Southwest Corner
Media Culpa
(January 10, 2005)
The first days of 2005 have offered ample evidence of
the continuing malaise of contemporary broadcast journalism. Basic reporting standards, which should
be routinely practiced, are ignored.
The result is inaccurate information, unsupported speculation, and
faulty conclusions. No wonder the
American public has a low regard for journalists and the media.
Case in Point:
The independent-panel appointed by CBS to investigate the network's handling of the controversial George W. Bush national guard story concluded--as expected--that CBS failed to follow basic journalistc principles and the network's own internal policy before broadcasting the report. The panel cited as among several factors contributing to this journalistic lapse "...great deferencce to a highly respected producer and the network's news anchor [and] competitive pressure,..." Four CBS News personnel have been fired. Dan Rather, who publicly apologized for the original report, later said he would resign from the CBS Evening News in March.
Second Case in Point: The NCAA Division 1 so-called National Championship Football in the
Orange Bowl January 4 was a mismatch.
But what I found noteworthy was the undisciplined way the color
commentators described the contest.
During the pre-game analysis one of the broadcasters
noted that both top-rated University of Southern California (USC) and number two
Oklahoma University (OU) had defeated their respective opponents by an average
of 23 points. The commentator then
asserted, ³There is no way that is going to happen tonight.² Anyone who watched the game to its conclusion or read
the results online or in a newspaper knows that USC trounced OU 55-19a margin
of 36 points. One of the first rules journalism students learn is
the need to qualify reportsto use
words and phrases that avoid assertions of fact when there is
doubt. Among the most frequently
used terms are ³alleged² and ³suspect² in stories about persons arrested and
charged with a crime. The reason
for journalists to qualify such descriptions is to avoid convicting in the
press persons who may later be determined to be innocent. The Orange Bowl broadcaster would have been correct to
say, ³These two teams have defeated their respective opponents by an average of
23 points. But we donıt expect that to happen tonight.² This would have saved the commentator the embarrassment of
wiping egg off his face when his prediction proved incorrect. Third Case in Point: Last week The News Hour with Jim
Lehrer on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) had a story about the impact of
the Tsunami on Indonesia. The
reporter was employed by Independent Television in England. The journalist employed a number of
unnecessary and unsupported adjectives and descriptions in an apparent attempt
to add emotional color to an already horrible event. In one instance he describes an album with pictures of
soccer players as ³belonging to a boy who was obviously a soccer fan.² There was no way that the
reporter could know that in the absence of eyewitness accounts whether the book
was the work of a soccer fan. The
journalist provided no support for his conclusion. Later, when painting a poignant scene of a husband and
wife found dead lying amidst the rubble of their home, the reporter says,
³their hands were reaching out to each other in an effort to touch each other
in their final moment.² Neither we nor the journalist will ever
know what the couple was thinking or doing just before the Tsunami struck. Such speculation was uncalled for and
was a disservice to both viewers and victims. These are just three examples in 2005 that follow a long list of journalistic lapses in
the past year that saw fabrication
and plagiarism perpetrated by
reporters employed by some of Americaıs leading newspapers. As a former university journalism professor, I find
such trends infuriating and
frightening. My indignation stems
from the apparent pressure journalists succumb to in order to dramatize stories
to make their more compelling than
facts dictate. I am
likewise frightened by the prospect that young journalists will ignore the
lessons that journalism teachers try so hard to instill. Instead these future reporters may
choose as role models reporters and broadcasters who do not reflect high
professional standards. I hope we begin to see in 2005 the resurgence of media
committed to serving the public accurately and objectively rather than engaging
in sloppy and sensational practices for the sake of ratings, circulation and
profits. A democratic republic
deserves more from our communication institutions that we are getting now. Steve
Coon Tucson,
Arizona |Home| or
|Click Links for more Southwest Corner commentaries|