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.
(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