A Hard Truth

A Hard Truth about the Truth in Journalism

By Hayley DeSilva

As a young journalist on the precipice of graduation and getting out into the field, I am nervous.

While I’ve been told several times that I’m not alone in that camp, it’s not just the expected jitters that come with being a rookie that I’m wholly concerned about.

I’m afraid of the way the perception of news is going. More specifically, that we’re finding ourselves in a world where sometimes even facts are controversial.

I had a professor who sat our class down one day and told us a story of a reporter who did a story on the presence and dangers of global warming. A fact, no less, that has been continuously shared from scientists or other reputable sources time and time again.

He continued that this reporter found themselves in hot water, that their reputation and credibility was being questioned by those who refuse the existence of global warming.

It makes me wonder about, and at times even doubt, the value society places on journalism.

Seeing how reporters and publications are constantly under attack for being biased and opinionated makes me feel like it’s not enough to just seek and report the truth anymore.

Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of journalists who make mistakes–and plenty of people on news stations who are being presented as journalists when they’re really just someone on a soapbox while they’re on air (I’m looking at you, Tucker Carlson.)

Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel like there’s this kind of mystifying gray area in the world of information. The way I’ve been taught, facts are facts. If you have the proof, where’s the sense in denying that?

Yet, there are people who value the words of politicians and mouthpieces who affirm their preexisting biases and ways of thinking more than a reporter with stacks of FOIA’s, hours of interviews, and data that makes your head spin.

It’s no longer the days of Walter Cronkite, who refused to give his opinion on air until the Vietnam War, which he had been covering and evaluating. In an editorial report following his investigation, he stated that he thought the war was unwinnable. Then, President Lyndon B. Johnson was widely rumored to have said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

While some can still argue Cronkite giving his opinion was unethical, the fact remains that people believed him because he had never offered up his analysis of any story previously. Not to mention, they understood he had witnessed firsthand the reality of the war, which was the opposite of what Johnson was telling the public at the time.

Nowadays, certain presidents and people in power have upped their game. They’ve made us the enemy, us the one’s not to trust—most recently seen during Donald Trump’s presidency, which was effective in turning people against the media. He’d refuse questions from the press, has sued publications for libel, and attempted to strip correspondent’s White House press badges.

Maybe it’s not the majority of people, but it’s one too many who’ve fallen prey to that political tactic. It’s scary to think that so many people refuse to find out for themselves, to let someone else do the thinking for them and just follow without question.

We’ve seen the damaging effects that can have in our world. Imagine if Cronkite hadn’t reported about what was really going on in Vietnam. Or, if the Pentagon Papers, a once sealed study on the history and development of the Vietnam War, were never released–if those brave journalists at the Washington Post or the New York Times hadn’t published them despite facing federal criminal charges for doing so.

News, factual news, is a necessity for the American people–who have a right to know what the government is up to. But if those people refuse to listen, what then?

I know all I can do is what I’ve been taught. When I first set out to pursue journalism, all my college essays revolved around the height of the ‘fake news’ crisis and how I wanted to be a reporter who worked against that.

Four years later, I still do, and that value for the truth and a right to information has been a core principle in all of my classes.

I wish people who doubted the validity of the news could see that. To sit in those classrooms and see we are taught that the truth is paramount–that you never report what you cannot prove.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that seeing it all would just be another fact they’d refuse to believe.

The Power of Person-First Language

By Maureen Dunne

Aaron Tucker was taking the bus to a job interview in a neighboring Connecticut city one Wednesday when he saw a serious car accident. He sprang into action — jumping off the bus and rushing to the overturned car just as it started smoking. He and two other bystanders pulled the driver from his overturned car, where paramedics were able to take him to the hospital.

After his selfless act, ABC News ran this headline: “Ex-convict misses job interview to save motorist.”

It reduced Tucker, a 32-year-old father of two who had gone out of his way to help a stranger, to one aspect of his past irrelevant to his actions. The way the newsroom described one aspect of his identity tainted the way in which readers perceived him, and his act.

Person-first language can seem counterintuitive in journalism. In a field where clarity and succinctness is prioritized, adding an extra preposition to a sentence seems unwieldy. As a student journalist and editor in student newsrooms, I’m guilty of not having been conscious of the power of putting people first — especially with a deadline looming. But, person-first wording can dramatically alter the way in which the subjects of our reporting are seen and treated by our readers.

Admittedly, “ex-convict” is a bit more eye-catching than just “man,” but at what cost? How would readers have perceived Tucker differently had the headline described him as “father?” Would the tension between the word ex-convict and his selfless act be absolved if the article described him as being “formerly incarcerated,” instead of calling him an “ex-con?”

Disability rights advocates have long emphasized the impact of person-first language when writing about people who are disabled. Word choice can mean the difference between dehumanization and empowerment.

Describing someone who uses mobility aids as “wheelchair-bound,” a phrase I’ve read so many times, suggests a wheelchair is a hindrance to, instead of enabling a person’s autonomy and movement. The phrase positions being able to move about unassisted as the default, when countless people are unable to do so.

The assumptions contained in that phrase alone can alienate readers who use mobility aids.

The Associated Press Stylebook recommends ditching identify-first language, like “disabled person,” for person-first language, like “person with a disability.” In cases where the right terminology isn’t immediately obvious, it recommends going with the descriptors members of the community themselves prefer.

The Marshall Project, a nonprofit publication dedicated to covering the U.S.’ criminal justice system, released a style guide to covering incarceration with a series of reflections on language penned by people currently in prison. One such reflection details how the word “inmate” is dehumanizing for people who are incarcerated. The writer sees it as stripping an incarcerated person of their individuality and worse, humanity.

I would not have known the gravity of using that phrase to describe someone who is incarcerated. Reading about its impact directly from someone who has felt its weight made me more conscious of how a seemingly innocent or common term may inflict harm onto those whom I use the word to describe.

At the end of the day, the communities we cover are people: People with disabilities, people who are incarcerated or formerly incarcerated, people who are unhoused. Good reporting should be inclusive and accessible to all. Something as simple as being intentional about our wording — and putting the person first — is inclusive for our readers and empathetic to our sources.

####

Clarence Page is coming!!!! What is fake news?

2-time Pulitzer prize winning Tribune columnist Clarence Page is coming to the DePaul Center for Journalism Integrity & Excellence on February 7th to speak to students in the morning and address a larger DePaul gathering at the Union League Club at 5:30P.  He will take a long  look at the last election, the new administration and what it all means for journalism in our time! We can’t wait!

For The Privilege Of Being A Reporter

For the Privilege Of Being A Reporter

by Carol Marin & Don Moseley

The day after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States, an impassioned email arrived from one of our students.  In it she asks critical questions for anyone hoping to work in the world of news.  And anyone who currently does:

 Hi Don & Carol, 

This is probably going to seem like an odd request but I was wondering if, as the directors for the Center for Journalism Integrity and Excellence, you would send out an email or a statement or something to DePaul’s Journalism program reminding students that one of the pillars of good journalism is objectivity. Since the election, I have seen a lot of my peers posting on various social media sites either they’re (sic) personal thoughts on the outcome and Donald Trump or showing their support for one cause or another. I don’t know if they think this doesn’t compromise their objectivity because they are still students or if they don’t see it as compromising, but having spent the last several months with the both of you grappling with how journalists should conduct themselves in all situations, I think a reminder about the importance of at least maintaining the appearance of objectivity would be useful. 

Thank you for reading my rant.

          Even the most seasoned among us need reminders on a regular basis.

In 2004, I had just joined the Chicago Sun-Times and was writing on deadline for that November election night that pitted incumbent president George W. Bush against Senator John Kerry.  And for the United States Senate, democrat Barack Obama against republican Alan Keyes.

There was a newsroom meeting right before the polls closed.  Managing Editor Don Hayner gathered all of us into the conference room and I will never forget his words: “Gather the vote totals and the facts.  I don’t want to hear a single one of you voice your own opinion in that newsroom.  Are we clear?”

We were clear.  Why?  Because he was.

And we should be as well.

This is a marvelous profession but for the privilege of being a journalist, we voluntarily give up some of the perks of being a citizen.  We keep our personal view to ourselves, not vomited up all over Facebook and Twitter.  We take care to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.  And if we have a conflict, we divulge it.  We go to every story and every interview with an open mind and listen.

If that was a “rant” our student sent, it was a rant worth reading.

And re-reading.

-30-

Newton Minow to receive Presidential Medal of Freedom

Bravo to Newton Minow, selected by Pres. Obama as one of 21 winners of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Newt just visited the DePaul Center for Journalism Integrity and Excellence when his daughter, Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow, was our guest.  Of course he’s our favorite but others joining him include Michael Jordan, Tom Hanks, Robert Redford and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Who’s Right?

Same Story, Two Networks: CBS, NBC Differ on Arizona Republic Story

After the Arizona Republic endorsed a democratic presidential candidate for the first time in its 126-year history, outraged readers launched death threats at the paper’s staff.

On Oct. 17, as part of a package about rising tensions in the elections, NBC devoted 20 seconds to the threats.

screen-shot-2016-10-21-at-12-58-49-pm

NBC Graphic

Mi-Ai Parrish, president of the Arizona Republic, said people are spitting on students selling subscriptions and a man threatened to pour boiling water on anyone who comes to his house on the paper’s behalf.

On Oct. 19, CBS ran a nearly three-minute package about the paper’s endorsement and subsequent firestorm.

CBS Graphic

CBS Graphic

CBS reporter Lee Cowan detailed the rude, hateful and threatening emails and phone calls to the paper.

CBS Graphic

CBS Graphic

CBS Graphic

CBS Graphic

 

 

 

 

 

screen-shot-2016-10-21-at-1-23-21-pm

CBS Graphic

screen-shot-2016-10-21-at-1-23-39-pm

CBS Graphic

 

 

 

 

 

However, the tone of calls and emails improved after Parrish wrote another editorial thanking those who respectfully disagreed with the paper.

Was it a mistake for NBC not to include how things are getting better at the paper and therefore promote a more fearful tone? Was what NBC did sufficient to tell the story or did it need to be done in the way CBS did? Is this story important enough to warrant coverage from all of the networks?

Carol Marin, political editor for NBC Chicago, said she doesn’t quarrel with the way each network covered the story.

“Someone at NBC decided they wanted a multifaceted story with examples of how the climate in and around this election has become poisonous,” Marin said. “What CBS did was pull out in a fuller way this one instance and I think each is valid.”

Marin said the networks have more discretion when covering this story which is not breaking news and likes that the three networks did not “march in step”.

“It’s a fascinating story to me, but then, I’m the press, Marin said. “I think this is a jump ball.”

This story illuminates the rising tensions between politics and media during this election. Programs with limited airtime have to decide which stories warrant coverage. This story is valuable but not mandatory.