|
|
 |
|
PERCEIVES THE PRESS
|
Scapegoat, whipping boy?
Respect is diminishing
of TheColumnists.com
Remember when “The Press” served as every politician’s scapegoat, whether due to a defeated issue or a lost election? And the public’s, too?
Probably the most famous diatribe against newspapers emanated from Richard Nixon after he had lost the race for governor of California in 1962. “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” the future President groused at what he promised then would be his “last press conference.”
With so many daily newspapers folding in the past 25 years and paid circulation dwindling day by day, one can’t help but wonder how many years will pass before the politicians--and the public--won’t have the press to kick around anymore.
The times surely are a’changin’. Who needs newspapers anymore anyway? Today we have rapid, round-the-clock TV and radio news. “Rabbit News,” I call it, because the reporter can wrap up a story in less than a minute before hopping on another subject.
So-called in-depth reports seldom last more than three minutes. Some 25 or so years ago, as I recall, CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America,” said it would take him four hours to read aloud on television all the words that appeared on Page 1 of any daily newspaper. (Of course there were no ads on Page 1 then, so I assume Mr. Cronkite was including time for TV’s commercials in his four hours. Bear in mind that we read faster than we speak.)
I still subscribe to two daily newspapers: the San Jose Mercury and my hometown Santa Cruz Sentinel, where I broke into the business in the (G)olden Days as a weekend-summertime sportswriter while attending college. After a two-year hitch working for Uncle Sam as an Army draftee, I joined the Sentinel full-time in 1961, the first four years as a reporter and the next 10 as assistant city editor.
My favorite story about how the public perceives the press occurred in the early 1970s. Our small-town newsroom then consisted of six news reporters and four editors, equally divided left and right in their personal political beliefs. (Sports and what-was-then-called Society staff are excluded.)
One reporter, who was particularly known for being an activist at one far end of the political spectrum, covered the education beat. After a school board meeting containing a hotly contested topic on the agenda one evening, he filed his story and I was the editor who handled it. The paper couldn’t have been on the streets more than a half-hour when I received a call from a citizen who resided at the other end of the political spectrum. He had contacted me because I once had covered that beat and did so during the reporter’s occasional absences. The citizen and I were acquainted and he knew I stood on his side of the spectrum.
“Biased . . . unbalanced . . . deliberately one-sided . . . irresponsible” are some of the words he invoked in his telephone tirade.
“Whoa, wait a minute, Bob,” I responded. “Although I didn’t attend the meeting, I’m fairly well-versed on the issue and happened to have edited the story. In my opinion, it’s fair, well-balanced and impartial.”
Bob continued to protest, bringing up the reporter’s off-the-job activism.
I managed to calm him down, and we decided to dissect the story piece by piece to expose precisely where the reporter’s biases lay.
First, we took headline. It simply told what the vote was on the board’s 4-3 decision. No conflicts there, he admitted. (I had written the headline.)
Second, we analyzed comments made by board members and school administrators before the vote was taken. Did the report accurately capture the essence of their discussion, I asked. He replied they did.
Third, we looked at the comments made by proponents of the issue. Did they correctly reflect their views and were all of their pertinent remarks included? Another affirmative.
Fourth, we checked remarks made by opponents. Were they true and comprehensive in the report? Again affirmative.
Then came the clincher. I counted the lines of type in the story. That Great Editor In The Sky must have been looking down on me that day. Twenty lines were devoted to the board’s discussion, 20 to the proponents and 20 to the opponents.
“Bob,” I exhorted, “you haven’t come up with one logical objection to the content of the story. How much more fair could it be? Do you think maybe you’re the biased one, that because the board’s decision went against what you wanted, you’re reading the reporter’s story as one-sided because he politically believes differently from you? If the board’s vote had gone 4-3 the other way, I’m sure you would have had no complaints about the story.”
He mumbled his assent, but added, “It’s still biased.”
The reporter was not only a colleague but he also was a friend, and I knew he went to great extremes to separate his professional duty from his personal beliefs because he realized he had made himself susceptible to cheap shots because of his political activism.
That single incident convinced me forever that the general public believes what it wants to believe, and the facts be damned.
Our nation will become less and less responsibly informed as our newspapers consolidate or disappear. Instead of reading thoughtful editorials expressing a newspaper’s opinion on issues that help guide us through a maze of conflicting arguments ranging over a controversial issue or a candidate, too many Americans today seem to be falling under the spell of TV’s talking heads. Their ranting and raving far too often bespeak only of their personal biases instead of the facts. They’re performers, folks. Quite mesmerizing, to be sure. But they’re masters at exploiting or disguising an issue rather than explaining it in non-prejudicial terms.
Whether your local newspaper’s editorial policy is conservative or liberal, pay attention. Then vote the opposite of its recommendations, if you’re on the other side. But read them first, for the other side may raise a point you haven’t considered or been made aware of. If you don’t want to be a paid subscriber, read them on the Internet. They’re all there now, along with the bloggers who have their own opinions, some of them even based on fact.
But don’t cut off the head of the messenger because you don’t appreciate the news he or she brought you.
©2006 by Len Klempnauer. The cartoon is from IMSI'S Master Clips Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. E., San Rafael, CA, 94901-5506, USA. This column first posted Dec. 4, 2006.
You can comment
on this column online. Please address your message to either
"The Editors" or Len Klempnauer. To send an email,
click here and don't forget to mention Len's name: talkback@thecolumnists.com
|
|
|
Archives |
|
|