Time for a change

I read three items in today's local paper referring to information improperly attributed to individuals by news writers, columnists and publishers. I was wishing I'd read four, but I was glad to see that someone is demanding accountability for the inaccuracies, inuendos and ill-informed information that has been landing on newspaper pages all too often.

One case dealt with an accusation. In his politically-charged editorial in the paper's Sunday edition, the publisher had accused a candidate of stealing signs from the company's paperboxes. Since then, the candidate has been offered a column to write his side of the story, and this morning, we saw a full-blown retraction and apology in the same space where the public accusation occurred before the election. Fortunately, for the candidate, the voters saw through the attempt to muddy his name through desperate reporting of "the facts." He won the election.

The publisher probably avoided a libel suit.

As I moved on through the paper, I glanced at the sports column. Here was another writer from the same paper apologizing to Idaho Vandal football coach Dennis Erickson for a column he'd written in earlier edition about integrity, implying that the coach had "shined him off" by not answering his calls. Apparently, the writer had not checked his voicemail and had launched off a column questioning Erickson's reluctance to talk about the issue at hand. I'm not privy to the column, but from what I read in this morning's paper, he filed the column and checked his voicemail later to learn that Erickson had returned his call, eager to talk.

This morning the columnist admittedly ate crow for his oversight.

I read a letter to the editor in the same paper, intended to run BEFORE the election (actually there were two in today's paper written for pre-election purposes) suggesting that the local paper's publisher and a reporter had pretty much manufactured a story about another political candidate. The story, as written, could have left questions in the minds of readers about this candidate. This morning's letter implied that information used in the story had no factual basis and that when pressed for where the information originated, the writer received two conflicting answers from the newspaper staffers.

The candidate in question lost the election.

These admitted and alleged oversights of professional journalists appearing on one day's edition of one newspaper send a message that's been talked to death on the streets for some time. Where is the accountability? Where is the careful assemblage of facts to make sure stories, columns or editorials are soundly accurate? Where are the checks and balances that give readers the confidence that what they see in our newspapers is true? Where is the sensitivity to all sides involved to make sure that any person mentioned is given a fair shake?

I was taught by a very good high school journalism teacher and by several mentors along the way that we must double check every fact, even name spellings, to make sure we are providing our readers the truth and the complete truth.

This is essential rule exists not only for readers but also for the people involved in the stories. Finally, it is essential for the benefit of the reporter who wants to establish and maintain any sense of credibilty. After all, if we stick to that rule unfalteringly, there will be more stories ahead, more people to interview and more people reading what we've written. Maybe. We'd like to be able to do our jobs. We can't do our jobs if people don't trust us.

I was called a cow once----in a newspaper article. "What do you expect when you've got an old cow for an adviser?" the story read, "Our suggestion: lead the cow out to pasture." The story appeared in an underground newspaper written by teens. It concerned a drill team performance which had gone bad. I was the adviser at the time, and I was overweight.

The article was first circulated around the high school where I taught. It was so tantalizing that papers were distributed around the community and then throughout the state. I went to a journalism convention a few months later only to have the story revived in a seminar discussion about the role of underground newspapers.

By that time, I had hoped to forget the hurtful period which also involved contacting a lawyer and demanding a retraction. The irony of such situations is that retractions must appear in the same prominence in the same location where the potentially libelous story first appeared. Hence, another underground had to be published.

Those were dark days for me, to say the least. I'll also say they tested my will to stay in education. Happily, I stayed, and happily, the young men involved later became some of my best friends. But I'll never forget those words and how painfully unfair they felt at the time.

That was a situation of high school kids doing what high school kids will do. I taught long enough to know that teenagers are capable of unlimited youthful indiscretions. I have long forgiven the situation and considered it one of thoses tests of mettle that come along in a teacher's career. I have not, however, forgotten the unfairness of that article.

I mention this because we who call ourselves "professional" journalists should rise to a higher level. We who call ourselves professionals have a responsibility to go far beyond what looks like the juicy or incriminating story. When assembling a story--any story---we must think of our own accountability, our publication's credibility, the people we write about and the consequences of our words. Used recklessly, our words might make some good reading for the time being, but the ramifications often come back to haunt us and the people involved.

I mentioned a fourth situation that I would like to have seen addressed in a newspaper this morning. That one concerns the story about the plea bargaining agreement, the judge, the prosecution and the defense. When I read the first report about this trial last week, my first thought was that there must be more to the story. Then, I chalked it up to just another situation in the local paper where possibly the whole story wasn't told.

A few days later, I read a story in the same paper where most that had appeared in the first piece was disputed. I was hoping to see this addressed in-depth in the regional paper. Another piece did appear on the front page of the Spokane paper. Again, something didn't ring true. I, as a reader, still had questions because the quotes used appeared to be second and third-hand. I guess I kept thinking that something surely was quoted out of context. I still feel that way.

This was a hot-button issue which deserved utmost care and time in making sure that information was complete and totally verified, especially considering stereotypes often attributed to North Idaho. As I recall from journalism classes, we were instructed to verify each sensitive fact at least three ways.

Because of the diametrically different stories I've read in the local paper and continuing questions I still have after reading the third article in the Spokane paper, I feel unsatisfied as a reader. I've also followed a regional blog where one poster and another newspaper publisher have suggested that more facts exist about this case which could influences readers' responses to just what happened in the court proceedings.

These are just four cases of far too many where we've witnessed questionable if not reckless journalism. It's time we who call ourselves journalists, we with whom the trust of our readership has been vested---it's time we review what our journalism instructors implored us to never forget. Do not ASSUME. Always, always, always go back and revisit the basic rules of journalism. Those include truth, fairness to all sides, healthy skepticism for the motivations behind what sources say, double and triple checking, and a complete representation of the facts.

I applaud the two gestures I saw in today's paper to right wrongs. It's a start, but there's a long road ahead in restoring journalistic integrity to a level that people can once again respect.

As for now: All I know is what I read in the papers. As an old-fashioned journalist, it scares the Hell out of me.