I’ll use a shortened version of this for my Monday column in The Gazette:
Mixing the personal with the professional has always been uncomfortable territory for journalists and especially for journalists’ bosses. Voicing opinions is another touchy area.
The Wall Street Journal weighed in on both matters last week with a resounding “no” to staff members who might be tempted to do either in their use of social media.
“Business and pleasure should not be mixed on services like Twitter,” a Dow Jones email guiding staff use of social media warned. The message also admonished staff: “Sharing your personal opinions, as well as expressing partisan political views … could open us to criticism that we have biases.”
The point of both rules seems to be to hide the person you are, as though reporting were a plastic Mardi Gras mask you could hold in front of your face and fool unsuspecting readers.
I was one of several bloggers and Twitterers during the past week who criticized the guidelines on various counts. I don’t want to re-plow that ground here, but I do want to address – and debunk – the notion that journalists can or should hide our humanity.
The fact is that the Wall Street Journal (as well as The Gazette and any journalism organization) already is open to criticism about biases. Readers attribute bias to us based on their own biases and based on their understanding of the fact that journalists are human and that all humans have biases.
Of course, we should maintain neutrality about topics we cover. But, as I have written here before, humanity actually helps us be better journalists. And I believe it can help build the credibility of our reporting. I will illustrate with three stories, one from the Wall Street Journal:
In the early 1990s, I was editor of the Minot Daily News (and wrote a weekly column) and my wife, Mimi, was a columnist for News. When she first started writing a column in Shawnee, Kan., before we moved to Minot, I advised Mimi that it was better to reveal occasional personal glimpses while writing about the community, and have the readers wanting to know you better, than to write frequently about yourself and have the readers feel they were getting too much personal information.
Mimi has never felt bound by my advice and pretty much ignored this counsel. She did write frequently about the community, but also dealt with our family life and her personal interests a lot (sometimes to the mild embarrassment of the husband and sons who became characters in her stories). My editor’s column did give occasional personal glimpses, but mostly wrote about lofty issues of journalism, the community or the world.
When I was fired, the publisher also dropped Mimi’s column. My firing drew some mild criticism from readers, but they were outraged to lose Mimi’s column. Four other North Dakota newspapers, whose editors were loyal readers, quickly picked up her column. Even as a columnist, I spent too much of my time behind that Mardi Gras mask, while Mimi was making a personal connection.
I covered religion for the Des Moines Register a decade ago. In addition to writing news stories, I wrote a column about faith, frequently expressing opinions or dealing with my own faith and experiences. People I interviewed frequently asked about my own faith and I answered candidly. I later learned from other religion writers that many are reluctant to discuss their own faith with people they cover and recoil at the thought of writing anything personal or opinionated.
I also wrote a lot about religion when I was at the Omaha World-Herald, but I didn’t write a column there. I’m quite sure I was accused more often of biased coverage (sometimes by people who inferred inaccurately about my own faith or opinions) in Omaha, where no one actually knew anything about my opinions or personal perspectives, than I was in Des Moines. When people knew we held different opinions or came from different faiths, I frequently heard appreciation for my fair and unbiased coverage.
Now for the Wall Street Journal example: In 2004, Farnaz Fassihi, a reporter in the Journal’s Baghdad bureau, sent an email to friends about her life in Baghdad. “Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest,” she started. What followed was detailed, well-written and candid, describing how difficult and dangerous work and life in Baghdad were then, one of the most chaotic times of the war in Iraq.
Someone posted the email online and it became an immediate sensation. Critics of the Journal questioned how she could continue reporting on the war. But others noted that the blunt assessment gave a more accurate account of life in Baghdad than the stories she wrote behind her mask for the Journal’s news columns.
Journalists are people. We can acknowledge our humanity and still uphold the principles of accuracy, independence and fairness. Sometimes showing our humanity helps build our credibility. People stop wondering who that is behind the mask.
What a bunch of self serving drivel! We accuse you of bias because we bring our own biases? Come on Steve, is that what they teach in journalism school now? Your job is to do nothing but report the FACTS Steve. I don’t care how you feel about those facts. I can decide for myself. I don’t need a “journalist” showing me how human they are. The fact is, that in reality you love TRYING to hide behind the “mask”. It just doesn’t work anymore. You have been exposed. If you really want to get out from behind the mask, start your columns with, Steve Buttry, Liberal journalist, and I’m reporting on……..Facts are facts, they are what they are. They hold no bias. Try starting there. If you are more concerned with “showing your humanity” I suggest you get out of the newspaper business. Well, what’s left of it.
LikeLike
Interesting that ltrman would be so irate at this column, especially considering he apparently holds little-to-no regard for newspapers or the newspaper business.
Much reporting would be droll and incredibly dull were it not for journalists allowing a bit of their own humanity to enter the equation. It might be subtle, but it makes a difference.
Case in point: A reporter not known for her sensitivity is sent to interview a man and his son. They recently lost the wife and sister in a plane crash that took more than 100 lives.
The reporter was not happy to get the assignment, but sucked it up and went, grumbling under her breath as she walked out to the interview.
A few hours she returned to the office, eyes red and her hands trembling. Over the next three hours she composed a story full of emotion that brought tears to the eyes of her editors and readers, and brought her accolades from the community for sharing such a touching story.
That is an absolute true story. Had the reporter simply entered the interview to “get the facts” the story would have been dull…and pointless. But she allowed a little of her humanity — in this case, compassion and understanding — to permeate the interview. That allowed the interviewees to open up to her.
So a journalist allowing a bit of their humanity to show damages nothing, but often allows for a markedly better (and still factually accurate) story for readers.
As far as bringing biases to a story, Steve is absolutely correct. Every reader brings their own biases. Every human carries their own biases and prejudices with them every day, whether they think they do or not. I used to think otherwise, but I had the privilege of listening to economist/columnist Walter Williams demonstrate that point to a room packed with skeptical journalists. When Mr. Williams finished his demonstration, it was to a room of journalists…with completely changed minds.
Keep up the great work, Steve. Most of us know that you know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Thanks, Rick. I don’t begrudge ltrman his or her bitterness toward the media. I know that lots of people see liberal bias in the media (and lots, I should add, also see conservative bias). And they see that bias even in the most straight-forward, fact-based reporting. I could add hundreds of examples just like the one Rick cited where the humanity of a good journalist added power and insight to stories, without veering from the facts at all. Ltrman is welcome to post a rant here anytime, attacking me and my views of journalism. But I have heard from so many appreciative readers through the years about the power of journalism that doesn’t hide behind the mask that I believe deeply in this kind of journalism.
LikeLike
Steve, don’t try to prejudge my bitterness or lack of. The FACTS are, you are constantly writing and making excuses as to why newspapers are failing without ever looking in the mirror. And I will repeat. Facts do not carry bias. Steve, give me an example of conservative bias in the Gazette. Just one. And Rick, you do have one fact right. I hold the newspaper business in very low regard, along with “journalists” like Buttry. And they have done it to themselves. I know of very few people who turn to a newspaper for FACTUAL information. Now, for your example of the plane crash, that is a human interest story, I doubt if it was intended to be a factual account of the plane crash and why and how it happened. You are comparing apples to oranges. A story like that is not “hard” news reporting. It is written with the INTENT of getting an emotional reaction. How did other families feel about a reporter trying to get interviews from family members? Steve, ever wonder why the WSJ is one of the few papers that have gained readership? Doing a helluva job Steve! When will you come out from behind the “mask”?
LikeLike
ltrman, I can’t give you an example of conservative bias in The Gazette, but I can’t give you an example of liberal bias in The Gazette either. But just as you see examples of liberal bias, people of the opposite point of view see conservative bias (and our endorsement of John McCain last year confirmed that bias in many of their minds).
You are, of course, absolutely, factually wrong about few people turning to The Gazette and other newspapers for factual information. We are the leading information source for our market area and market research confirms again and again that people buy us primarily for local news (facts).
LikeLike
I find it funny that Itrman would claim that it’s a fact that newspapers are always liberally biased. Even if a newspaper or a journalist holds some bias, the reader would interpret the bias on their own accord. So there’s no factual basis for this claim, since it’s all based on opinion.
With that in mind, I am glad to hear that Steve believes that journalist should involve their reader with personal experiences. As a journalism student, I feel that journalist shouldn’t separate themselves from their own community.
LikeLike
[…] of opinion on Twitter are a valid concern for the Post’s editors. As I noted in an earlier post about the Wall Street Journal’s misguided social-media ethics policy, traditional newspapers […]
LikeLike
[…] stating opinions is going on in the Twitterverse now, sparked by the Post guidelines. I have written about this issue before and won’t elaborate at length now. But I will make these points: I […]
LikeLike
[…] blog posts on the Wall Street Journal social-media policy and other major papers’ […]
LikeLike
[…] media. I don’t have time to critique this in the same detail that I did the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post […]
LikeLike
[…] I have written before, I faced a similar situation to Broder when I was religion reporter for the Des Moines Register – […]
LikeLike
[…] Journalists shouldn’t hide behind a mask […]
LikeLike
[…] Journalists shouldn’t hide behind a mask […]
LikeLike