I recently posted some letters to editors of more than one local newspaper. The responses I received differed slightly but I was left wondering what sort of business ethics apply to media outlets when they decide to cover certain stories. It’s important to remember that not so long ago we lived in a world without blogs or an Internet where so many things are so easily verified (or worse). I've come to the conclusion that we need to put today's tools to better use.
My first letter to an editor was “softened”. The source of the confusion was the header of the webpage that readers click to make their submissions. Instead of 250 words as the page indicated, the paper had recently decided to change its policy to 200 words or less when it comes to soliciting their reader’s thoughts. Three weeks have passed since my complaint to the Opinion Editor about this problem and the website hasn’t changed a bit. Readers are still left to wonder if they are allowed to submit as many as 250 or 200 words if they have something to say.
I am brutally aware that I am no William Shakespeare and expected some minor edits but what I didn’t expect was for editors to remove real content. I was especially disappointed because I had already gone to some great lengths to summarize the facts of my submission.
I objected because the information that was pruned from my letter was the heart of my submission. My post had been gutted. It shouldn’t surprise you that my letter exposed the media’s failure to report certain facts about a recent event or person. Up to a point I suppose they could have used space and time (the number of words and a deadline) to explain the absence of certain facts. They might have been unaware that such information even existed or was so easy to verify. Then again, I make a point of referencing my sources which are very public and supposedly impartial.
Later the same month I made another submission to yet another local paper. Granted this second paper was known for its personal slant on many issues but I thought that it might be worth some time and effort just to see if they might print an opposing view or one that challenged their coverage. Much to my surprise, they did.
The second letter prompted a phone call from one of their reporting staff. I was almost immediately asked if my letter had in some way been provoked by a personal experience. Of course I answered honestly (and “yes”), and I expect that this probably disqualified me in the mind of the reporter.
Later on in the conversation I had with the reporter from the second newspaper I was amazed by his relative frankness. The “reporter” basically said to me that the audience that reads what his employer creates is more interested in information that supports certain points of view (not mine) and that he and I would always disagree on the issue in question. So he’d more or less confirmed all my suspicions about the kind of coverage he intended to provide.
Since then I’ve been left to wonder about the media even more than I have in the past. Why does the public treat major media outlets with suspicions which they didn’t have in the past? After all, aren’t the days of “it isn’t real until you read it in the morning paper” gone? We’re not just talking “Blather-gate” where a blog exposed Dan Rather’s agenda when it came to a president’s service in the National Guard. More likely we’re talking issues that are not usually front page news.
I guess my point here is that when reporters and editors decide what facts are relevant and which ones don’t deserve space or time in their columns, aren’t they in a position where they often “withhold” facts that the public might need to know? Shouldn’t their work (now that we have an Internet that makes sharing of information so much easier and more efficient) include footnotes, website links and other references to (objective?) sources wherever possible?
When it comes to issues and broad as Global Warming,
When will the media feel more of an obligation to qualify their sources? Why should the public be satisfied with the media’s interpretations (or headlines and sound bytes) of what the news really is? If some of us want to take a closer look at things, and the media is interested in earning some public trust, aren't we owed some "easy access" to source information (links, email addresses, contact information)?
