The spectrum of journalistic value

The word "journalist" gets more than its share of abuse these days. Many individuals carelessly toss the title in their business cards or biographies without due scrutiny of what being a journalist means.

That sames can be said of news and information. These words are often conflated with opinions, "alternative facts" and disinformation.

I believe the blurring of news, information and opinions, which started in the offices of main stream news organizations well before it migrated to talk radio; the 24-hour news networks; and social media, has been the kiss of death to public trust in journalism.

When the lines blurred

I was a reporter for a weekly community newspaper, responsible amoung other things for covering Minnesota's 2nd Congressional district. However, I was hindered by my own editorial board. It was their view, built on a long tradition, that they should always weigh in on the candidates. Each election they would endorse a candidate they deemed worthy. I concede they certainly did have unique insight into the candidates gleaned from months of news coverage and interviews they conducted with each candidate in person.

However, each year the editorial board endorsed the challenger of our sitting Congressman, John Kline, a Republican and retired Marine colonal.

For the four years I worked at that newspaper, Rep. Kline's office wouldn't grant me a single interview in person. I never met the man. And, I believe it was due to endorsements of his rivals by my newspaper.

This was a cautionary tale of the creep of opinion into the newsroom. There was no distinction in the mind of Rep. Kline between the two as far as our newspaper was concerned. As a reporter with that community newspaper, he knew where he stood and made assumptions about where I stood.

How to regain public trust

Public trust is based on perceptions.

Gut feelings.

It's built on an opinion, essentially. And that opinion is formed on the basis of facts, experiences ... and often misunderstandings.

Illustration 1a. The range of value to news consumers provided by journalists.

In order to regain public trust, we need, first and foremost, to remind the public of the critical distinctions in the spectrum of journalistic value. If they don't know which end of the spectrum we are coming from, it's easy to break trust. Analysis could be carefully disguised advocacy. News and information could be artfully deceptive opinion. Opinion could be misconstrued as editorializing, even though it had more basis in feelings than facts. You can see how the public would begin to distrust the media.

Newsrooms must draw clear and immovable lines between the fact-based and news reporting side of their business and the editorial/opinion making operations. For far too long opinion sections competed for the public's attention, more often than not, drawing it away from news and information. This model has squandered the reputation of the organization for fair, accurate and objective news. Opinion has a paracitic relationship with traditional news reporting, not a symbiotic one.

To set things right and earn back public trust, news organizations must split from their editorial and opinion side.

For example, CNN needs a seperate channel for each: CNN and CON (Cable Opinion Network.)

Perhaps newspapers and websites could color code sections to distinguish between news, information, analysis, insight, editorial, opinion and advocacy.

The public needs to see the distinction as clear as day. And news organizations have an obligation to the public to make those distinctions clear.

What ideas do you have for seperating opinion from news? Advocacy from Analysis?