Accuracy is the first cardinal rule of journalism.
Accuracy is the second cardinal rule of journalism.
And accuracy is the third cardinal rule of journalism.
Do you see a pattern here?
Accuracy is so crucial to journalism because it is a matter of credibility. People count on the news being believable, because they plan their lives by it, at least in democratic republics.
By “accuracy,” of course we mean content. The facts in the story must be accurate. The more important the story, the more important that content be accurate. The Founding Fathers understood that. The media in America is granted what amounts to absolute constitutional power to develop content that is accurate and complete. So great is this First Amendment media power that a body of law called defamation law has developed through the courts to give citizens protection against media abuse of its power.
Most importantly, content must be accurate to the person that the story is about. Journalists working on stories about powerful people like presidents won’t publish information that hasn’t been confirmed by at least three sources. If they do, they are asking for the kind of trouble into which CBS News plunged after rushing the story last year about George W. Bush’s military records.
By “accuracy” we also mean spelling, punctuation and grammar. If you think the First Amendment is tough, try getting into San Diego State’s entry-level journalism class without passing the GSP. GSP stands for “Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation.” GSP is so important to accuracy because of the wine and sewage reality: If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel of sewage, you get sewage. If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel of wine, you get sewage.
If a consumer sees an error of grammar, spelling or punctuation in a story, the story loses credibility: “If this person can’t be bothered to spell and punctuate correctly, and employ correct grammar, then how can I trust this person to provide me a believable story about the state budget?” Or City Hall? Or the symphony? Or the Super Bowl?
Mistakes happen all the time, because mistakes happen. Some journalism instructors will assign an automatic grade of zero to any student’s work in which an error appears. I can’t do that, because I have committed errors myself. I tell my own students that I truly hope they pass their entire media careers without an error, but that is not likely. They will learn to work hard to avoid errors, though, because it is the errors they will remember, even above the Pulitzer Prizes. In 1978, in a story in The San Diego Union, I got a name wrong. The name in question was Bogle, or Bogen. He was a PSA pilot. I forget which was the incorrect one, but that’s the one I used, and it pains me to this day.
It pains me because it is a matter of credibility. It’s not my own personal credibility – I was trying to do the correct thing – but what is important is that as a professional journalist, I am a ward of the people’s demand for credibility. The media did not create the three cardinal rules of journalism. People did. In fact any of the tools the media uses to do its job were not created by the media. They were created by people. The tools of media existed among people long before the media came into existence. When it did, it simply took those tools and turned them into a business.
That is the reality that assures me today. The media appears to be under attack by the Bush Administration, or by organizations and individuals linked to the administration, who have developed a cottage industry of passing off fake news as the real thing. Pundits worry about the effect of the fake real thing on the real real thing. Frankly, I worry about a president, the top defender of the Constitution, who would let it happen.
But I don’t worry too much, because in our democratic dynamic of checks and balances, there is a huge check coming that will restore balance. Not all people, but more than enough to make the difference, understand instinctively the importance of credibility to their well-being, and their freedom, and their self-interest, and they won’t accept their media any other way. They are starting to sense that something is wrong, that someone is using their tools the wrong way, and they will fix it. And the real media will get to write about it. Something to look forward to.
Great blog. I think it was Thomas Jeffereson who said, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." Keep up the great work Mr. Grant.
ReplyDeleteOr, on the other hand, perhaps the Bush Administration and the conservative majority is under attack by the media, and organizations and individuals linked to the media which has long developed as an industry willing to pass off fake news as the real thing, typified by Dan Rather. I worry about it, because few in the media take on the responsibility for criticising what happened. Where are the investigative journalists beating the bushes (no pun intended) trying to find out where Rather's phoney documents came from, who provided them, and courageously give us the story, the real true story?
ReplyDeleteTo many outside observers, the huge check has now arrived to balance what has been out of hand for a long time, in the form of conservative news outlets, bloggers, and the like. The mainstream media had sacrificed it's credibility years ago to preach a liberal orthodoxy. No longer do the liberal MSM have it all to themselves. Pretty soon, few will read or listen to the traditional MSM anymore. Not all people, but it's already more than enough to make a difference.
One reality that bloggers must soon realize, if they are to become players
ReplyDeleteat all, is that without accountability there is no credibility. An
unsigned opinion is no opinion at all. Nor is there much reason (re the
wine and sewage reality) to trust the content of a blogger who can't be
bothered to distinguish between "its" and "it's."
Whoa! And I'm sitting here laughing at that last exchange. That "its" vs "it's" gets 'em every time. And now I'm looking with a narrowed eye on the abbreviation for "them" I just wrote. :)))
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but in the contest of ideas, what difference does it make whether I am Karl Rove or Aunt Jemima? Anyway, one of the choices on your blogesphere was Anonymous, so here ya go!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to get fouled up on the "its" vs. "it's" mess. I knew going to a cheap public state university, not an English major would eventually be a disadvantage later in life, and so it may be.
Back to accuracy and credibility. A great many folks think that the mainstream media has sacrificed its credibility on the altar of liberal bias. While I have been mulling about this, I was startled to be joined by Nicholas Kristof, weeping and wailing about it in the NY Times. After conceding that one thing Dems and Reps "agree on is that the news media are not trustworthy", Mr. Kristof decries a charge of "arrogance" on the part of journalists as "grossly unfair". How arrogant!
Who says who is a journalist anyway? How can you tell a rogue reporter from a real one? Is there a licensing agency, an objective set of minimum standards? Or is it anyone who happens to be on a payroll of an organization that claims to be in journalism? Unlike the case with lawyers, doctors, dry-cleaners, masseuses or car salesmen, I’ve never heard of a license or a qualification standard to be a journalist. Degree? Experience? Training? Fingerprints? Background checks? Like the weekend poker game, guts or better to open? Maybe a real reporter ought to investigate and report.
Who watches the watchdog to check how an event was reported compared to what actually occurred? How knowledgeable are these “real journalists?” Many times I have read an account of something I participated in or knew something about, and found the account to be either misleading or lacking critical detail to have it understandable. That makes me wonder if the same thing occurs in stories that I had no knowledge or personal involvement.
One thing so-called journalists ought to be concerned about. As each institution of American life has proven itself to be untrustworthy, it has been reined in and regulated. A century ago, it was unthinkable for government to regulate business. Now it is unthinkable not to. They found out they couldn’t trust those guys to sell unadulterated foods, medicines, employ honest weights and measures, or tell the truth about securities they were selling. Two centuries ago, and even up to fairly recent times, a maxim of jurisprudence was that “the king could do no wrong.” Now, it seems “the king” can do no right. Just ask Rocque de la Fuente (The City of San Diego owes him about $100 million for messing with him developing Otay Mesa), or Mike Aguirre. Freedom abused is freedom soon regulated. That is the real lesson of Dan Rather’s stupid stunt. It revealed a bias so strong, a news organization so arrogant, and therefore so untrustworthy that it sold its credibility to make its biased point. If you don’t care enough to cheat, you don’t care enough to win, as lawyers sometimes say.