An acquaintance the other day had a complaint about local journalism. He noted that my newspaper’s competition covered a speech he saw at the local Political Animals Club (in Fayetteville it is open to the press). He disagreed with the speaker, a military official who defended U.S. Iraqi strategies, and wondered why the reporter did not seek out and run contrary opinions, if not facts. (My paper it turns out had not covered the talk.)
He understands daily journalism so he discounted my initial comments on deadlines etc. Aren’t we supposed to present both sides? Why couldn’t the reporter call someone else, quote from a book, even find out via the Internet what Noam Chomsky says, he said. I did not try to refute this suggestion that a daily newspaper reporter go find a solidly researched book by an established reporter and quote from it just to provide balance, but I could have said, which book? No issue has only two sides. So what exactly do you go looking for? If the reporter does choose one rival viewpoint, wouldn’t he or she then be making assumptions about each position, first that he could choose them correctly? To select a few of a prominent speaker’s points and quote their refutations risks the out-of-context argument. I can attend a lecture with another person, even another reporter, and come away with a different perception of which were the main points and what exactly the main points were.
Good magazine journalism has the luxury of a bit more time and that’s where you see well-researched, contrasting viewpoints. Trite magazines and television news (local and cable) strain to get any opposing viewpoint, often rendering serious issues into drivel.
I did say that in covering spot news, as this was, the general thought is that over the course of time opposing speakers will get covered and thus the newspaper’s coverage evens out. I told him that this was an official of the U.S. government, and deserved some credence even if he or I chose not to believe his employer. A news reporter covers news, what is new. Next time out, the reporter covers that. Editorial writers and commentators sift through the reports and with luck also witness firsthand news and news makers and analyzes the issues.
The way to suggest to reporters to do this, I should have noted, is for them to write out a question or two from the audience and the speaker’s response. Also, the reporter can approach the speaker afterward and ask a question and report opposing viewpoints that way.
Then I read the article in The Morning News of Northwest Arkansas (Note: this site tends to crash Explorer and Safari browsers.) Longtime reporter Doug Thompson did quote audience questions and the officer’s response. This article was reasonably well-rounded; the acquaintance had not read it thoroughly.
Further, on the same morning, commentator Brenda Blagg tackled the speaker’s free ride, due to his position, the exact point of my acquaintance. If only he had turned the page.
Yet perhaps it is moot. How many commentators missed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaking at the Southern Baptist Convention convention the other day? My Democrat-Gazette reported that the biggest applause she got was when she mentioned the slaying of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It may not have been that hot of an applause line: When President Bush has discussed this, he has been wisely cautious because this longheld Pentagon goal of taking him out solves one little blip. The audience acted like we whacked Mussolini … or Saddam.
A reporter covering this speech cannot convey, except by citing “a lengthy standing ovation” for Rice, what is the grassroots feeling about this war, and by extension the Democrats’ chances this year or in 2008.
Interpretation ultimately is up to the news audience. -30-
