I’m all for giving the people new or alternative sources, provided that they have expertise. However, finding experts with different POVs is different from finding experts with different skin pigmentation. Guideline #4 addresses the latter, but does not address the former.
M.E. Buckner probably said it best. I don’t think the SPJ meant that every bit of news coverage on a terrorist act or threat should include reminders that Tim McVeigh was a terrorist too - but that broad articles/features i.e. on acts by radical Muslims should make an attempt to look at other types of terrorism. I don’t see that as absolutely necessary or desirable, but it’s not as silly as calling for “balance” in every story, no matter its length or significance. Regardless, the SPJ could have been more specific about its intent.
Diversity is neat, but I get the impression the SPJ wants it to be the dominant thing on reporters’ minds, while it would be preferable in my view for them to seek the facts from qualified observers/experts without overly obsessing over whether the panel of sources has the correct balance of skin tones or religious affiliation.
As to including mentions of "left-wing’ terrorists, there’s always Teddy Kaczynski, though I tend to think of him and Tim McVeigh as far-out loons rather than being of the left or right.
As to this decembrist comment:
“Re #5: At one time there seemed to be an unwritten rule among some of the liberal media that criticism of Democrats should always include mention of Republicans who had done something similar. E.g., a New York Times editorial criticizing some current act of venallity by a Democrat would always refer to some act of venality by some Republican. OTOH, current Republican venality could be criticized with no mention of Democrats. This practice tended to give the impression that Republicans were more venal than Democrats.”
Might we see some documentation of this “unwritten rule”? Not that it isn’t fun to see another IIRC-fest made up of recovered memories. 
Jackmannii asks:
<<Might we see some documentation of this “unwritten rule”? >>
As wring astutely noted, there’s no cite for the unwritten rule, because it’s not written.
Seriously, I remember having seen this rule of thumb pointed out by media critics some time in the past. I made some effort to find a cite, but have not succeeded so far.
“If I remember correctly” has been replaced by “I remember having seen”.
No facts. Status quo. Par for the course. Over and out.
Guideline #2 looks a little goofy:
The triumverate of murder, harassment, and other hate crimes don’t really go together. I agree that victims of murder deserve as much coverage as victims of terrorism. E.g., the Sikh man who was shot soon after 9/11.
OTOH, “harassment and other hate crimes” might include the merest of slights. IMHO such slights merit coverage, but not to the same extent as mass murder by terrorists.
I meant Gobear’s comment was true and insightful generally speaking, not specifically just of the OP here. A lot of people complain about “PC” things, and what Gobear mentions is often true.
Posters here seem to be implying that Islamic Jihad, the terrorist group, is mistaken in how they name themselves.
How would we go about persuading them to change their name so as to encourage diversity?
Or should press items be phrased like this:
Regards,
Shodan
Pssst - it’s a parody.
As some of you know, I am a working news producer.
SPJ? Never heard of them, but thank you december for bringing this organization to my attention. I will review what they have to say and suggest, and then refer, as always, to my own council.
As I always do. And as every journalist/reporter I know does.
There’s a nice example in Frank Rich’s New York Times column today. This hard-hitting column is focused on what the Democrats did wrong in the election. To his credit, Rich even criticized Democratic gay-baiting.
However, Rich did obey the “unwritten rule” in one instance.
The mention of conservatives wrapping themselves in the flag has nothing to do with the article. It doesn’t explain why he finds Democratic victimhood annoying. He was just following the unwritten rule: * When criticizing liberals to include criticism of conservatives.*
LOL! Is he always this funny?
And hey, you missed these “equal time” potshots.