Dan Froomkin: Shout truth from the rooftops; passion is part of our job
[Here's part two of Dan's essay on the ills facing American newspapers; part one ran yesterday. —Josh]
While we legitimately want to keep partisanship and polemics out of our news coverage, we need to stop banishing our humanity and the passions that made us become journalists in the first place. When we find a great story, why shouldn’t we shout it from the rooftops? Web sites like the Huffington Post and Drudge succeed not just because they so intelligently aggregate the most eye-catching items from others, but because of the palpable joy they take in plastering a big headline across their homepages. That they prosper largely by linking to our work is not lost on us, but is too often leading to the wrong conclusion. It’s not that we shouldn’t let them link to us, it’s that we shouldn’t cede our passion to anyone.
And rather than play it safe, we should be brave enough to call things as we see them, and not be limited by the conventional wisdom or political triangulation. Indeed, playing it safe is often transparently bogus — and boring, too boot. I would also argue that the notion that by hiding our voices we are maintaining political neutrality is a fig leaf. Much of what we do is inevitably political; choosing what we write about, who we quote, what ideas we take seriously and which we disdain and ignore. Making political decisions through triangulation – trying to stake out a safe middle ground between the two political parties — is still making a political decision. It’s just often a not very good one.
Those who argue that truth-telling has become too political for us to engage in need to reexamine why they are in this business. Our job is to expose and combat lies and propaganda, not pass them along for fear of appearing partisan. That seven in 10 Americans at one point believed that Saddam Hussein had a role in the 9/11 attacks is a profound indictment of our reluctance to champion the truth when it is under attack. We should consider it a key part of our job to differentiate for our readers between things that are true and untrue, arguable and inarguable.
The high priests of the church-state separation may take offense, but the fact is that there’s long been a confusing continuum in journalism ranging from straight news to opinion. And I suspect our hairsplitting distinctions have been lost on our readers. In the Internet age, the answer is not censoring ourselves in the name of obscure in-house rules, or trying to put inscrutable labels on everything. The answer is for us to call things as we seen them, and be up front about it.
So let’s keep a stable of true “opinion” writers — whose job is explicitly to take sides and polemicize on controversial issues. But let’s allow the folks on the “news” side to give members of the public the kind of analysis they’re craving. That means putting things in their proper context. It means not being afraid to explain that one position on an issue is better supported by the facts than the other, when that’s the case. It also allows for the advocating of basic human and journalistic values. I don’t think that conveying outrage over nondisclosure of public records — or children going hungry, or torture — disqualifies someone from calling themselves a news reporter. In fact, it’s what people expect from us — and are probably disappointed that they don’t get.
Tomorrow: News organizations’ key asset: Beat reporters.
Photo by J.D. Lasica used under a Creative Commons license.
I couldn’t agree more with your post.
Especially like this part: “I would also argue that the notion that by hiding our voices we are maintaining political neutrality is a fig leaf. Much of what we do is inevitably political; choosing what we write about, who we quote, what ideas we take seriously and which we disdain and ignore.”
Whenever human beings are involved, there is bias, opinion, slant. We bring our own baggage — view of life, experiences to everything. We can’t help that. We’re not robots (Thankfully!)
I think you’re right that the best way to handle that is to be upfront about it, analyze — not pretend that presenting two sides as equal that aren’t equal is objectivity. Most stories have more than two sides, and often one is stronger than others.
Presenting the unequal as equal isn’t objectivity, to me, it’s abandoning a journalist’s role to make sense of the world for readers. And that role that’s becoming increasingly important in the new media world.
Dan,
As a reader of news, I find appealing the kind of news article writing you describe. But I wonder if the general reader would agree.
You say that the public craves more analysis and context, and more judgments by the reporter – is that a gut feeling or do you have something more concrete to base that on?
Similarly, do you have tangible reasons to support your contention that the public wants reporters to advocate for basic values, and to express outrage at, among other things, torture?
I reiterate that my questions are not personal (since I have no personal problem with what you say); they go to the question of whether we have reasonably solid evidence that the general audience will agree as well.
I agree that objectivity is the “fig leaf” of journalism’s claim to being unbiased and therefore somehow more credible and qualified to cover the news.
But, as a regular Washington Post reader, I feel like if anything the news media seems to be giving up regular beat reporting in favor of “news analysis” pieces. I wouldn’t mind seeing more “here’s what happened yesterday” (or this morning) news in the newspaper, myself, and a little less of the “here’s what we think about what happened yesterday.” As a reader, I feel like I’m being thrown into the story without enough context of the actual events or people who are making up the news. To wit, how many stories did you see on the media’s projections of what conservatives are going to do to try to capsize the Sotomayor nomination? Too many, in my opinion.
Do daily newspaper writers and editors think I’m getting the more nitty-gritty news elsewhere — local free weekly newspapers, or the six o’clock local news, or special-interest publications? Because I’m not, and I often feel afloat in a sea of other peoples’ opinions, which even if they are well-informed don’t help me figure out what the real news is. Also, given the state of who writes and edits (and owns) daily newspapers, it often gives me a sense of what overeducated white guys think the news means to them, which I can charitably call a limited perspective.
I couldn’t agree more. Readers want to get the meaning of what’s going on in the news, not just the surface facts. Journalists who do their jobs and know what they’re writing about can provide this, but they are hamstrung by the need to be objective. And journalists can provide the meaning more accurately than writers who are just pushing a point of view.
Gee Dan, a reader might conclude from your piece that Wapo writers refrain from analysis in the name of objectivity. As a long-time reader of your column and wapo and others, I don’t think that’s what you mean. The problem fundamentally is that we live in an era in which journalistic integrity demanded respect for truths whose acknowledgement would alienate a large share of the readership. The “non-partisan” Respected Media chose to attempt to straddle, and that required giving equal credence to views that are patently nonsense (e.g., Think Tank Town). As the whole concept of a shared truth has continued to erode in American society, that position has become untenable. Leaving aside the important exposure stories (e.g., Walter Reed), Wapo today is useful primarily as a guide to Safe Conventional Consensus rather than truth, and there is precious little consensus that is safe. A second problem is that the dailies ignore or oversimplify complex issues, either because they lack the tools or the motive to treat them properly. Examples of Big Issues on which Wapo and their peers have utterly failed include: oil, climate, debt, social insurance, securities derivatives and their ratings, the California electricity debacle, and the housing bubble. These are the things that are really important, and journalists have chosen to cede intelligent analysis to more specialized outlets and academics. They chose to deemphasize journalism and compete in the infotainment market, and they are losing.
I have completely stopped reading the Washington Post. Dan, you were the only reason that I read that newpaper and really regret not having you at my daily beck and call. You made reading the newspaper enjoyable once again.
sure. it takes passion and energy to say something meaningful and worth reading. if all we have to spout are platitudes and cliche-ridden sentences it’s better to take up a blue collar job instead of the writing and reporting info-war zone as one’s field of practice.
exploring the nitty gritty inner core of this beautiful (and bootylicious) world requires a keen eye for observation of the minutest details and a sense of literary flair and creative endeavor. you have to capture that mystery of history (and for that you will have to go to the history of mystery). even if you think you have nothing to say remember it might be a knot-thing…in other words untie the know of writer’s block and lose yourself in your natural birthright which is free expression of the human personality.