized by big media groups, who think gimmicks are more important than that boring bread and butter coverage. But that basic coverage, its completeness and accuracy, is the foundation of public trust in a news organization.
Newspaper editors across the country that subscribe to AP suspect they’re not getting their money’s worth; getting a day-old helping of biased reporting can’t help.
The Associated Press regularly does a big investigative project into the potential dangers of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. These stories are full of hype, but lack any proof humans are being harmed by the infinitesimal amounts of chemicals found there. Since these investigative pieces take a lot of time, of course the AP is going to hype them to justify their expense. That’s not serving the public, that’s fearmongering to serve the AP’s interests.
In short, AP increasingly appears to think that mere timely and accurate reporting isn’t enough. They have to explain what things mean to busy people with dubious fact-checks and other devices. That’s like donning a new tuxedo while wearing no shoes. It creates an effect, all right, but not what the wearer intended.
As the gun law case showed, timely reporting is more vital than ever to news media, if it wishes to be part of people’s daily lives. The spin and inaccuracies are bad enough, but being a whole day late is inexcusable in a world that runs on Internet time.
I certainly want journalism to thrive, and not just because I’m a reporter. There’s a need for people who can tell what has happened without letting their own agenda get in the way. Journalism, in my view, should be an honest broker, giving people information that they can act on as they see fit.
The link above is to a book, The Honest Broker, by Roger Pielke, Jr. He is talking about the roles of scientists, but just substitute “journalist” and it still applies:
“The pure scientist attempts to remain detached from politics and policy, focusing only on research without consideration for its use. The science arbiter answers scientific questions for decision makers but avoids considering normative questions. The issue advocate uses scientific information to advance a specific political agenda or policy alternative. Finally, the honest broker of policy alternatives expands, or at least clarifies, the scope of choice for the decision maker through the integration of knowledge and a broad consideration of possible alternatives.”
————————
(DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times.)