Professional journalists have saved lives, and may save yours
From Twitter, fall 2016
Professional journalists took a beating throughout this election season, culminating in a widely shared photo of a man at a Trump rally wearing a shirt that said, “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required.” But throughout the past year, it was people all over the political spectrum who repeatedly skewered “the media” (without specificity) for a variety of perceived infractions including both creating Donald Trump and trying to destroy him. This type of vague scapegoating not only lumps together thousands of different outlets providing crucial information to the public – sometimes at a risk – but prevents us from finding real solutions to improve specific types of reporting. Meanwhile, the man in the t-shirt may someday, fortunately, find that a news organization exposes a safety hazard in his children’s school, reports on an injustice against him or a group he belongs to, or assists him in obtaining public document he needs when no one else can help.
In the last year, an estimated thirty-eight journalists were killed because of their profession, and it’s estimated that more than fifty were held captive at the end of last year. Within American borders, journalists published stories about the overuse of pharmaceuticals to treat foster children in California, about a murder suspect who was let out of jail erroneously in Kentucky, and about landlords ignoring housing laws in New York City. These stories over the last two years were not the kind to generate large profits or ratings, yet they’re among the types of public-service pieces published in media outlets every day. Many people have heard about the two convictions earlier this month of ex-officials in New Jersey who put millions of innocent lives at risk by tying up traffic as part of an alleged revenge plot. A newspaper reporter writing a traffic column, of all things, was among the first people to raise questions about the scandal. Despite the financial constraints faced by media organizations, they’re still around shining a light on the truth.
Both young and veteran reporters may be subject to harassment or legal threats while trying to get public information on the campaign trail or at their town hall, and who will speak up for them? Right now, reporters are slipping across foreign borders to report local conflagrations that can lead to world wars. These are the professionals who are indirectly drubbed when one makes an offhanded comment about “the press.”
Of course, some of the media criticism this year has been specific. A frequent complaint was that “the media” covered Donald Trump’s candidacy too often, or too early in the race. However, it would have been a greater transgression to not cover him. It insults the public to assume that they can’t look at facts about the candidates, and statements directly from them, and decide whether they’re worth reacting to. It’s also possible that the modern stew of television reporting, print media, blogs, and social media gives a false impression that there’s more coverage than there is. A channel surfer is likely to see the same faces over and over. One news outlet can’t avoid an important story because other news outlets are covering it. And like any other companies, media sources need to compete with each other to stay alive and continue to provide a service. The networks or newspapers who reported early on the Trump candidacy may have been more prescient than the rest of us. (Ironically, the same people who complained that the candidate was overexposed were the ones who mentioned his name over and over on social media.)
Certainly, this election was not without alleged abuses of the public trust and possible episodes of smugness and self-righteousness. A CNN contributor resigned after being accused of sending debate questions to a campaign. I have read detailed, cogent articles addressing true media concerns, and that’s the point – detailed criticisms with specific examples can put heat where it needs to be. Yet few industries are so broadly blamed. No one skewers “the doctors” after malpractice lawsuits or “the contractors” after a fraud inquiry. With so many choices of where to get information, it makes little sense to paint ”the media” with the same brush or give consumers an excuse to avoid seeking out the facts from various venues at once. (TV networks, newspapers, and blogs are not the same.) Media outlets can always do better, but we also need consumers to engage in a good-faith dialogue with their media when something is done right and when something is done wrong.
The newest problem, which came to light after this essay was originally written (right around election day), was the growing issue of “fake news” sites that publish information that’s partly or completely fabricated and then not checked by readers who spread it. Readers should understand that legitimate news media prints corrections, evolves when it hears from its readers, and can be sued if if it makes a mistake (particularly in print). There’s a standard of truth and fact checking that’s been around for a while. Legitimate news outlets also take your complaints. But who has heard of an on-line fake news site printing a correction or having to worry about being sued for saying something untrue? If you avoid all long-time news sources, or only look at once source that confirms your own bias, you’re also avoiding quite a lot of legitimate information on which you can base your decisions. It’s best to consider a host of sources and make up your mind.
News outlets are in an unusual position. They can’t be funded by government grants or incentives, lest they be accused of bias toward the very government they’re meant to scrutinize. Where, then, can the money come from? Sometimes from advertising, subscriptions, in some cases the owners. Competition from internet advertising makes it hard for longstanding publications to keep plugging away, yet they do in small and large ways. Those who want media to stick around might find a publication they like and subscribe to it, or share its public service articles with others.
What I’ve learned in nearly twenty-five years writing and editing investigative stories, essays, and (at times) satire is that the press is equipped to do the most good when its readers interact and support it — by providing news tips, asking questions about coverage (rather than making assumptions), and taking further steps to make sure an investigative story spurs change. A well researched article makes a dent when it results in a petition, letter, or other reaction from readers, but many stories that take hard work fail to draw a response. Journalists are just as dedicated as they were in the days of Watergate, but shoulder larger workloads and have fewer colleagues hunting down a story. Of course, they make mistakes like everyone, but that will change when their critics give constructive criticism rather than using the profession as a whipping post.
Investigative and public service stories can be found in all places, from the more than 1,000 print newspapers still in existence, to newer online outlets like ProPublica, to even regional magazines that publish longform stories (Texas Monthly, Boston Magazine, and Yankee Magazine have published eye-openers on everything from immigration to terrorism in the past few years). If you want better media, think about whom you’re referring to when you criticize “the press.” And when you find a worthy news story, share it with others. If you don’t like sensational reporting, then slide your mouse away from the clickbait. In a time when people wear t-shirts suggesting violence toward an entire profession, it’s more important than ever to support those whose job it is to seek the truth.
��