Joan Stewart, publisher of The Publicity Hound's Tips of the Trade, had a very interesting op-ed piece in The Daily Dog about journalism and partiality. At first it caught my attention because she was once a journalist herself. But her basic tenet - that whatever any of us writes has a slant by default - probably deserves more exploration.
The article caught my attention because the dismissal by journalists of most bloggers (because of impartiality) is increased twofold when you are representing a trade association. Any quotes, statistics, data or arguments you give are solely to benefit your members - which is true, of course, but that doesn't make the statistics, data or arguments that you supply any less powerful if they are factual too.
Joan writes:
There is no such thing as “fair and impartial” reporting, despite journalists’ claims to the contrary. My upbringing, education, opinions and perceptions shaped the stories I covered and assigned, the questions I asked my interview subjects, the length of the interview, the quotes I included in my stories, and the slant I put on particular stories. The same is true for every other journalist, though few would admit it.
Anyone that's ever been interviewed by a reporter can testify to that - especially "the quotes I included in my stories" part.
As Stewart points out, with blogs and all of the other online avenues open to all of us, we all have a way now to tell our own story - and to make sure that if a reporter gets it wrong it does not go unrecognized or uncorrected on our end. She gave the example of Overstock.com President Patrick Byrne who posted a complete transcript of an e-mail interview with Business Week e-commerce editor Timothy Mullaney—before the story was published in BusinessWeek or on its Web site. (You can read more about it here.)
Obviously, "on the record" and "off the record" might become part of the business vocabulary of journalists too.
Comments