The Ethical Journalist. Gene Foreman
Читать онлайн книгу.
can eventually be established as unquestioned facts.”
To determine what is factual and true, we rely on certain building blocks. Start with education. Then there is expertise. And experience. And, above all, we rely on evidence.
We see that acutely now when people’s health can be jeopardized by false claims, wishful thinking and invented realities. The public’s safety requires the honest truth.
Yet education, expertise, experience, and evidence are being devalued, dismissed and denied. The goal is clear: to undermine the very idea of objective fact, all in pursuit of political gain.
Along with that is a systematic effort to disqualify traditional independent arbiters of fact.
The press tops the list of targets. But others populate the list, too: courts, historians, even scientists and medical professionals – subject-matter experts of every type.
And so today the government’s leading scientists find their motives questioned, their qualifications mocked – despite a lifetime of dedication and achievement that has made us all safer.
In any democracy, we want vigorous debate about our challenges and the correct policies. But what becomes of democracy if we cannot agree on a common set of facts, if we can’t agree on what even constitutes a fact?
Are we headed for extreme tribalism, believing only what our ideological soulmates say? Or do we become so cynical that we think everyone always lies for selfish reasons? Or so nihilistic that we conclude no one can ever really know what is true or false; so, no use trying to find out?
Regardless, we risk entering dangerous territory. Hannah Arendt, in 1951, wrote of this in her first major work, “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” There, she observed “the possibility that gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods can eventually be established as unquestioned facts … that the difference between truth and falsehood may cease to be objective and may become a mere matter of power and cleverness, of pressure and infinite repetition.”
One hundred years ago – in 1920 – a renowned journalist and leading thinker, Walter Lippmann, harbored similar worries. Lippmann warned of a society where people “cease to respond to truths, and respond simply to opinions … what somebody asserts, not what actually is.” Lippmann wrote those words because of concerns about the press itself. He saw our defects and hoped we might fix them, thus improving how information got to the public.
Ours is a profession that still has many flaws. We make mistakes of fact, and we make mistakes of judgment. We are at times overly impressed with what we know when much remains for us to learn.
In making mistakes, we are like people in every other profession. And we, too, must be held accountable.
What frequently gets lost, though, is the contribution of a free and independent press to our communities and our country – and to the truth.
I think back to the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 when the Miami Herald showed how lax zoning, inspection and building codes had contributed to the massive destruction. Homes and lives are safer today as a result.
In 2016, the Charleston Gazette-Mail in West Virginia exposed how opioids had flooded the state’s depressed communities, contributing to the highest death rates in the country.
In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana’s newspapers were indispensable sources of reliable information for residents.
The Washington Post in 2007 revealed the shameful neglect and mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital. Corrective action was immediate.
The Associated Press in 2015 documented a slave trade behind our seafood supply. Two thousand slaves were freed as a result.
The New York Times and The New Yorker in 2017 exposed sexual predators in elite boardrooms. A movement of accountability for abuses against women took root.
The New York Times in 1971 was the first to publish the Pentagon Papers, revealing a pattern of official deceit in a war that killed more than 58,000 Americans and countless others.
The Washington Post broke open the Watergate scandal in 1972. That led ultimately to the president’s resignation.
Those news organizations searched for the truth and told it, undeterred by pushback or pressure or vilification.
Facing the truth can cause extreme discomfort. But history shows that we as a nation become better for that reckoning. It is in the spirit of the preamble to our Constitution: “to form a more perfect union.” Toward that end, it is an act of patriotism.
W.E.B. Du Bois, the great scholar and African American activist, cautioned against the falsification of events in relating our nation’s history. In 1935, distressed at how deceitfully America’s Reconstruction period was being taught, Du Bois assailed the propaganda of the era.
“Nations reel and stagger on their way,” he wrote. “They make hideous mistakes; they commit frightful wrongs; they do great and beautiful things. And shall we not best guide humanity by telling the truth about all this, so far as the truth be ascertainable?”
At this university, you answer that question with your motto – “Veritas.” You seek the truth – with scholarship, teaching and dialogue – knowing that it really matters.
My profession shares with you that mission – the always arduous, often tortuous and yet essential pursuit of truth. It is the demand that democracy makes upon us. It is the work we must do.
We will keep at it. You should, too. None of us should ever stop.
This is excerpted from the commencement address that the writer, then executive editor of The Washington Post, delivered to the graduating class of Harvard University on May 28, 2020.
[T]he always arduous, often tortuous and yet essential pursuit of truth ... is the demand that democracy makes upon us.
Point of View
Decision-Making in the Digital Age
By James M. Naughton
Sound judgment pays homage to speed but reveres accuracy.
WE TEND IN NEWSROOM DISCUSSIONS to separate news judgment from other aspects of the craft, as if it were something only a few people can master and for which they should be paid extra.
But making sound judgments is a responsibility of every journalist at every level in broadcast, print, or new media. We constantly exercise news judgment in choosing what to report, whom to interview, whom to trust, how to illustrate, what to amplify, what to omit, how to make the story interesting, when to quote or paraphrase, when and where – or whether – to run the article, what the headline should be, when to follow up, and how to correct inevitable errors.
The problem nowadays is that we’re expected to make the right calls on the run. We used to spend some of our time working to double‐ or triple‐check information, to verify, to research context, to scour complementary and contradictory data, to think and then to craft an accurate and coherent account. Many journalists now spend valuable time scanning the web and surfing cable channels to be sure they’re not belated in disclosing what someone else just reported, breathlessly, using sources whose identity we’ll never know.
The digital age does not respect contemplation. The deliberative news process is being sucked into a constant swirl of charge and countercharge followed by rebuttal and rebuttal succeeded by spin and counterspin leading to new charges and countercharges.
Now there are no cycles, only Now. A journalist today is apt to be wedging someone else’s information into a story nanoseconds before air time or press run, without the debate about tone and propriety we Watergate geezers could have with our editors.
When it’s all‐news‐all‐over, the demand is too often for the new, not necessarily for news.