© 2024
By Don Frost
For decades America’s purveyors of news have been known to be “liberal” and that those leanings spill over into their objectivity in reporting the news. Not surprisingly, they have consistently denied that this is so: “We are professionals, trained to keep our views out of news reporting. We edit for clarity, fairness, and objectivity. It says so, right there in our mission statement.”
I tricked one senior newspaper editor (likely with the endorsement of four other senior editors) to unwittingly admit to bias in news columns. Doubtless all five would dispute that it was an admission of “liberal” leanings in its news columns. Instead, they certainly would claim it’s just good, responsible journalism.
I say “tricked” because I have complained several time to this particular newspaper about editorializing in news columns. My observations were always ignored. So I determined to get provocative to assure the preordained response so I could expose it here.
Background is required.
On March 3, 2024, the Daily Herald, Chicago’s leading suburban newspaper, published an Associated Press story which – with the Herald’s blessing – called Donald Trump a liar. I wrote to the editors: Jim Slusher, managing editor/administration & opinion; Jim Baumann, executive editor; Lisa Miner, managing editor; Kelly Vold, digital editor/engagement; and John Lampinen, editor (retired), asking why they allowed the AP to get away with editorializing in news columns. (I would have included city editor Robert Sanchez, but I had a bad email address for him. Possibly the others shared my comments with him.)
After some laudatory observations about two recent stories, I got to point three:
Why do you allow the AP to editorialize in news columns? On 3/3, page 2, lead paragraph: Trump “baselessly accused President Joe Biden of waging a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America.”
Again in the 3rd graph: Trump “alleged without proof that Biden is responsible for the indictments he faces . . .”
It could just as easily, and truthfully, been, “Trump accused President Joe . . .” And “Trump alleged that Biden is . . .”
Call Trump a liar on the editorial page, not in news columns.
P.S. I don’t like Trump either. I hope I don’t have to vote against him for a third time.
Don Frost
Miner evidently was chosen to respond on behalf of the other four editors. She responded, as expected, with a variation on the time-worn theme: That’s not bias; that’s not editorializing; that’s good journalism. After the customary courtesies granted to readers, she wrote, in part:
“When Trump accuses Biden of trying to overthrow the government, it is fair to point out that he made a very serious charge but offered no evidence. Otherwise, public officials can say anything without challenge.”
I responded to her:
Lisa –
They chose well when they designated you to rationalize insinuating the Herald’s opinion in news columns. That opinion, by the way, is disputed by millions of people. But they don’t run a newspaper. Tough luck for them, right?
If you’ve ever wondered how America’s news media lost the trust of Americans, I suggest you study the AP-NORC Center poll published last spring. A sampling: “. . . the news media is increasing political polarization . . .” “Four in 10 say the press is doing more to hurt American democracy . . .”
It happens slowly, when journalists decide “. . . it is fair to point out that he made a very serious charge. . . offered no evidence.”
Somewhere in this country there must be a source of unbiased news. Obviously, it’s not the Herald. Hope springs eternal, so I’ll keep looking.
Thanks for writing.
Thus ended our correspondence.
Editors everywhere seem to take the position that just because something is true they are somehow exempt from a charge of editorializing in news columns. Readers are not stupid. We don’t need reporters to tell us when a charge is serious, nor do we require a reporter to tell us when the charge is not accompanied by evidence.
We’re fully aware that when reporters squirt in “baseless” or “without evidence” they’re not doing it to make sure we understand it’s a serious charge and that there is no evidence to back it up. Repeating: We’re not stupid. It’s a veiled way of editorially shouting “liar!”
Miner’s words point directly to the growing arrogance in the new reporting business: “Otherwise, public officials can say anything without challenge.” And here was me, and the rest of the news consuming public, assuming challenges to what public officials say have always been properly addressed on the editorial pages, not in news columns.
All of this harkens back to what might accurately be called American journalism’s last hurrah, the 1950s. It was then that Sen. Joe McCarthy, almost daily, “was making very serious charges,” seeing Communists under every bed in America.
America’s press duly reported, “Sen. McCarthy said Hollywood is rife with Communists.” And, “McCarthy charged the State Department is riddled with Communists and Communist sympathizers.” And, “McCarthy claimed universities have been infiltrated with Communists.”
These were serious charges and, as Miner pointed out, serious charges so trouble the editors of the Herald that they have decided their readers cannot be trusted to have the wit to figure this out for themselves. Apparently, reporters/editors of the ’50s respected their readers.
If todays’ reporters/editors were working in the ’50s, they would have written, “McCarthy made the baseless claim . . .,” And “McCarthy charged, without evidence . . .,” And “McCarthy made the false claim . . .” Then they would have been tossed out of the newsroom on their self-righteous asses for violating the most basis tenet of journalistic ethics: Thou shalt keep thy opinions unto thyself unless thou art writing a clearly labeled editorial.
McCarthy’s claims and charges were challenged at the time, but on editorial pages not in news columns. Turning journalistic ethics on its head, editors of today boast of challenging news makers in news columns.
What is destroying American journalism has a name. It’s called “interpretive reporting.” From there it’s one small step to “advocacy journalism.” It goes on and on, rolling like a snowball, gathering more and more exceptions to the code of journalism ethics, until interpretive and advocacy become indistinguishable. That, in turn, led inevitably to what the AP-NORC Center poll revealed: Widespread distrust of America’s news media.
Reporters and editors keep ignoring or misunderstanding what American consumers of news are saying: “When we want your opinion we’ll turn to the editorial page as our grandparents did. We’re not stupid; you insult us when you bash us over the head with news as you see it.”
I wonder what would happen if editors suddenly stopped referring to Trump’s claims and charges as “baseless,” “without evidence,” or “false.” I try to picture, unsuccessfully, an angry reader writing a scathing letter to the editor, demanding, “How come you reported that Trump made a claim but didn’t point out that it was baseless?”
Editors just don’t get it. At least, I hope that’s the case. The alternative is that they know full well what they’re doing and have no intention of stopping: Pimping for the “liberal” agenda.
commonsense931 