Journalism has endured several high-profile episodes of error and poor judgment recently. The Cincinnati Enquirer retracted an investigative series on Chiquita Brands and apologized to the company. CNN and Time retracted a story about U.S. military use of nerve gas against Vietnam War defectors. Patricia Smith, a Boston Globe columnist, and Stephen Glass, a New Republic associate editor, were accused of fabricating information in several pieces they each wrote.
Two weeks ago, Perspective invited readers to share their views on journalism. Here’s a selection of the dozens of responses we received, which have been edited because of space limits.
1ST AMDENDMENT OBLIGATIONS
Accurate, unfabricated information is essential to the maintenance of a free society. It gives people power to act for or against government office-seekers, officials and issues. This is why the framers of the U.S. Constitution attached the 1st Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Unfortunately, when newspeople make up stories or slant information–or for that matter, fail to provide information we need–people distrust what they read, see or hear and, even worse, arrive at erroneous conclusions.
If we distrust information from newspapers, magazines, TV and radio, where do we turn? The only other source is word-of-mouth–hearsay–and that sets us back to the Middle Ages, before the invention of the printing press.
The professional performance of their roles under the 1st Amendment must be paramount in the minds of everyone associated with the news media, without exception. We the people depend on it.
Justin M. Fishbein, Highland Park
Profit-driven problems
The 1980s and 1990s have been marked by fundamental shifts in the way businesses operate in this country, and journalism is no exception. The media has had to compete more aggressively to be profitable.
What strikes many of us as standard today would have been viewed as unacceptable 10 years ago. For example, it is very common to have the lead story on the local television news connected to a just-completed movie. This tie-in, which aims to entice the viewer to stay on the same channel, is an obvious attempt to attract viewership. However, most viewers realize this may not be the top news of the day and simply view it for what it is, a cheap attempt to get us to watch their station.
Print media have not been exempt from this trend. Newspapers and magazines have wrestled with reporting issues surrounding their parent companies. They battle to keep circulation up in a competitive era when the web and television have dramatically increased the speed with which information is disseminated. Tabloid formats, the recent retractions of stories and the redesigning of newspapers to increase their appeal to certain advertisers are symptomatic of the economic struggles of the print media today.
The change in attitude toward the media can be traced to changes in the economic forces surrounding journalism today. While there may not be a focused turning point, there has indeed been a change of public opinion.
Matthew Ter Molen, Evanston
Rewards of ethics
I think it a good thing that there is a controversy over the ethical lapses of certain journalists. It reminds us that we cannot uncritically accept whatever we read even in a reputable magazine or newspaper. From my perspective, things have never been better when it comes to the press. Thirty years ago, “Uncle Walter” Cronkite could say with a straight face “and that’s the way it is” signing off his newscast. Today we know better, and it’s good that ethically challenged journalists are not only caught, but that the incidents are not hushed up even if it results in embarrassment for the press.
Even though additional editors and fact checkers can help detect and reduce the possibility of journalistic fraud, the real answer was paradoxically found in an article about Roy Rogers in the same section of the paper. As Ron Grossman put it, in Roy Rogers’ world “hard work and clean living are the route to success.” In other words, it’s the person that makes the difference. If a society encourages effort and ethics, then that’s what you are going to get not only in your reporters, but also in the general public.
Dave Graf, Chicago
Return to integrity
Recent troubles encountered by CNN, Time and the Cincinnati Enquirer are symptoms of systemic problems facing a business that strives to be the first with the most. In an age when information moves so fast and demand requires that information be compressed into sound bites, the opportunity for mistakes is increased exponentially. The consequence is a public that is at the very best skeptical of the veracity, if not the integrity, of journalism.
Perhaps the Fourth Estate is a victim of the same indifference and mistrust that so many feel toward the other institutions of our society. I hope that’s not true. A free press is still the best source we have to inform, enlighten, expose, encourage and engender change. Maybe what we’re looking for is greater evidence of the old values of honesty, integrity and trust in the people who write and report the news.
Mike Wallseck, Mt. Prospect
Change in the air
Information overload breeds public apathy, which in turn has spawned the current faster-faster tap dance that news providers need to grab us by the throat. Mistakes can happen in climates so overheated by “big story” competition that standards wither while hubris blooms.
In the end, the question is whether the alarming trends of journalistic sloppiness, story manipulation, ratings/circulation madness, rumor mongering and “Pulitzeritis” can be reversed. I believe so. Because a news organization’s very survival depends on the public’s trust, I believe that citizen outrage coupled with new media humility (i.e. Cincinnati’s extraordinary apology headlines) will soon turn the tide.
T. Diane Slatton, Chicago
Truth behind retractions
What bothers me about the Chiquita controversy is that we still don’t know whether the Cincinnati Enquirer story was true. That may be OK in court. I’m an attorney and spend a lot of time arguing with people about the justifiability of excluding from a trial true and reliable information that was obtained illegally.
I think that’s different from a newspaper. We don’t rely on a newspaper to uphold standards of justice. We just expect it to get us the news, accurately and more or less promptly. If we don’t like the way a paper gathers its news, we don’t have to read it. If criminal laws were violated in the news-gathering process, criminal charges can be brought. But once the information has been gathered, don’t we have a right to know it, if it was true in the first place?
Marian Henriquez Neudel, Chicago
Recycling mistakes
In the three or more years I have devoted to researching, reporting and writing each of my books, I have immersed myself in material about my subjects. When I read a story in the paper about one of them or about some other subject I know well, I invariably find errors of fact, not to mention interpretation.
The advent of computers and electronic databases have made matters much worse. The mistake, once made, gets passed, with the stroke of a computer key, from reporter to reporter, ad infinitum.
Phil Graham, Katharine’s husband, and once the owner and publisher of The Washington Post, called journalism “the first rough draft of history.” What we as readers must remember is that no matter if the paper is a sensationalistic tabloid or The New York Times, that first rough draft can be very rough.
Reporters such as Stephen Glass (accused of faking stories at the New Republic) or Patricia Smith (accused of fabrications at the Boston Globe) who simply make up characters and quotes to fit their stories likely will be caught. Much more insidious, I think, are the reporters who mean well, but who can’t or don’t bother to get their facts straight.
Carol Felsenthal, Chicago
Unshaken trust
I’m an avowed news junkie, and the nefarious revelations neither surprise me nor cloud my view of the print or broadcast media. I’m sure these incidents have occurred in the past and will continue. Due to the size and scope of the story, however, the general public may not always be notified of them, unlike the recent headline-making stories.
In the end, I trust the news media today as much as I always have. Regardless of the traditional attempt at objectivity, news publications and broadcasters inherently embrace certain viewpoints. After all, human beings with minds containing opinions run these media. So I will continue seeking out the usual publications and broadcasts in order to pursue my interests and track news events as they happen. This will include CNN. And the next time I’m in Cincinnati I’ll probably pick up an edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer. Hopefully I won’t slip on a banana peel on the way to the newsstand.
Vince Flores, Oak Park
Abandoning tabloid tactics
Let us not infringe on freedom of the press, but let us also demand a greater demonstration of responsibility from its practitioners. Unfounded charges damage the person or institution named, even if later retracted. An apology doesn’t remove the seed planted in the minds of readers or watchers. Journals should return to more self-control and appraisal of the entire story. Tabloids can satisfy readers’ desire for sensational headlines and muckraking. The division between them and serious journals must become more evident again.
Edward E. Link, Waukegan
