BEVERLY HILLS—Destiny is a funny thing. We never quite know exactly where it may take us (if we choose to believe in it at all) but that is the great fun of life: the discovery, the excitement, and front row seats to change and evolution. So it is always somewhat disappointing to open the newspaper and find an article (masquerading as a true hard news article, at that) spewing an embittered sense of inevitability, and highly partisan inevitability, at that.
What sparked a recent train of thought on the matter was a shamefully biased article masquerading as hard news. The article was from the AP and was picked up and printed in a smaller newspaper. The article blamed Republicans entirely for the payroll tax fiasco. While I have come to expect very little in the way of journalistic integrity from many outlets, this article was particularly notable, as within the first sentence, it became shamefully clear precisely how the writer wanted their readers to think. Or, perhaps more pitifully, the writer simply assumed the readers shared their views, and was not even conscious of the bitterly partisan word choice. Word choice made it clear just who the writer felt was to blame for the tax fiasco. In the same sentence, a messiah-like quotation from one politician was juxtaposed with a more crude description of the opposing side, making it awfully clear that this opinion piece was misfiled as news. If only this was an isolated incident!
Rare is the day that I do not read or listen to some ‘news’ article or allegedly unbiased newscaster who seems to think all the world shares his/her sense of partisan slant, left and right alike. The truth is, most people who pick up a newspaper or who turn on the news simply want to get the hard facts of what is happening in the world. It’s not that complicated of a notion: in a social contract of sorts, the populace agrees to place its trust in journalists. As part of this metaphorical contract, it is (or at least it was) understood that journalists played the incredibly vital role of information gatherers and synthesizers. As informal detectives, journalists were trusted to obtain sound, genuine and oft-hidden facts, and piece together the larger story. Readers could then collect those facts and come to their own conclusions. Perhaps the reader would agree with the journalist’s breadcrumb trail of logic, perhaps they would disagree and come to his/her own conclusion. The journalist, in an ideal world, delivers facts and can trace the arc of a story… to the degree that it is as clearly as possible supported by facts, and only facts.
Alas, ’tis a flawed world in which we live, and not all journalists realize the great honor they have of having the public’s ear. Anecdotal evidence and surveys suggest trust in journalism is eroding, because those who were awarded the trust of the people forgot that they were trusted to provide facts, and then step back and allow intelligent observers to come to their own conclusion.
When I first heard of a newspaper which warned against personal bias up front, I was intrigued. Many newspapers and news-gathering services seem to promise implicitly to provide the pure facts, but instead serve up a heaping dish of whatever the reporter decided was the correct version of a story. Too many articles, newscasters and even newspapers threw their faith in readers and viewers out long ago: no, these ‘journalists’ decided, we know the truth, we know what’s best, and we’re going to spoon-feed the public what we feel is the story. Thank goodness for Canyon News.
Canyon News operates under five simple yet profound principles. Two of these principles are particularly relevant to this discussion: “To provide a community newspaper that tells all the news honestly without any political agenda, slant or spin” and “To allow commentary writers the freedom to express their opinions and views without interruption, censorship, or persuasion.” Each news article that is submitted is combed through carefully; even the slightest hint of bias is unacceptable. There is no domineering and clear political slant in the news provided by this outlet, and bias of any sort is simply not tolerated (which is quite in contrast to other outlets, where the polar opposite is true, and a failure to adhere to certain political and social beliefs can lead to smears and even job loss).
At Canyon News, writers understand the responsibility to report (and report accurately) on what is affecting readers. I have trained some true journalists here, and see in them what I see in other greats, nationwide and throughout history: the greats have no sense of entitlement. When I refer to a lack of a sense of entitlement, I mean in the sense that true journalists do not feel they are fully and immediately entitled to the trust of their readers, but that they must earn that trust, and earn it through honest reporting, hard work, and a respect that readers and listeners of all social and political inclinations deserve the untouched facts, so that they may flex their own powers of deduction and come to well-reasoned conclusions. And it is a truly powerful feeling to apply logic, observation and experience to evidence, and through that intellectual process, create a conclusion. (Perhaps that is why crossword puzzles, games like Sudoku and word games provide so much allure.)
Journalists, nay, journalism, is at a crossroads: journalists can continue to provide stale, inevitable and biased “news,” or they may join a flowering renaissance of journalism as displayed proudly at Canyon News, whereby journalists work to be worthy of the public’s trust and fulfill their part in the social contract. (A respectful shout-out out to Rousseau and Locke.) Journalists would be served well to remind themselves that as inheritors of the public’s trust and guardians of a free and open society, it is best to report “just the facts,” as Sgt. Joe Friday would say.
