Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
How much news makes it into people’s Facebook feeds? Our experiment suggests not much
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
July 11, 2012, 11:11 a.m.
Reporting & Production

From Nieman Reports: Maybe it’s time to ignore the siren call of he-said, she-said journalism

Linda Greenhouse says journalists need to watch out for regression to a phony mean.

Editor’s Note: Our colleagues upstairs at Nieman Reports are out with their Summer 2012 issue, “Truth in the Age of Social Media,” which focuses on issues like verification, crowdsourcing, and citizen journalism. Over the next few days, we’ll give you a glimpse at some of their stories — but make sure to read the issue in full. In this piece, The New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse challenges the old credo that a newspaper must “report all sides of a controversial issue” and leave it to the reader to find truth.

A 2009 story in The New York Times about a dispute involving Fox News described the cable network as “a channel with a reputation for having a conservative point of view in much of its programming.”

Really?

That phrase “with a reputation” put the reporter, and the newspaper, at arm’s length from the fact that the Fox News Channel does have a conservative point of view, and proudly so.

What was the purpose of that distancing phrase?

A 2011 New York Times article, typical of many others, referred to Jared Loughner as “the man accused of opening fire outside a Tucson supermarket.” Whether the Tucson shooter is guilty of murder is a legal question, but there is no question at all about his identity as the man who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people. We don’t have to say “accused of” — he did the deed in front of dozens of witnesses.

I’m not picking on the Times — the newspaper I read most carefully as well as the place I worked for 40 years. And although it is attacked, most often from the right but not infrequently from the left, for various kinds of bias, it actually, in both its performance and its ideals, epitomizes the commitment of mainstream journalism to the goals of fairness and objectivity.

This is nothing new. Adolph Ochs, the founding publisher of the modern New York Times, whose byword was “without fear or favor,” believed that a responsible newspaper should “report all sides of a controversial issue, and let the reader decide the truth,” according to a reminiscence written a couple of years ago for internal distribution to the Times staff.

In this article, I will raise some questions about the assumption behind that credo, as well as the utility, in this media-saturated and cynical age, of the siren call of “fairness and objectivity.”

Keep reading at Nieman Reports »

POSTED     July 11, 2012, 11:11 a.m.
SEE MORE ON Reporting & Production
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
How much news makes it into people’s Facebook feeds? Our experiment suggests not much
Half the people in our survey saw no news at all in the first 10 posts in their feeds — even using an extremely generous definition of “news” that counted everything from celebrity gossip to sports scores to history-based explainers, across all mediums.
TV goes digital, digital goes TV
“Television reaches this critical stage with a lot of experience and lessons that have been learned by others, with heavy pockets, and two clear strengths: a very strong footprint on social networks, both from its brands and its individual talents, and a unique sensitivity for video storytelling that is higher than that of all its competitors.”
The editorial meeting of the future
“In the future, we’ll instead organize the editorial meeting around this all-important question: “What can we help the public understand or do today?” We won’t start with our ideas — we’ll start with the information gaps the public demonstrates they have, and focus our efforts squarely on filling those gaps.”