The Enemy

Journalists are largely misunderstood. Here's why.

In an article entitled, "When Bloggers Say No To a Simple Chat," by Steven Levy, published in this week's issue of Newsweek, Levy writes about bloggers, and ultimately the public's fear of journalists:

"When Wired magazine writer Fred Vogelstein set out to write a story...First, blog entrepreneur Jason Calacanis told him he would not speak to him, but answer questions only by e-mail, something Vogelstein wouldn't agree to. Then, blogging pioneer Dave Winer told him he would not be interviewed by phone. He suggested that Vogelstein e-mail questions that he would then answer publicly on his blog, a solution for which Vogelstein had even less enthusiasm...As Calacanis wrote to Vogelstein, "I don't want someone taking half a sentence or paraphrasing me ... Just too much risk." Neither Winer nor Calacanis is unaware of the value of a live conversation. But in their experience, that spontaneity is frequently abused to collect "gotcha" quotes that don't really reflect the subject's views...We in the journalism tribe operate under the belief that when we ask people to talk to us we are not acting out of self-interest but a sense of duty to inform the population...But every time we lose the priceless knowledge from those essential, real-time interviews, our stories are impoverished, to the detriment of our readers: you" (Levy, Newsweek 2007).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18986992/site/newsweek/

This article illustrates a gorwing tend of mistrust of the press. The free press. The way we know things. This is really discouraging to me. It tells me that there is something, wrong with the relationship between the public and the press today. Perhaps we aren't presenting information the right way. We are being unfriendly or cold.

But I also think, at least in part, people are afraid to be seen negatively. They are afraid to stand up for their actions and opinions. They are becomeing mushy and scared of how the public will see them. And sometimes, it's not us. It's them.

The article supports the idea that many people believe the press is looking to screw people over, change the meaning of words and quotations in order to create a better story come to the juicy conclusion the journalist was looking for. So often, when writing articles on subjects as diverse as town hall elections, struggles of tenure track and adjunct instructors at colleges, power plant proposals, or what cafe has the best cup of coffee, people do not want to talk. They are afraid to be the "bad guy." They are afraid to offend. Most answers about anything nowadays seems more like a PR announcement than a stance or even a fact.

With all the negative press lately, especially involving politics and people in positions of power, it may seem like the press is out to get someone or another.

This simply is not true.

it is surely true that some journalists get power trips. They are self-interested, want to get the juiciest story no matter what, place themselves in a hegemonic position. But what the vast majority of journalists seek to do is, clear and simple, report and explain the most accurate, truthful and important news available. But to do this, the public needs to stop seeing us as the enemy and start cooperating. We work for you. And not only do we work for you, we are a part of you. We are public citizens like yourselves who want the best information, like yourselves.

Here are some misconceptions and truths I'd love for everyone to understand:

- Serving the public is what we do. We are out to inform. This often means stories about corruption or wrongdoings. But if we don't uncover this stuff, no one will. And although it might damage the reputation of a select few, it will greatly benefit most.

- The reason the news may look critical or negative is because "good news" is not news. In other words, we do not feel the need to report about when someone is doing there job right because that person is SUPPOSED TO DO THEIR JOB RIGHT. And the fact is, we do mention when things are going right too. But come on, we aren't here to pat you on the back. We are here to be watchdogs and to inflict the comforted ad comfort the inflicted.

- We do not want to lie. We want to be as truthful as possible. Our credibility is on the line here, as well as the publication's credibility. If we make people mad, we lose readers. If we lose readers, we lose advertisers. If we lose advertisers, we have no funds.

- We do not want to burn bridges with sources. We want to be accurate because we need people to talk to us. Misquoting and deceiving our interviewees will only make them not want to talk to us again. The more good relationships we have, the stronger and fuller our reporting will be able to be.

- If you refuse to comment, we'll print it. If you don't want to look bad, don't act bad. Ultimately, we have every right to say, so-and-so refused to comment. When we ask you to comment on some one's criticism of you, we are not doing it to accuse you or embarrass you. We are genuinely looking for both sides. Why does this make you angry? Furthermore, if you say "no comment" we can (and should) print it, and the public perception is out of our hands completely. They can take "no comment" to mean anything they want. Often, I think, the public sees this as "he must have something to hide."

- We are not heartless. Basically, we think about ethics all the time, and make judgements based on a strict code of moral and societal ethics. We do not want to violate privacy or hurt people. If we decide the public needs to know something, that decision has been made after very deep consideration about whether printing the story is most important, or not printing it in order to be sympathetic to a few. The bottom line is, we will usually print it...but not always. We have hearts and we use them.

- We are members of the community for which we write. We are also your neighbors, friends, etc. We know you and we are you to some extent. We love our communities. Bottom line, we aren't the Devil, we are often friendly and caring people. We are here to serve.