Freedom from the press

Helena Handbasket

By Cletus Bianchi

One of the real pleasures of a recent three-day fishing trip was being isolated from the most recent media outbursts. It’s really quite pleasant to turn it all off for a few days and concentrate on tides and solunar tables.

I am a confessed ‘information junkie.’ Just ask my fishing buddies about the reams of research I print before heading for the water. I do believe that information provides opportunity, if not power.

For me however, there is a distinct difference between information and news. All news consists of information, but not all information is news.

And I am old school on how that news is presented. I’m not necessarily advocating the old ink presses, but I do expect something akin to the old AP wire reports that printed off the teletype with the basic facts. I still love Sgt. Joe Friday’s request for ‘just the facts, ma’am.’

News answers questions – the basic ‘who, what, where and when.’ I am a little cautious on the presentation of the ‘how and why’ because in so many cases, those questions open the door to commentary.

News answers questions and it is commentary’s role to raise questions or to answer them in the author’s personal view. That’s why you find this article on the op-ed pages of our paper. The line gets crossed when commentary (or analysis as is it frequently dubbed) is inserted into news coverage and passed off as reporting.

Dan Rather certainly stepped over the line with his recent reporting of President Bush’s National Guard service. And it was his ‘reporting’ that got him in trouble. If the piece had been about the opinions of those that had served during that period, it would have been commentary. Not only did he present it as factual, he insisted his sources were accurate. You know the rest.

I have a friend that does real journalism for national magazines. He submits his article to editors and ‘fact-checkers.’ They verify the validity of his reporting with the interviewees and then verify the facts. By the way, he’s a very good and respected journalist.

I know Viacom can afford fact-checkers. I suppose the prism that media outlets use is the primary problem. Do they verify information based upon the truth, or on the philosophy of the editorial staff?

I recently had a brief and unresolved argument about the basis of truth and facts and therefore, news and information, with one of my friends. I could not lead him to accept my definition of news being based solely upon the stripped-down facts … the truth, not as I see it, but as it actually occurs. He wanted descriptives – what color was the sunrise? I wanted facts – what time was sunrise? I can fill in the colors for myself if I know what time to be watching.

I’m sure you’ve played the game where a short story is whispered into someone’s ear and then passed along in a group until it returns to the storyteller. Inevitably, variations in the story occur along the way, partially from inaccurate recital and partially from filtered listening. That is simply human nature. The experiences and biases of the individuals are manifested, despite their best attempts at accuracy.

These are certainly halcyon days for information junkies. There are a dozen or more ‘news’ channels on our satellite service, countless magazines, talk-radio stations, and newspapers with national distribution. It is simple supply and demand economics at work. As long as there are ads to sell, these outlets will operate. Advertisers keep very close tabs on viewers, readers, and listeners.

If you are at all interested, you’ve probably already selected your outlet-of-choice. That choice is likely based upon the bias with which information is presented. I know that b-word raises the hackles on sanctimonious media types, but I’m in media and I’d like to think my prism for viewing news presentation is reasonably clear.

That has nothing to do with my political views or personal philosophies. In fact, I feel obligated to experience the spectrum of information sources with a critical eye and ear … from Rush to NPR, CNN to Fox News, and the Drudge Report to the NY Times.

As I listen, watch and read I do not seek validation of my views as much as insight into how information is presented. And I ponder the questions that each report raises in my mind … did the reporting answer more questions than it raised or was it simply a different form of advertisement? How much ‘analysis’ slipped into the report?

There are many items presented on daily news programs that I frankly feel do not fall into the ‘news’ category. For instance:

· What ‘celebrities’ do or say … there are channels and magazines devoted to these folks. Keep them out of the ‘news.’ Really, does a movie star’s view of the world matter more to you than the guy who runs a small business in your town?

· Polls. Scores in a football game are news. Whether 821 likely voters strongly disagree with an ambiguous question only satisfies the American thirst for knowing a score. The poles that matter to me are the good folks in Panna Maria and the graphite rods I like to bend in the Laguna Madre.

I direct much of my complaint at the consumer. As a society, we have grown intellectually lazy. We come home from work tired, flop on the couch and let some talking head explain the day’s events for us. They are well groomed and sound intermittently authoritative or concerned as the situation merits and we gobble it up with little regard for the content.

When is the last time you remembered what anyone but the weather forecaster said on the ten o’clock news? We pay close attention to those meteorologists since our weekend plans hinge on their best guesses. And we blame them for being wrong.

If we held news anchors and reporters to the same expectations as meteorologists, I suspect I’d be writing a different column this week. Especially considering the best guesses many of them insert into their reports.

My gripe is also aimed at the 24/7/365 media outlets that we information junkies have created. If they are going to run a 24-hour news channel, they have to come up with more news to fill the air. There’s only so much relevant news out there at any given time, so they add stuff … analysis, in-depth reports, and profiles.

Do you remember when the Weather Channel was actually nothing but radar and forecasts?

Give the people what they want – supply and demand. And if it bleeds, it leads. It is sad testimony that a tragedy or crises results in a multi-part series, while good news or deeds are usually relegated to a photo and caption in the rear section.

So how does a newspaper guy justify railing against his own outlet? Easy. We try earnestly to adhere to the facts when reporting and leave our opinions to these interior pages. Granted, we are a weekly paper with limited circulation and resources, but we still try to maintain the highest standards.

Believe me that is not easy in a small community since the news frequently involves people we know. We may be most guilty of filtering out some of the worst information, even if it is factual. Public officials might disagree, but if they checked closely, their public actions would be on the front page while our view of those actions was contained somewhere back here.

Obviously, we don’t cover the world and I don’t envy the outlets that carry that mantle. However, the ethical standards of journalism apply to every paper and news channel and their reporters, regardless of circulation or viewership. It only takes one Jason Blair or Dan Rather to create distrust for the entire media industry.

If you have raised children, you know how to ask the right questions to get to the bottom of the story … expect the same from your media. Did that news story answer all of your questions? Was that reporter’s question actually answered? Were questions asked that discover the facts or are they geared toward getting the desired answer? Are you getting the full story or is someone filtering and analyzing so you don’t have to think?

We enjoy the Constitutional right to a free press. There is no national media spouting the government line. But your choice, providing you choose to be informed, is hopefully based upon receiving accurate and clear information, not validation of your own bias.

Supply and demand dictates that the change I seek will only come based upon consumer demands. So, sit up and pay attention.