Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. The desire that
information be truthful and accurate is elemental. Since news is the
material that people use to learn and think about the world beyond
themselves, the most important quality is that it be usable and
reliable.
(For example, will there be a tuition increase? If so, how large? When's the next home football game? Who's playing?)
If
the audience can't rely on what you say -- if you get the tuition
increase wrong, and list the wrong date for the football game -- then
you are of no use to them.
What is truth? The
most basic form is known as "functional truth." That is a society's
developed procedures and processes aimed at arriving at a literal truth.
For example, MSU writes a budget plan. Police officers write police
reports. Statisticians keep track of football games. There are all
records of functional truth.
And this is the truth that
forms the backbone of journalism. It's a truth by which we can operate
on a day-to-day basis by reviewing such documents.
But
it's only a starting point for journalists. Bare facts can miss context.
We need to get the facts straight, and then make sense of the facts.
For example, functional truth like a scoreboard may tell us the football
team won a game, but that doesn't necessarily mean they played well. We
need to investigate beyond functional truth to set context and meaning.
That
doesn't mean facts don't matter. Accuracy is the foundation on which
everything else -- like context and debate -- is built upon. If the
foundation is faulty, everything else is suspect, including context and
meaning.
So, the first responsibility is to concentrate
on verification. Sift out rumor and spin, and concentrate on what's
true and important about a story. Then build context and meaning only
once you've established facts.
Truth is a process.
It begins with the first story and builds as follow-ups are written in
which we correct mistakes, clarify details, add new or missing elements,
dismiss or confirm rumors and innuendo, build context, allow for public
debate through online commenting, ect.
For example, in
covering the Cedar Fest riots a few years back, initial reports
detailed the crowd actions and tear-gassing. This was the foundation.
Later reports included additional details, arrest information, public
reaction, all built upon the foundation. The, the public chimed in on
how students and the authorities handled themselves and why this
happened.
In the end, various angles were covered, and the search for truth became a community conversation.
What is fairness and balance?
Those are abstract terms that can be tough to define. Are we trying to
be fair to who we're reporting on? Not exactly. We're primarily trying
to be fair to the truth and the public's truthful understanding of the
interview subject.
Likewise, balance isn't fair to the
truth if both sides don't deserve equal weight. For example, if you're
writing about 9/11, do you give equal time to a 9/11 survivor and a 9/11
denier? Actually, no. Based on the functional truth like documents and
witness accounts, the survivor has proven insight on the matter. That
same functional truth would indicate the denier has no legitimate
insight at all.
False balance can become distortion. Giving unsubstantiated credence to a denier in this case only distorts the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment