How Truthful Are Newspapers?

Great Debates
21

So, if the movie “Patton” is correct and General Patton actually did tell the reporters that his remarks were off the record, these reporters’ careers would be greatly hampered?

I thought this wasn’t true any longer, because I seem to remember hearing something to the effect that in Washington nothing was off the record. But someone could tell the reporter that the remark was “not for attribution”. Rather than identify the person, instead the reporter would use a circumlocution like “a senior White House official” or “a State Department source”.

22

There isn’t really a factual answer to this question. It’s more of a debate.

Off to Great Debates.

DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator

23

I can’t speak for what happens in the US, only in Australia. In every conversation I have had with a journo I always assumed that it was “on-the-record” unless I asked that it be “background”, “not for quoting”, “off-the-record” or “don’t put my f***ing name on this” and the journo had specifically agreed to that condition. Even then, I’ve always been extremely careful about what I said (even if they don’t quote you it is usually pretty obvious to those in the know where it has come from).

Asking to have something “off-the-record” only works where:
*you have sufficient power that the journo implicitly knows that you could put the word around that they weren’t to be trusted in such conversations if they were to break your trust.
*the journo is a very trustworthy person (in which case I would still refer you to the dot-points in my previous post).

In essence it still works (at least in Australian politics) because its useful for both groups and the journos know better than to throw away their reputation for a short term gain. However, it wouldn’t work for Joe Bloggs in the street because there is no chance of a longer term relationship or a credible threat.

Nor would I have spoken off the record to a journo that I didn’t know or at least know by reputation. For example, I never tried to have off the record conversations with journos from small town, local or regional papers unless I knew them pretty well.

I wondered how long this was going to take to be moved to GD

24

—This explains the fact that media coverage of watershed political and social issues, such as abortion, gun control, welfare, etc., is heavily slanted to the left.—

This is a rather controversial claim in itself. I’ve heard it made before, and backed up with purported statistics, but the statistics are often quite misleading (and sometimes baseless, like the assertion that NPR never has pro-life voices on their reports and interviews, which is simply false). Part of the problem is what defines slant. For many people, simply reporting certain uncontroversial facts too often (and not others) is considered bias. But often there are much more plausible reasons as to why certain events are covered more often, and often it’s dollars that determine what gets reported, not bias.

I have a cousin who’s an up and coming national TV anchor, and I’ve gotten some perspective from him into what gets covered nationally and what doesn’t. It’s rarely what anyone thinks: the way choices get made is rarely polictical, and very often all about marketing. (Because of this, I don’t have a lot of respect for his journalism actually, even calling it journalism.) The last election was particularly laughable, focusing on stereotyped character traits and utterly baseless pop-psychoanalysis of various figures. Liberal or conservative, there was plenty to make one sick and suspect of bias (since liberals are more likely to notice the frippery that seemed to play fast and loose with liberals, and vice-versa for conservatives: but the reality was just that almost everything was frippery)

25

Actually, I work in TV - so I never get to make up quotes! The lip-synching would look terrible!!

I did once hear of a TV reporter who claimed they’d actually manage to do this unobtrusively - dubbing the audio of a street name that the interviewee had quoted later over an earlier quote (eg the subject says “it happened in the school road” and “postoffice road” was dubbed over with them saying “London Road” or some such) but I’ve never tried it.

Another example which you may find ethical or not (it’s not something again that I’ve ever had to do) was told to me by a BBC radio journalist. He interviewed an eminent historian who was just totally incoherent and impossible to edit, even sound-only. So he made a transcript of what the guy said, reworded bits of it so it sounded better, then went back to the guy. He told him there had been some “technical error” but to save time he had written down what the historian had said - could he possibly re-record his answers. It worked, and the historian apparently sounded much better than he otherwise would have.

Obviously it’s a very grey area - and I don’t know if I would ever do it. I would hope I wouldn’t ever had to make that decision. I do know that I WOULD hire that journo for making the best of a difficult situation.

Creating quotes for people is often acceptable in other areas. Ever seen a press release? Those quotes are never real. They are made up by the PR/press officer, and sent to the “speaker” for approval. Which is why they sound far more like cut-and-pastes from the company’s corporate blurb (which they often are!) than actual speech.

I have worked for newspapers before, and I’ve actually nearly always been very lucky in drawing out reticent or shy subjects. The yes/no was a bad example sure, - however even with leading questions as you must know you can get a subject who gives one-word answers. And it makes it harder for both the journo and the subject in terms of getting the story across.

Obviously the example I gave was a very soft, “colour” story. You wouldn’t use it for most other cases. You certainly wouldn’t use it for a legal expert or a politician etc, where any alteration of their words spells LAWSUIT. But it does go on certainly with the colour stories in UK tabloids - I’ve sent them un-edited quotes only to have seen them considerably “jazzed up” by the sub-eds when the actual story makes print.

Yes - also if you know the journo well. Newspaper journalists especially tend to build up long-term and good relationships with important “contacts” - and would not (unless they were very stupid) jeopardise them with dishonesty.

Another situation is that a police officer, eg, tells you something off-the-record. He may actually want it exposed, or not mind, but his job is on the line if it gets out connected to him. In this case the journo needs to get the same thing from another source. Often the officer might even drop a few hints or point directly to where you could get that other source. So in this case you are able to use his off-the-record comments, but by getting them from a second-party.

26

I know a guy who’s a sport journalist who says that making up quotes is absolutely routine in his industry. The quotes are based on what the person actually said though, for example:

Journalist to David Beckham: “David, were you happy with your performance today?”
Beckham: “Yeah.”
Article in newspaper: “Beckham told us, ‘I’m quite happy with my performance today’.”

Of course, you do have to keep in mind that in the world of sport reporting you aren’t dealing with the sharpest tools in the box, so limiting quotes to genuine quotes would make for rather painful reading. However, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that journalists in other fields have the same practice.

Getting back to political reporting, another thing to consider apart from outright bias is which source(s) the newspaper is getting its information from. Throughout most of the Northern Ireland conflict the British media considered the army to be inherently more reliable than republican or nationalist sources, resulting in the publication of numerous (now documented) instances of flat out falsehoods as fact, often without any presentation whatever of the counter argument. I take everything I read in the British media about Northern Ireland with a grain of salt, and I would do the same with the U.S. media’s reporting on Afghanistan, for example.

27

TV time wrote:
"Yes, some get some facts wrong. On the average a reporter will talk to between 35 and 50 people each week working on between 10 and 20 stories.

Yes, that’s the rub! Mostly too many stories in a too short time.

Reporters reporting from “over there”:

  • I know (not personally) one Good (in Norhern Europe) Journalist. He is quite famous for going to any war, to any bandits lurking in the bushes, or what ever, and he is still alive.

Then there was another guy that got caught for that when he was writing about The Soviet-war in Afganistan, he was actually in Amsterdam! He had another story going on as well.
He got caught, but just to defend him a little bit, he had a co-worker “on the spot”, which in this case means Kabul (reporting to the reporter about fights some 400 km from Kabul.
So this Famous Reporter I first mentioned, was asked, on TV, how many times he has been alone, without colleques, somewhere “on the spot”?
He looked a little bit anxious, what it all was about and said nothing…
Then he was shown a newspaper that wrote something quite different from his story, and asked if has he met this guy.
The Good Reporter said nothing, went to his hotel-room and came back with a official news release from the actual government.
That the Famous Reporter was there on the spot, was quite without questions, because he had photographs that could not be faked (if You do not have very good contacts with Hollywood).

I think, personally, that many stories like; “The Crisis in XX-land” are made based on news that comes from “local sources” and that is often happening in the capital of the country.
I’m not saying that the reporters are directly interviewing each other in the hotel lobby, but sometimes the stories are quite far from the actual… what-ever. Or they simply does not put their neck’s out to find “the other story” as well.
And why should they, if there “back home” is someone re-editing everything so that it will be “suitable”.

And I also understand that, because only sick people want to see how a human is swollen up before blown up when over-rideded by a tank. That is on 8 mm camera film.
Or when I was told about Afganistan, by a guy in the special troops some decade ago…
I will not retell it, just say that war is crazy.

I do not believe in reporters. I personally give, if asked, every answer in printed form.
If they do not have time for that, it’s their problem. I once got misquoted and I had a problem.

28

Yeah ruadh - it does.

With some people - and sportsmen can be notorious (hell they’re athletes, not orators) for being monosyllabic, it’s the only way. Also, it’s not really dishonest as such.

The alternative would be either entirely reported speech:

When asked if he was happy about his performance today, David Beckham replied that he was.

or

When asked if he was happy about his performance today, David Beckham replied “yeah”.

The first is OK, but it lacks the action and immediacy that actual dialog gives.

The second makes Beckham sound a bit dumb/ineloquent.

There’s probably a hundred different ways you could write this, but as a journo and as a reader I see nothing wrong or misrepresentative with your version.

29

As a journalism student, I’m finding all this very interesting. So, keep on. Tell me what you never ever want to see me do in my career as a journo. :slight_smile:

and re this:

What I think would have worked best:

“Beckham said that he was quite happy with his performance today.”

It’s almost a direct quote, so it has the dynamism that Istara was speaking of above, but it does not directly attribute the statement to him.

30

Oh, sorry… “Beckham said that he was happy with his performance today”.

The word ‘quite’ was never mentioned.

31

I cannot comment on that at this time.

32

I tend to believe little newspapers such as Overthrow.

33

Cool gex gex - you’re hired!

Just so long as you spell colour and centre correctly…

Want to know the WORST piece of broadcast journalism I ever saw?

Situation: plane crash into a mountain somewhere in SE Asia. Maybe 200 dead, 120 at back of plane survive. Horror wreckage, injuries, dying people, rescue workers, frantic relatives, etc etc.

Shot: Australian reporter crouching next to stretcher with “survivor” on it, holding out mike:

Question: “So, three Aussies on the plane, and three Aussies survive! What does that say about Australians?”

34

Sheesh, don’t they teach the difference between direct and indirect quotes in European journalism schools? It’s a very simple rule: If the words didn’t actually come out of the speaker’s mouth, do not put those words in quotation marks.

35

Gex -

You want some tips on good journalistic behavior? Some pet peeves of mine pertaining to the press’s handling of contraversial topics:

  • If you get a quote from one side, make damn sure you get a quote from the other side. And make sure that the sources are of equal validity. Example:

“Proliferation of guns leads to greater safety, overall”, said Ed Edwardson, lead gun-control researcher at MIT. But not all people agree: “Guns lead to more people getting hurt - they’re a bad idea, overall”, said Tennessee housewife Donna Donnason.

This makes Donna’s opinion sound just as informed and well-reasearched as Ed’s, even though Donna’s opinion is likely purely anecdotal.

  • If you’re going to label one side with adjectives, make sure you label them both. One of the most often cited stats is that the press uses “conservative” to describe conservatives a lot more frequently than it uses “liberal” to describe liberals. Try to avoid words like “extremist” and “radical” unless they really fit. Example:

“Radical conservative Dick Armey responded to Cynthia McKinney’s position with skepticism.”

In the above example, if Dick Armey is a “radical conservative”, Cynthia McKinney is certainly a “radical liberal”. Ideally, I would say don’t use adjectives like “liberal” and “conservative” at all. “Dick Armey ®” and “Cynthia McKinney (D)” are preferable, and more objective.

If you do need to use “liberal” and “conservative”, remember that those terms should be used relative to mainstream America, not to yourself (I don’t know your political affiliation, and I don’t care). This is a common problem in journalism. Journalists are predominately very liberal - which is fine - but they assume anyone to the right of them must be conservative. As such, you have to be a communist before they call you a liberal, but they’ll refer to Hillary Clinton as a conservative or moderate.

  • Don’t be scared of descriptors that are accurate if they do apply. The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank - it says so, itself. Charles Manson is a convicted murderer - refer to him as such. Usama Bin Laden is a terrorist, by definition. It’s okay to call him that. Newspapers that have no problem referring to a pro-lifer as a radical extremist, yet call the 9/11 terrorists “freedom fighters”, are annoying.

  • Probably not within your control, but this still annoys me: If an article is a “news story”, it should not have an editorial slant. If it is an editorial, it should be labeled as such. I once read a CNN headline on the front news that stated something to the effect of “Bush’s So-Called ‘Education Plan’ Will Supposedly Help Children”. It could have been subtitled “Yeah, right” and it wouldn’t have sounded more derogatory. Something like “‘My education plan will help children’, says Bush” would have been more appropriate.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your career.
Jeff

36

ElJeffe:

I agree, this doesn’t sound right, but is it a true quote? Part of the problem is in defining the labels. Most conservatives happily label themselves as such, and the term can be defined as someone who takes the familiar conservative positions across the board (with the glaring exception that not all pro-gun/anti-tax conservatives are religious). But non-conservatives are all over the map, and “liberal” is a label that more and more people are shying away from because it’s used perjoratively and is subject to some pretty outragous stereotyping.

First, you seem to be doing just that, second a person whose position is unchanged shouldn’t be re-labeled just because the majority has shifted. The terms should be defined according to an objective standard.

“Very” liberal? I don’t think so. And again, conservatives tend to strongly embrace both the label and the positions.

Liberalism has nothing to do with communism, and is this a true quote from a mainstream journalist about Hillary Clinton being “conservative”?

Are these true quotes by mainstream newspapers?

37

This is one of two rules to follow about this sort of thing. Never say anything to anyone, and not just journalists, that you don’t want made public. It is unquestionably true that three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.

The other rule to remember is that all microphones are always “live.”

A possible corollary to the first rule would be, if you do say something for publication expect it to be misquoted at least a little, edited so as to mean something else, or so garbled you look like an idiot.

38

You know what really, REALLY pisses me off as a journalist? This could be a Pit thread of its own, but it’s relevant here, so I’ll write it. Stupid, arrogant, paranoid members of the public with such an inflated sense of their own self-important that they assume any media contact is going to be some huge documentary “sting” into their boring bloody lives.

99.999999% of the time the interview is usually informative or emotive - we want your opinon, your view, info about your company, how you feel - we’re not trying to get you to admit to the rape, torture and murder of your CFO and embezzlement of a billion dollars of company funds.

IF your company has just hit the skids, then obviously, we’re going to probe. IF we start asking odd or uncomfortable questions, then yes, we may have been tipped off to another story.

But if you’re a scientist who’s just made a discovery - controversial or not - I just want to know about it, to tell our viewers/listeners. I’m not trying to expose you as a fraud, or pervert, or disprove your research.

If you’re the bereaved widow of a man killed in a hit and run, I’m not trying to probe into your personal affairs, or find out if you were sleeping with his brother - I just want (and ONLY if you are comfortable speaking to me) for you to communicate that grief so it makes a moving story and reaches the public, and maybe long-term helps increase public awareness of the need for better road safety.

If you’re a politician - I want your opinion, your policies, your news, your plans. I’m not every single time trying to find out if you did some dodgy real estate deal for party money six years ago.

If you’ve just launched a product, and I ask you about it, and your expansion/manufacturing plans, I’m not necessarily trying to do a story on child labour at your factories. I’m just interested in your company, and how it’s doing, and your new product.

I am trying to write a STORY. You have the chance to make and help form that story with the information that it is beneficial for you to get across. I want to make it in interesting and novel for our readers, you have a chance at free publicity, whether personal or professional.

So for god’s sake treat me with the respect I treat you, the politeness I afford you, and use common sense rather than paranoia and a shut-door attitude, or you’ll piss me off AND make me suspicious, and by god THEN I’ll start digging…

39

Entitled much, istara? You’re being ridiculous. If you’re talking to “the bereaved widow of a man killed in a hit and run,” you have no right in the world to expect her to cooperate with you, your story, or your profession. Nor do you have any right to expect that scientists, CEOs, and politicians are just dying to have you butt into their business for the sake of filling air time or column inches. So for god’s sake, treat them with respect and if they don’t give you everything you’d like, that’s YOUR problem, not theirs.

40

Regarding the reporting of plain, objective facts and nothing more:

Quite apart from the problems in ascertaining a completely objective account of an event, news is also about interpreting meaning. Reporting the passing of a piece of legislation is only informing your readership in a very limited sense; what, to my mind, is equally important is explaining what it means and why it is important (or not). Interpreting meaning will obviously be coloured to a degree by beliefs of the journalist, editor or proprietor of the newspaper.