Refreshing
Memeorandum has had an item up for some time now about a message sent to reporters at the Seattle Times from Dave Boardman, the executive editor of that paper. The original email addressed the impropriety of several staffers cheering when they heard in a meeting that Karl Rove had resigned. Boardman's words:
When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom.
Editor and Publisher has a followup from Boardman:
My Raves admonition on politically based cheering in the newsroom has ignited the predictable flame-throwing in the blogosphere, particularly from the portside. Allow me to riff a bit further on that, and on my reasoning….
The postings nearly everywhere speak not to the fundamental issues around newsroom decorum, but instead spring from one's place on the spectrum of Bush/Rove "Bad" or Bush/Rove "Good."
I ask you all to leave your personal politics at the front door for one simple reason: A good newsroom is a sacred and magical place in which we can and should test every assumption, challenge each other's thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook.
If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists.
But if we allowed our news meetings to evolve into a liberal latte klatch, I have no doubt that a pathological case of group-think would soon set in. One of the advances of which I’m most proud over the years is our willingness to question and challenge each other as we work to give our readers the most valuable, meaningful journalism we can.
The result: A newspaper that is known nationally for aggressive watchdog and investigative reporting, without fear or favor. From a Democratic United States senator (Brock Adams) to our region's biggest employer (Boeing) to a large advertiser (Nordstrom) to our school districts and courts and police, we have confronted them all with tough questions to which they had no good answers. The result has been a better community, laws changed, lives saved.
It’s not about "balance," which is a false construct. It isn't even about "objectivity," which is a laudable but probably unattainable goal. It is about independent thinking and sound, facts-based journalism — the difference between what we do and the myopic screed that is passed off as "advocacy" journalism these days.
Boardman is refreshingly honest here. Reporters are, by their very nature, biased. That is what led them into the field. But if they cannot put aside those biases and ask the difficult questions – even from their personal sacred cows – they have no business being in the business they have chosen. Reporting is about facts, not agenda. Real facts, not made up ones. Boardman's candor and honesty is welcome.
Other Links to this Post
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Journalistic Fraud — August 16, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
By Mwalimu Daudi, August 16, 2007 @ 1:53 am
Have to disagree with you on this one, Gaius. Dave Boardman’s piece was little more than an exercise in self-congratulations.
Oh, there was a kind-of sort-of weak semi-admission on Boardman’s part of concern about the political makeup of newsrooms. But he contemptuously dismissed balance in news reporting as “a false construct” and objectivity as “unattainableâ€. Well now. In other words, even if he believed there to be a problem in his newsroom (which he clearly does not) he rejects the cure out of hand. Since when did balance and objectivity get such a bad rap from a managing editor?
Even more bizarre is this statement: “[I]f we allowed our news meetings to evolve into a liberal latte klatch, I have no doubt that a pathological case of group-think would soon set in.†Gee, Dave – do ya think so?
Earth to Boardman: Pathological liberal group-think is already here and is standard operating procedure in most news organizations. A quick perusal of some of the more infamous MSM deceptions over just the past few years is illuminating: the fake Bush Air National Guard memos, the fake Koran-flushing story, the fake war crimes “remembered†by Private Beauchamp, the fake “no WMDs in Iraq†meme, the fake “no Saddam-al Qaeda connectionsâ€, the fake “no al Qaeda in Iraq†line, the fake “domestic spying†scandal, the fake “Karl Rove outted Valerie Plame†scandal, the fake reports by “Jamil Husseinâ€, the fake Duke rape case (“The narrative was right, but the facts were wrongâ€), Reuter’s fauxtography, and the fake “global warming is settled scientific factâ€. This is what passes for “sound fact-based journalism†these in most MSM outlets. And we have not even gotten to the countless stories where the MSM cherry-picked the facts to try to bring about the desired outcome.
Boardman’s irritation at “cheering in the newsroom†seems to be less concerned with journalistic ethics than with the possibility of the unwashed heathen rabble (that’s you and me, Bubba) getting wind of it and asking questions. Remember Walter Cronkite’s pompous declaration, “That’s the way it was,†which ended his CBS nightly news broadcasts? It was certainly not the way he said it was when he reported on the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War – and Walter knew it. Boardman and Cronkite have the right to report as they please – but they do not have the right to be taken seriously.
One final note: Boardman may not realize it, but he is a dinosaur. Left-wing partisanship in the media is getting worse. Those who cheered Karl Rove’s resignation in the newsrooms are growing in number, and will soon replace the likes of Boardman. If Boardman were truly interested in journalistic ethics, he would tackle this growing problem of partisanship-as-journalism. Instead of silencing the cheering, he might instead look for alternate points of view to be represented. But given his contempt for balance and objectivity I doubt that he will.
By Chris, August 16, 2007 @ 9:24 am
As much as all of those things are true, Boardman has no direct responsibility for anything other than his own newsroom. None of those generalizations apply to his newspaper.
I also have to agree that “balance” is an artificial construct, if the meaning of balance is that we have to find some opposing viewpoint to every story. From the accepted viewpoint as presented, to the choice of the opposition viewpoint, all of these things are selected by the journalist. As we have seen in the past, no one is really being served by engaging in this rote behavior.
I agree with Gaius as well, I find his remarks about “objectivity” refreshing as well as realistic. I am not objective about most subjects, and neither are reporters. When they pretend to be, that’s when most of the trouble starts. If more journalists discarded the false notion of objectivity, which of course precludes bias, then they would at least be aware of how their own personalities shape the stories they present. That in itself would be an improvement.
By feeblemind, August 16, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Agree with well written comments by Mwalimu Daudi. I would add, let them cheer Rove’s departure and boo Bush’s speeches. Let the public see them for who they are and remove the veneer of impartiality.
By Mwalimu Daudi, August 16, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Dave Boardman said this:
“I ask you all to leave your personal politics at the front door for one simple reason: A good newsroom is a sacred and magical place in which we can and should test every assumption, challenge each other’s thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook.”
He also said this:
“It’s not about “balance,” which is a false construct. It isn’t even about “objectivity,” which is a laudable but probably unattainable goal.”
Chris, those two statements are mutually contradictory. It is simply not possible to believe both of them. That is why I am not impressed by Boardman’s piece. When managing editors like Boardman eschew balance and objectivity, it is not hard to hear unmistakable echoes of modern journalism’s alarming tendency to declare certain debates “over” and that opposing points of view need not be considered.
By disparaging objectivity and balance, Boardman is in effect saying that partisan journalism is acceptable. Fine – they have a First Amendment right to be partisans. But it makes his statement about “test every assumption, challenge each other’s thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook†worthless. Why should I believe him when he says that?
That’s why I find Boardman’s concern about cheering in the newsrooms laughable. Given his reluctance to seek objectivity (or at least balance), what did he think was going to happen? And frankly modern journalism has far bigger worries than cheering journalists.
By Gaius, August 16, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
But Boardman is not trying to pretend that his staff is unbiased. No, it is not perfect, but it is better than the usual pretentious “we’re impartial” nonsense that many MSM outlets still pretend applies.
Everyone has biases. The only way to be completely objective is to either be disinterested (and therefore usually uninteresting) or to recognize that you have those biases and make a conscious decision not to let them control.
Boardman is at least partway to that point. It may not be all that much, but it is a start.
By Chris, August 17, 2007 @ 8:02 am
The first step in recovery is recognizing that you have a problem. The real problem in addiction is not the substance abuse, but the underlying psychological need to escape reality.
The problem with modern journalism is not the lying, obfuscating, and denial of conflicting opinion, it’s the desire to reshape reality to fit a preconceived pattern. Recognition of this will allow for the possibility of recovery of credibility.