Commentary
Many reporters of my generation went into journalism because of the Watergate scandal.
Holding public officials accountable — public service journalism – was the attraction then. So, too, were Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in All the president’s men, the movie version of that story.
Me? I was more of a Lou Grant kind of guy. Ed Asner isn’t as pretty as Redford nor as cool as Hoffman. But the crusty fictional city editor he played on the television show couldn’t be beat for advancing the nobler aspects of the profession.
And it wasn’t just Lou. Pit bull reporter Joe Rossi on that show was such a hard-nosed journalist that he refused to belong to any organization for fear it would compromise the perception of his objectivity.
Heck, Rossi wouldn’t even vote for that reason.
I wasn’t nearly that pure when I was a full time professional reporter. I voted.
David Poulson
But I refused to sign petitions, sport political bumper stickers or put campaign signs in my yard. I still do.
What prompts this observation is the editor’s note that I put at the end of today’s feature on Great Lakes Echo: Great Lakes Echo Editor David Poulson is a member of an advisory board for Michigan Sea Grant.
The story includes a perspective from an official at Michigan Sea Grant. And while I’ve never had anything to do with formulating that perspective, I figured it best to disclose that relationship rather than risk someone charging that Echo has a bias in reporting the issue.
Rossi would have said that wasn’t enough — and that if I wanted to edit a story involving that organization, I needed to quit even that advisory role — which amounts to attending one meeting a year.
But things are never that simple. For one thing, the journalism produced by Echo is just a part of my greater role as a faculty member at Michigan State University. Membership on this board is an important service relevant to that broader role.
And times change.
Nowadays, Rossi’s view of objectivity is thought by many journalists and others as overly purist, impossibly difficult and perhaps counter productive. Part of that stems from the proliferation of people who now view themselves as journalists — people who very much have a point of view and aim to advance it. Part of it stems from a recognition that a journalist can — maybe should — have a life other than journalism, a life that informs their reporting.
And a good chunk of it is recognition that quitting organizations is no guarantee of ideological purity. The idea is that we all have biases, and about the best any journalist can be expected to do is to strive to manage them.
Part of managing them is disclosing when they might be perceived as a problem.
Transparency is the new objectivity. That’s a journalism aphorism nowadays.
Still, I carefully weighed writing that disclosure. One concern is that it may cause readers to perceive a bias that doesn’t exist. Several people I discussed this with thought that I may be overthinking things. I wonder if I’m sparking an unfounded concern that might not otherwise occur to a reader.
Ultimately I figured that you can never go wrong by disclosing too much.
But during this information revolution where journalism is undergoing profound transformation, redefinition and evolution, I wonder, “What would Lou do?”
I know what Rossi would say.
I’d rather hear from you.
David Poulson is the editor of Great Lakes Echo and the associate director of Michigan State University’s Knight Center for Environmental Journalism
Given the importance of honest journalism and journalists in a democratic society, it is refreshing to see old school rules observed in this era of anything goes. My experience with the media during my participation in an environmental fight has been mixed, with both admirable journalistic efforts produced and, more often, shameless flacking. The local newspaper, in itself a rarity these days- a daily newspaper in a small market? – undoubtedly works under numerous constraints and has published quite a lot of flack, but also, surprisingly, has published good, solid reporting on complex issues. One thing it has never done, however, is to disclose its publisher’s relationship to the economic development entity backing the development. That person receives no compensation for the role that person plays, but, nonetheless, that role presents a conflict. The rationalization may be that only loony tree huggers could possibly second guess “progress,” so why waste good ink? On a much larger stage, this time concerning the Paper of Record (hint: initials NYT), an email from a media consultant wended its way to me with an attachment of an advance copy of a story involving, in part, my fight, and the email was addressed to the developer several days before the story was even published online. To my knowledge, the reporter had absolutely nothing to do with this breach of journalistic ethics. The pen may be mighty, but the wallet trumps all.
I don’t really see a conflict here – but then again, I’m with Michigan Sea Grant!
As a former journalist, I get where you’re coming from. I covered politics for a bit and felt like I couldn’t vote in primaries because I would then have to be listed under a party roll – um, no thanks. At one of the news outlets where I worked, a fellow reporter had a bumper sticker on his car that leaned a certain way (related to abortion) and I remember it being the topic of more than one meeting. When I left journalism, I remember having this giddy sense of freedom.
I think the issue of using Michigan Sea Grant as a source in this case would be different if it weren’t for two things:
1. Jim Diana is a prominent and one of the highest regarded experts on aquaculture research in the state, if not the country. He was clearly a great source for the story. If he had been a relative newbie or hadn’t done research on this specific area on this specific issue, then you might have some valid concerns.
2. Michigan Sea Grant is non-advocacy. MSG supports a science-based approach to looking at Great Lakes issues. Rather than campaigning for one thing over another, our mission is to educate people enough about the issues to make informed decisions about our shared resources.
I will say, though, that overall I love the transparency. I would rather it be very clearly stated than shrouded in mystery. We’re all people – yes, even journalists – why not be honest about it? I think most of us are skeptical at heart and probably assume reporters have leanings and biases and such. So putting it out there like you did in this story removes that skepticism and allows the actual news to come through. In my (probably biased) opinion anyhow.