For good or ill
Editor’s note: Mike Masterson is taking the day off. The original version of this column was published Dec. 28, 2013.
It’s interesting in this craft of publishing facts and opinions how printed words carry so much power and potential for either good or destruction.
Napoleon Bonaparte claimed to fear four hostile newspapers more than 1,000 bayonets. Yet one newspaper dedicated to the principles of truth and fairness can promote many needed reforms, identify the guilty and set the innocent free.
That’s why, if honor and credibility are of concern in news reporting, this craft demands we refrain from causing damage to others by casting them in false light through innuendo, partial and ignored facts, or personal agendas.
Readers crave credibility. They seek people and sources of information that they’ve learned through experience to trust. The Internet has transformed many uninformed ax-grinders into those who perceive their newfound voice as some kind of mandate to spread venom and animosity.
Unfortunately, I see too much of that happening in the so-called mainstream media today.
There are instances where relevant facts are twisted or omitted altogether from news stories that readers must rely upon for factual information. If two people agree one thing supposedly occurred while five others contradict their version, should I omit the five contradictions to report only the two agreed-upon versions? Not if I’m to live with myself and expect to be taken seriously.
One subjective word inserted into a sentence can make a huge difference. I’ve even seen editors change a reporter’s story to make it misleading or erroneous. I once had my byline removed from a story in Chicago after the editor replaced facts in my story with his unfounded biases. Such flagrant malpractice goes on far too often.
Most readers willing to pay for newspapers are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions if the facts are laid out fairly. They certainly don’t need a journalist trying to shape or manipulate their opinion by presenting only partial information. They also can detect when news stories are obviously being slanted or designed to demonize rather than fairly inform. Few are fooled for long.
This is the sort of thing I once regularly discussed during five years of Fridays with classes of top professional print and broadcast reporters. Each veteran journalist was competitively chosen to become journalism master’s degree candidates in the yearlong Kiplinger fellowship program at Ohio State.
One question always set the tone each fall: Are readers and viewers better off by our not reporting a story if we can’t acquire all the relevant facts available and report them fairly? What irreparable damage can we do to others in possibly misleading them about the truth by providing only partial (or slanted) facts?
At this stage in my career, I regularly share personal opinions. Hopefully, valued readers understand that what I write contains expressions of my beliefs at that point in time. Like you, I also have acquaintances, friends and those I’ve learned to mistrust for valid reasons.
My opinion today might change entirely as new facts emerge. This means I should always be willing to admit previous errors in judgment. No longer do I feel constrained by the disciplines of news reporting, but I no longer have the luxury of having full pages to reveal all those facts uncovered through longer-term investigations, making my points in fewer than 900 words. I base my views on what I believe to be true. In the freedom to express myself, I expect many who read my words to disagree.
It’s a different story altogether in reporting the news of the day in a fair manner. What would you think if you learned I’d intentionally omitted highly relevant facts in a news story about problems in a police department that cast a different light on what I had been reporting for months as supposedly factual? You’d understandably cast a wary eye on whatever else I published on that topic, probably choosing to believe I was pushing a vendetta against the police.
Yet this is the kind of unjustifiable demonization I see happening in my craft today. Damn the facts and surge ahead in an concerted effort to bring down a pre-identified target.
In my decades serving several roles from newsroom management to hard-core reporting in places where the good ol’ boys play hardball as hard as it gets (my predecessor in Phoenix was murdered), I believe I’ve earned the standing to make this observation. I’m far from being anywhere near the ideal newspaper person. Regrettably, I’ve had more than my share of mistakes, poor judgments, shortcomings and biases since beginning in 1971.
Still, I feel sad when I watch my craft today steadily sinking beneath the standards of facts and fair play that always should exist in news reporting.