On Accurate Reporting

and correction policies, what to expect, and where should your trust lie?

A commentary

I had a discussion with an irritated friend the other day. He was upset about a news report he happened to hear on the radio. This friend felt the news report was a bit misleading and misrepresented. We talked about what a person should do when something like that happens.

Beyond notifying the particular source of incorrect information, I'm not sure there is much the average citizen (or below or above average citizen?) can do to correct mistakes made in the media or at a Web log, for that matter.

Being in the somewhat unique position of having been an outsider looking in, then an insider looking out, to return to being an outsider, oftentimes, looking in, again, I think I have some things that might add to such a discussion. Also, you should recognize, I have no masters degree in journalism, experience, perhaps, but, no educational credentials.

One issue my friend had was that when incorrect information or misleading insinuations are made within a report, people form opinion, potentially, based on incorrect foundations. It is a problem, and if you are like me, you don't subscribe to the "Springfield News-Leader," (and I use them as an example, you could apply this to any news source) then you rely on a link, mostly obscure, which sits under the heading of, simply, "Correction." There is no indication to what issue or error the correction applies, no eye grabbing, intrigue inspiring enticement to cause your curiosity to be aroused to see what the correction of the day happens to be.

Newspaper articles have catchy titles, and are supposed to have catchy leeds, crafted to draw the reader in and hold their attention to the end of the article. Not so with generic "correction" links.

Oftentimes, if one clicks on a correction link at the News-Leader (again, just my example for the purposes of this entry) one will find some trivial mistake has been corrected, such as a misspelled name or the wrong name being placed as a caption under a picture. Nothing exciting and nothing that would inspire one to think it was particularly important to follow corrections at the paper every day. I'm not sure what, if anything, needs to be or, could be done about that.

In Saturday's News-Leader you'll find these corrections, listed under that generic "Correction" link:

"The $68,100 cut by City Council from the budget for the Springfield Human Rights Commission is from the city's general fund. It was incorrectly identified as grant money in a Friday story.

------

To clarify a Friday story on Shelly Lea Compton: She was charged with possession of a controlled substance."

You'll also find this statement:

"The News-Leader strives for accuracy and fairness. To request a correction, call Robyn Bates at 836-1112."

I don't question whether the News-Leader strives for accuracy and fairness. I'm sure they do, as an organizational policy. [I believe the N-L correction above, about the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights budget being cut by $68,100, needs corrected too. I think that is the total budget and the cut Council is discussing is $67,100] And, I haven't noticed, of late, any particular, notable tendency toward bias in any of their reporting but, as is the case with all news organizations, they depend on individual reporters to get the facts correct and report them fairly for them. And therein lies the proverbial rub. Individual integrity comes into play.

Journalists are not infallible any more than bloggers, though I like to think those who consider themselves professional journalists work a little harder at fact gathering and in the consideration of all sides of an issue than bloggers, as a general rule, unless, of course, they are blogging as a part of their duty for a news organization.

Getting paid to do something and being affiliated or associated with a particular news organization does bring with it an accompanying burden of responsibility, at least it did for me because, at the time I was writing for CFP, I realized my reporting didn't simply have an affect on my own credibility but, also on the paper for which I reported. I think, since I am no longer paid or affiliated through association with the "Community Free Press" that I might be more inclined to slack off a bit. That is a tendency I try to keep in check.

But, there's a second point I felt I wanted to share today.

Yesterday, (Friday) CFP staff reporter Brian Brown left a comment on one of my blog entries. He commented that he thought a certain reporter for the News-Leader "has done a really good job on his CU stories this week," and don't get me wrong, the reporter probably has done "a really good job on his CU stories this week" but, I don't know, for sure, if he has or not, and you don't either unless you have attended all of the meetings pertaining to that issue, and have been privy to conversations held between that reporter and the people he has interviewed and quoted.

Now, it should be noted CFP's Brian Brown knows more about the issue than I do because he has interviewed those involved in the CU/eminent domain issue. Therefore, when Brown compliments the News-Leader reporter's work, it has more credence than if I did, since I've interviewed no one on the issue, personally, though I've kept up on the media reports on the issue.

In the past, I have discovered a little error here, and a little error there, sometimes a more substantial error here, and more substantial error there, in some of the reports I've read in the News-Leader about various issues. The same is true of some of the reports I have seen at local television news stations. But, let's face it, if I had not been present, personally present, at some of the meetings that were being reported upon, I would never have known the reporting was not factually correct in some areas or, that it did not seem to adequately and appropriately reflect both sides of an issue. So, I assume that News-Leader reporter has probably done a good job reporting on the CU/eminent domain issue. For the record, I was in attendance when the Council discussed the issue of CU's potential taking of Becky Spence's land through eminent domain, and at the meeting Spence called at the library on South Campbell, however, I have not spoken to anyone at City Utilities on the matter.

So, I wrote all the above to, really, just to offer these thoughts, in summary:

There are no infallible reporters or journalists, and unless you have attended the meetings which they are reporting upon yourself, you really can't know whether good, accurate, fair reports are being issued. You can "think" they are reporting well on an issue but, you can't really know unless you know the issue for yourself.

I don't think it wise to trust and have faith that journalists and reporters are fairly and accurately bringing you their reports without really knowing whether these fallible journalists and reporters deserve that trust and faith, in other words, individual journalists and reporters are in a position of needing to build that trust.

What's the answer? If you really want to know the facts you need to attend all the meetings surrounding any issue which you believe is important. It is not an easily complied with answer. We all want to have trust and faith in journalists and reporters because it is much easier to do than to take responsibility and find out the facts for ourselves. They get paid to do that, we don't.

Because journalists and reporters are paid to issue reports, and it's their job to attend those meetings, they have the time to attend them, we don't always have the time to attend all the meetings surrounding an issue which we believe is important.

So, what's the other choice? Caution. Simply recognize that journalists and reporters are not infallible and they will sometimes fail you. Recognize that unless you've been to every meeting, you're working from a vantage point of ignorance until you find out the answers for yourself.

This isn't meant to suggest you can't form opinions based on the reporting of journalists or bloggers, sure you can but, recognize you are forming opinions based on second hand information, and in the case of bloggers, sometimes you are even forming your opinions based on the opinions of those who might, also, have formed them based on the same second hand information that you have accessed. Recognize, too, you might get just as valuable information from a non-journalist, who attended the meetings you did not attend, as you do from that paid and credentialed journalist, however, the non-journalist might not be quite so articulate in the telling as a trained reporter. On the other hand, sometimes the non-journalist might be more articulate than a trained reporter...I know some people that qualify in that category, as well.

Never forget, we live in the "Show Me State," not the "Tell Me State," or the "Write Me State."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hats

We all wear different hats

Recently it was called to my attention there is a letter that a City Council candidate has written to which he did not wish to sign his own name. In his words, "...since I'm a ca(n)didate I believe it is wrong for me to have my name on it."

The candidate, Tom Martz, has a record of being very outspoken and active regarding city issues in Springfield and has, on more than one occasion, spoken before the City Council in City Council chambers. I applaud him for taking such an interest and being so active in local politics, just as I applaud any resident of Springfield who takes an active role in their own governance and in issues that impact their lives and the lives of their neighbors.

In fact, Mr. Martz became the acting Chief Petitioner on behalf of the petitioners requesting a State audit of the City of Springfield. Councilman Doug Burlison had been the Chief Petitioner but, after his election to the City Council in April 2007, it was my understanding that Mr. Burlison felt continuing to be the Chief Petitioner would be a conflict of interest or, could be perceived as such.

Because Mr. Martz is active in City government politics and is a candidate for City Council he's definitely on my radar screen, as are all City Council candidates and, quite often, those who speak at any given City Council meeting. I've sat with a number of them, interviewed a number of them by phone and have steady contact with more than one involved citizen. As a journalist, reporting on city matters, I view it as a part of my job to do so.

But, back to the topic at hand, through more than one venue, I received a copy of an email Mr. Martz sent to a google group he established for discussion among members of the Missouri Liberty Coalition. In that email, Mr. Martz wrote:

"I have a letter which I have transposed which I would like to see in the CFP (Community Free Press) and the S~N~L (Springfield News-Leader) only not with my name attached to it. Anyone who might be interested in submitting this letter send me a private e~mail and I'll send you a private copy for your review. Should after reading it you chose not to use it just let me know , no hard feelings either way. I believe what I had to say in this letter is something that the voters should know before voting, since I'm a cadidate I believe it is wrong for me to have my name on it. I don't want someone trying to promote it as an attack piece when all I have done is point out the facts.

A Springfield resident would be much appreciated for this instead of someone who does not lkive here"

It is up to the reader to decide whether it is ethical for Mr. Martz to write a letter he is unwilling to attach his signature to and appeal for a volunteer to affix their name in his stead. However, such a letter, if it is known to a newspaper would not, likely, be considered for publication.

Mr. Martz, later, indicated someone had agreed to affix their name to the letter for submission and the person who would submit it is not a member of the Missouri Liberty Coalition but, that was not before my husband, a member of that group, volunteered, unbeknownst to me, to affix his name to the letter. He tells me he had not, and has not ever, seen the letter Mr. Martz referred to.

For the record, I have not seen the letter Martz wrote about.

The private discussions on this topic that have naturally transpired between my husband and myself are not something in which I feel the public has a right to be included. However, the role my husband played must be addressed.

In an email response to Mr. Martz through the Missouri Liberty Coalition google group, Mr. Melton offered to send the letter to the publisher of the Community Free Press. He then wrote:

"I can have Jackie suggest that someone at the paper take a long look at it and put it in the CFP but they don't all ways put every thing in print. Some stuff goes on the web site as well."

I did not know that Mr. Melton was writing such an email until after he had done so and I am appalled that my husband involved himself in such a way and made a suggestion that I would be involved in the process of such a letter being either submitted or promote its publication in the Community Free Press. When it was called to my attention, naturally, I was very upset at the implication that I would play a role in its publication.

The fact of the matter is, I am a freelance contributor for the Community Free Press. It has been a priviledge I have enjoyed for two years now and I, certainly, submit more today than I did when I began 2 years ago, with my first "test" article in January of 2007, thank heavens, I think I have grown as a writer since then!

Letters to the editor at the Community Free Press can be submitted to the Community Free Press through email, through fax or via snail mail. Working as a freelance contributor I am not privy to those letters prior to their publication. I play no role in the paper's choice of which letters to include or not to include in any edition of the paper. That is not to say that I have not encouraged many people who have a myriad of thoughts and opinions on a myriad of topics to submit letters to the editor. Most recently in this entry, when I encouraged readers to submit letters to the editor wishing outgoing Managing Editor Mert Seaton well and letting him know, through the paper, he would be missed.

Mr. Melton, I believe, is proud of his wife and has on occasion implied I have greater powers of persuasion at the CFP than I actually have. I think it's a man thing. ;)

At any rate, my husband is an adult and he fancies himself a bit of a political activist however, his key interest is the FairTax issue. He's been promoting it around the area for years. It's as much his right to have an opinion as anyone. While I like his opinion of the FairTax, we disagree on many issues and get in many heated discussions about politics, social issues, etc., in our own home but, just as I make every effort in my reporting at CFP not to involve my own opinions in my reporting there, I do not involve Mr. Melton's opinions in my writing for the Community Free Press either.

I learned a lot from outgoing Managing Editor Mert Seaton and I owe him a lot. One of the first lessons he taught me when reporting for CFP is that, and I paraphrase, people don't care what you think. That is a steady refrain I keep in my mind as I go about my work for the paper. You see, I want the facts as much as anyone. I ask a lot of questions and try to keep my mouth shut as much as possible. Some people have more mouth than ears, I'd like to think I have more ears than mouth when it comes to reporting at the Community Free Press. Certainly, I have the blog here, unrelated to the paper, in which I can give my weighed opinion on things but, as my disclaimer says, "Jackie Melton writes a regular column for the Community Free Press. Her opinions are not the opinions of the Community Free Press and this blog is in no way associated with the Community Free Press."

Just as any other reporter, or freelance contributor, I wear many hats. I'm a Christian, a wife, a freelance journalist, an AWANA Spark's Club director, a sister, a step-mom, a blogger, and even a friend to a few people. Sometimes those roles bump into each other in inconvenient ways and it takes due diligence to keep them separate but, giving myself the credit I feel I am due and deserve, I think I do a very fine job of keeping them separate and will continue to try to excel no matter which hat I happen to be wearing the next time you see me.

Yes, it IS called a free press!

At The Rhetorica Network on Media/Political bias, Andy Cline wrote:

"There is no such thing as an objective point of view.

No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context, through a medium, and among individuals and groups who are situated historically, politically, economically, and socially. This state of affairs is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Bias is a small word that identifies the collective influences of the entire context of a message...."

Cline continues:

"Journalists, too, speak from political positions but usually not overtly so. The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are strong influences on the profession. But journalistic objectivity is not the pristine objectivity of philosophy. Instead, a journalist attempts to be objective by two methods: 1) fairness to those concerned with the news and 2) a professional process of information gathering that seeks fairness, completeness, and accuracy. As we all know, the ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached. But, all in all, like politics, it is an honorable profession practiced, for the most part, by people trying to do the right thing...."

So, when a blogger at the News-Leader.com Community Blogs - Ozarks Right wrote he was:

"...amazed that a citizen would criticize a news organization for ferreting out a story on violations of a SUNSHINE LAW..."

I had to wonder why and question whether he might have missed the point, entirely. I don't know that he was speaking of me when he talked about "a citizen" but I seemed to be among few (maybe the only) questioning why Tony Messenger, the Editorial Page Editor of The Springfield News-Leader has seemed so intent on taking Eckersley's side when the latter claimed he was fired for calling attention to the Governor's email retention policy. I've never questioned or objected to any "news organization for ferreting out a story" on any subject, let alone a story on violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law.

In fact, David Burtond, member of the Missouri Press Association, Southwest Missouri Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Ozarks Press Association and the International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors recently wrote, Journalists Should Expose Unethical Practices of Others in the News Media. Burtond was citing The Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics. He wrote:

"Right under the heading of "be accountable," the code says journalists should "expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.""

From Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics (this is not a complete list, I selected from it to make a point but, please, do follow the link to read the entire list):

--Deliberate distortion is never permissible.Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
--Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
--Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
--Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
--Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
--Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
--Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
--Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
--Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

Certainly, the first amendment to the constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And, I'm not formally announcing that I would like to take David Burtond's charge of holding local media accountable for perceptions of ethical violation and I should point out that The Society for Professional Journalists code of ethics is followed voluntarily by members of the media, they are not required to follow it.

The readers of Messenger's combined articles, columns and blog entries on the Eckersley/Blunt administration/Sunshine Law affair can decide whether his writings have been entirely ethical or not but certainly, I have a right, and some might even say an obligation to consider and question that aspect of the coverage.

Just another note on the Eckersley affair and journalistic integrity

It's enough of an obligation that citizens must question their government constantly, but when citizens are forced to question the press whose duty it is to question and cover that government it is likely more of an obligation than a good citizen has time to bear. It is for that reason that journalistic integrity should be, no, MUST be an issue.

Journalistic Integrity

Lacking in the press vs the Blunt administration fiasco regarding Scott Eckersley's firing

I have been trying to follow the complicated issue which, in my opinion, was trumped up against Governor Blunt and his administration regarding the Scott Eckersley firing. It started out as what should have been a simple question about which government emails fall under the Missouri Sunshine Law and which emails do not. In my opinion it has been complicated by certain journalists who have spread around gossip rather than reporting fact and who appear to have taken sides on the issue, propping up one party while disparaging the other based on their own gossip. You can follow most of the exchange I have had at the News-Leader forum in the comment section found under this article if you're interested in the discussion. This was my last entry, it was made to fellow commenter "TsTwkT":

""The documentation they have shows it was deactivated on 9/25. There's no time delay for it to kick in and the documentation was provided by the technology company."

Have you seen that documentation, TsTwkT? I'd like to see that documentation. Where might I access it? Further, where do you come by your information that "there's no time delay for it to kick in?"

Then the next obvious question would be, does the Blunt administration have the right to access a state computer used by a state employee in their own administration after he is fired?

Eckersley was an employee of the Blunt administration, the computer he used on the job was not his own. Does his employer have the right to access information stored in that state owned computer? To what degree?

Taking it out of the political realm, if you use a computer supplied by your employer at your office do you have the right to limit your employer's access to their computer should you either quit or be fired from that company? I would think that your employer would have free reign to examine their own computer, especially if, after you were fired you had challenged their reasons given for firing you in a public forum.

I think the difference between myself and some people is that I'm just not willing to jump to conclusions and I certainly don't mean to suggest I have all the answers. I just think that there are some questions that aren't being asked. Some pretty serious charges are being leveled at the Governor's office and many of them are based on rumor. This isn't the only issue that such rumored charges have been made, nor the only party that has had rumored charges leveled without any real, tangible proof of wrong doing. I suppose my question is a broader one than about Eckersley vs the Governor's office and it really has been from the start. The broader question is about certain members of the press VS the Governor's administration. How far should editorialists go in making charges without supporting them in the press? Where is the line and when is it crossed? It's a sort of a moral issue for me, I suppose.

Now, I've got other business to be about and to be honest, this issue has merely served as a bit of a diversion for me during a difficult time. When more evidence to support some of the rumors comes out I might revisit it. Oh, and I would like the links to that evidence you have alluded to from the "technology company."

Some members of the blogosphere bowed out of the discussion some time ago because they, apparently, tired of the gossip based on nothing but he said/he said. I can't say that I blame them.

For me it's been a diversion to get my mind off of the sad situation I have been going through with my Mother. She had her surgery yesterday. She lost her right leg just above the knee. This issue was something just complicated enough to allow me to occupy my mind for a few moments here and there and try to maintain a bit of sanity. But, I think it's pretty much run its course.

I want to thank all of those who have been praying for my Mother. She has some hard work ahead and continued prayer for her and my family is still appreciated.