Discussion about this post

User's avatar
hw's avatar

Kara Swisher interviewed the historian Tom Ryback for today's episode of "On With Kara Swisher".

Ryback studied the media of pre-war Germany and shows the striking parallels to our present moment.

In particular, he notes the blitheringly nochalant coverage by the NYT, which failed to acknowledge or imagine the momentous dangers, despite the fact that Hitler (like Trump) explicitly spelled out his intentions for Germany, and the world.

Expand full comment
John A. Bolt's avatar

As a daily journalist for some 30 years, I always prided myself on being "objective." (Case in point: while I'm unalterably opposed to the death penalty, I had to cover several death penalty appeals as well as -- once -- witness an execution. I take pride in never having had my reporting attacked for being biased.)

But later in my career, I met a journalism professor who eschewed "objectivity" in favor of "neutrality" in reporting.

Whatever you want to call it however, there was a key word in Sulzberger's comments that is the most important word, and that is "context."

Without context, opinions become facts. For example, perhaps a candidate rails against the high crime rate and vows to do something about it. But if the reporter knows that crime statistics are in fact falling and below historical levels -- which happens to be the case in many places -- that needs to immediately follow the candidate's claim. That is adding "context," not opinion and gives the reader needed information to assess the candidate.

I'll never forget an editor who fussed at me for looking for an analyst on a story about American Airlines purchasing new jets. He said to me something like, "Look, John, you've been covering American Airlines and the industry for several years. YOU KNOW what buying billions of dollars worth of new jets signals. You write it."

A new world was opened to me and I like to think I was a more complete reporter after that.

PS: As an editor, I once caused quit a stir when I told a reporter, in the immediate aftermath, maybe the next day, of the April 19, 1993 tragedy in Waco, TX, to try to find out what was going on in the house as it burned down.

Naturally, we couldn't get to any of the survivors because they were in jail (or maybe the hospital). So I told him to talk to the lawyers and get them to tell them how their clients had described it.

To avoid a story full of "he saids" and "the attorney relayed" or other such cumbersome attribution and build a cohesive, continuous story, I had the reporter write one paragraph high in the story explaining the attribution and how we got the information. He wrote: "This is their story, gleaned from lawyers who spoke with six of them now jailed on charges that include conspiracy and murder."

Following that came a narration of the events as assembled from the various interviews. (Here a link to the story: https://greensboro.com/.../article_420fa1ce-5e3f-557c....)

This happened to be with The Associated Press, and the story moved on national lines pretty much as it. Editors from around the country called demanding attribution. I was thankful that higher up editors than me stood by the story.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts