Think about what?…
Pardon me if I’ve told this story before (too lazy to look): During the last election cycle, a reporter of my acquaintance called me on deadline needing a quote. Her editor had asked her to get a quote from someone claiming that citizens are sick and tired of negative campaign ads. I explained to her that I could not provide such a quote because, roughly: “We really have no idea if such a claim is true. There’s no real evidence that voters are turned off by negative ads. My opinion is that people enjoy them.”
This went in one ear and out the other and never made it into print (for a number of reasons, I suppose, besides not being the quote she wanted).
Did this mean that this reporter, who I know to be quite capable and hard-working, is not allowed to think for herself?
I don’t suppose this, but perhaps Dave Copeland does. He says:
Because most in-the-trench reporters aren’t allowed to think for themselves, they rely on “experts” who can state their pre-determined opinion for them (don’t buy into all this objectivity crap; fairness is the only ideal any human can be held accountable for, and that’s difficult enough as it is).
I agree with his statement about objectivity. But I wonder about the rest of it.
On the surface, yes, I have to agree. But then what is it a reporter is supposed to be thinking in the first place? What was the reporter in my example supposed to do? The answer to the second question is, perhaps, easiest to answer: She was supposed to report and write an article assigned to her according to the standard practices of journalism. Part of those practices include an editorial process in which editors direct the content and ensure that it meets standards.
So what thinking was she supposed to do beyond what’s required to report and write while conforming to standards? She cannot state, based on her own experience, that voters are turned off by negative ads. She doesn’t know this; in the parlance of academia, she in inexpert. This assumes, of course, that the content of news articles (as it applies to a combination of sources) should approach something like the truth rather than the speculation or opinion of the untrained.
Yes, she’s a well-trained journalist. But she isn’t a well-trained political scientist or rhetorician. She may certainly have her opinions on the topic of negative campaign ads, but those are better left to the op-ed pages.
Copeland has launched a new feature on his blog. He proposes to expose quote-hunting by publishing reporters’ queries from ProfNet, a PR service that helps reporters find academic experts. This should be entertaining, and I look forward to his efforts (I’ve added him to the blogroll). But Copeland leaves me wondering about what he means about the thinking of reporters. Beyond journalistic practice, what should they be thinking about?
Copeland appears to assume that the reporter is seeking an expert to make sure the reporter’s personal thoughts or opinions make it into the article (his being an experienced reporter argues against my interpretation of his assumption). But I think we would find my scenario more accurate: such quote hunting happens when editors demand that it happen. Perhaps we need to direct this at editors, not reporters.
Isn’t most reporting quote-hunting of a sort?
I make a point of telling new reporters that I value the kind of people who can go out in search of a particular story only to be convinced by their reporting that the truth may lie in the opposite direction. Fortunately, at a weekly, our writers have the time to follow a story when it changes directions on them. Still, I’m certain that weekly reporters do on occasion also commit the seek-an-expert-for-a-foregone-conclusion maneuver. But here, at least, we demand that our writers think for themselves.
Tony…yes, that’s a freedom that alternative weeklies such as The Pitch can foster. Indeed, it’s one of your strengths.