National Public Radio is debating the ethics of "He said/She said" journalism. Someone called it, "the lowest form of journalism".
Simply reporting the two, or three, sides of a story to be told, and leaving it at that, might not be irresponsible, but it ought not to be confused with anything other than data gathering--or more likely--opinion gathering. Gathering the opinions of two experts, or two idiots, and reporting them, might or might not be helpful. If it gives the impression that the opinions presented are of equal worth, it is probably a disservice.
The discussion of the problem on NPR (of which I heard only a part) was laced with another phrase: "the truth"; something like, "Should a reporter just report both sides without indicating what the truth is?" It wasn't quite that clumsy, but that is the argument, in essence.
Sometimes it works that simply. John says the well is 100 feet deep, and Hank says it is 50. Maybe it is 100. Maybe it is 50. Maybe it is 70. Maybe it used to be 50, but has been deepened.
More frustrating than the simple-mindedness of "He said/She said" reporting, is the notion that "the truth" is easily available. Or that objectivity is achievable.
Just the process of choosing what to report, or not to report, is a value judgment. Whether abortion is right or wrong is a value judgment. Whether we should cut back on government spending right now, or invest heavily in creating jobs is a value judgment. There isn't any simple "truth" there! Trying to escape the irresponsibility of simple-minded "He said/She said" journalism by pretending that there is always a "truth" to be told is also simple-minded.
You can measure the depth of a well. One can also measure global temperature, but it is not so simple as dropping a weighted line down a hole, and measuring the line afterwards. "Truth" isn't often so easily gained. Perhaps most often, truth is what most people agree on. The earth is a little over 4 billion years old. The universe is expanding, unless it is contracting, or in stasis. Politicians often are on the take. And maybe God is in her heaven.
Maybe the best we can do is throw out what we can show to be false, and live with the best of what is left. And if "false" is too strong, maybe just throw out what is unworkable, or objectionable, or irrelevant. "The Truth" is too strong a claim.
All opinions are not of equal value. Some are not worth a bucket of warm . . . spit. But none of them is the absolute truth, either. There is no absolute truth: there is just the best we can do. And that can be pretty good.
Values are what we hold when we have sifted through. Most recently.
Simply reporting the two, or three, sides of a story to be told, and leaving it at that, might not be irresponsible, but it ought not to be confused with anything other than data gathering--or more likely--opinion gathering. Gathering the opinions of two experts, or two idiots, and reporting them, might or might not be helpful. If it gives the impression that the opinions presented are of equal worth, it is probably a disservice.
The discussion of the problem on NPR (of which I heard only a part) was laced with another phrase: "the truth"; something like, "Should a reporter just report both sides without indicating what the truth is?" It wasn't quite that clumsy, but that is the argument, in essence.
Sometimes it works that simply. John says the well is 100 feet deep, and Hank says it is 50. Maybe it is 100. Maybe it is 50. Maybe it is 70. Maybe it used to be 50, but has been deepened.
More frustrating than the simple-mindedness of "He said/She said" reporting, is the notion that "the truth" is easily available. Or that objectivity is achievable.
Just the process of choosing what to report, or not to report, is a value judgment. Whether abortion is right or wrong is a value judgment. Whether we should cut back on government spending right now, or invest heavily in creating jobs is a value judgment. There isn't any simple "truth" there! Trying to escape the irresponsibility of simple-minded "He said/She said" journalism by pretending that there is always a "truth" to be told is also simple-minded.
You can measure the depth of a well. One can also measure global temperature, but it is not so simple as dropping a weighted line down a hole, and measuring the line afterwards. "Truth" isn't often so easily gained. Perhaps most often, truth is what most people agree on. The earth is a little over 4 billion years old. The universe is expanding, unless it is contracting, or in stasis. Politicians often are on the take. And maybe God is in her heaven.
Maybe the best we can do is throw out what we can show to be false, and live with the best of what is left. And if "false" is too strong, maybe just throw out what is unworkable, or objectionable, or irrelevant. "The Truth" is too strong a claim.
All opinions are not of equal value. Some are not worth a bucket of warm . . . spit. But none of them is the absolute truth, either. There is no absolute truth: there is just the best we can do. And that can be pretty good.
Values are what we hold when we have sifted through. Most recently.
Comments
Post a Comment