RECENTLY, I went to a training institute developed by the U.S. Department of Justice, where I attended a media training designed for people who have fairly controversial fields of work or, at the least, fields in which public and professional emotions run high. It was created and staffed by journalists, and intended to prepare the attendees to deal with interactions with print, radio and television reporters.
I had a good vantage point for observation, for I was there not in my capacity as a journalist, but instead as a participant. As the day progressed, I was struck by a couple of developing themes. First, for the most part, people dislike and distrust reporters, and therefore, the media. Second, people don't understand the news process, the process of reporting, and journalistic ethics.
As I do not currently interview people, nor do I have much trouble with interviews, I forget the actual intensity of the animosity many feel for the media as an institution. I am convinced that much of the negative feeling of the first trend derives from the second trend - a lack of understanding of the functioning of a free press.
I am going to use this column to look at some issues in hopes that both members of the community and Cavalier Daily reporters may be more cognizant of their interactions with one another. While this cannot be a complete exposition, there are a few common points to review.
Conflict
Many of those attending the workshop expressed a common point-of-view: that reporters are just looking for ways to stir up controversy, because controversy attracts an audience and sells newspapers. To some degree, this is true - it is typically conflict that forms "the news." An article which covers the ways in which the local government continues to function well is not nearly as interesting to most people as a story which reveals financial or other mismanagement. Additionally, it is not conflict alone which makes it news, but that the conflict is often related to an issue of public interest, such as the use of tax dollars, public safety or political corruption.
So, reporters are most often drawn to areas where conflict already exists, not where they can create conflict. Clearly, this is sometimes perceived differently by the subjects of the story, but this seems inevitable. If someone wants to talk about something you don't want to talk about, are they creating conflict, or just making an existing conflict overt?
Rude or Pushy Reporters
When reporters cover a story, they are usually on a tight deadline, so they need to move along, gather information, then go back and write or produce the story. This "need for speed" often translates as brusqueness, insensitivity or rudeness to the people whose lives are affected by the controversy being covered.
Clearly, there is room for two-way motion on this problem. Reporters are, in fact, sometimes rude when under deadline pressure, and they should remember that what is primarily a good story to them is often someone else's life or livelihood, and that subjects and sources should be accorded respect. Likewise, subjects of interviews should remember that reporters work in a very short time-frame, and their work is immediately placed under close public scrutiny. Keeping that in mind, subjects can try to be direct and concise, and try to cooperate with the reporter's need for information in a timely manner.
Right to Know
Perhaps the most common complaint I heard was that reporters were unethical in their unrelenting pursuit of a story. Yet, when pressed for specifics, there were few examples that were actually unethical, and more examples which simply were unpleasant for the subjects involved. A common complaint was over the reporter's unethically claiming a "right for the public to know."
The "right to know" is one that is often mocked and denigrated by politicians, spokespeople, and spinmeisters of all varieties. It is, however, a core belief in the journalist's ethical pantheon, and one that courts have upheld in various ways. A free press exists to bring information to the public about matters that might affect them. This is why the media have access to courtrooms, to the halls of Congress, to crime scenes, and to the sites of disasters. While this may seem ghoulish, it is hardly unethical. An escaped killer, a defective vehicle, a bloated finance bill, and an irresponsible tax cut may all have an effect on the private citizen. In a country with a free press, unrestrained by the government or other interests, that citizen's likely best protection is the provision of information by the media.
Please don't get me wrong. I know that there are often reporters who abuse the "right to know." They use it to justify close-ups on the faces of the traumatized, the bloody, and the dead. They use it to gain access to private lives about which the public may well not have a right to know. Perhaps worst of all, they use it as a club to silence critics of the press, or merely those who are not cooperative, by suggesting that by denying the public of their "right to know," their targets have something to hide. These are actions which violate the sacred trust reporters have: to bring useful information to the public, and to abjure from the prurient, the private, the speculation and innuendo, and all the other forms of titillation which may sell papers (and often sell tabloids), but which advance the interests of the public not at all.
(Brent Garland can be reached at ombuds@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
