With the recent accusations against Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax the debate about what the news media should publish, and what it should not publish, has erupted again. We saw the same kinds of questions about the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Should these kinds of accusations be published, or should they be kept secret?
From what I have read about the new Virginia scandal, Associate Professor at Scripps College Vanessa Tyson contacted The Washington Post in late 2017 with her story about Fairfax sexually assaulting her some 13 years before. The Post investigated the story and, when they could not find corroboration, decided not to publish it.
Despite The Post's hesitation back in 2017 Tyson's story has now surfaced again and this time it is being widely publicized.
So, what is the media supposed to publish, and what should it keep secret?
Some people seem to think the press should not publish any statement or claim or accusation unless they can PROVE that it is true. I think that is wrong. I don't believe the press is supposed to publish only what they can prove to be true after a long and careful investigation. I think the press is supposed to tell the truth in a different way: reporters are supposed to tell us truthfully what they see and what they hear, what they read in official documents and what people tell them about newsworthy figures.
I worked briefly for a small town newspaper years ago and my specialty was covering obscure town meetings. I saw my job as being the eyes and ears of the public. I saw my job as telling people, "If you had been at this meeting, this is what you would have seen and heard."
If somebody in a meeting said something I thought was true, I reported what they said. If somebody in a meeting said something I thought was false, I reported what they said. This is what I believe day-to-day journalism is supposed to do.
Day-to-day journalism cannot wait days, months, or years to report on some "final truth." Day-to-day journalism is supposed to publish what reporters see and hear, what they read and what they are told, as one step - maybe an EARLY step - in the truth-seeking process. It is this kind of reporting that can help to uncover the truth by encouraging other people to come forward with additional information, by encouraging other news outlets to ask questions, by putting pressure on official agencies to start investigations.
There are other kinds of journalism, of course. Investigative journalism has more research in it. It is more of a methodical effort to get at the truth. It is halfway between journalism and history. Editorializing has more personal judgment in it and more reflection on what the facts mean. It is halfway between journalism and philosophy.
But "normal" journalism, what I call day-to-day journalism - that's something simpler - that's just a reporter telling people, and telling them every single day: "This is what I saw. This is what I heard."
That's the job.
***
[This is a great book about the career of an investigative journalist.]
[If you want to support
"Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one
below and the other ones throughout this blog to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a
commission. Thanks!]
***
Copyright © 2019 by Joseph Wayne Gadway
