Newspaper editors often dictate which stories reporters cover and what kind of treatment issues are given. Newspaper editors may suggest sources and angles reporters should consider. Newpaper editors may encourage brainstorming sessions where reporters generate their own story ideas. All of these facts about newspaper editors are well known to anyone in the industry.
However; newspaper editors also routinely make statements that go against all the "fair, balanced reporting" lessons that journalism students learn, and it's important for both people inside and outside of the industry to think about the following examples. What kind of message are these statements sending to young journalists who will lead newspapers in the digital age?
The following statements were heard in newsrooms in Kentucky and Tennessee, and some Scooping the News readers might have heard these sentiments expressed at their newspapers. When it comes to deciding which stories to cover, how to write them and who to interview, should newspaper editors ever make these statements? No. Share your experiences with us.
2. We should do a positive story on the college president because he's influential. Just because a particular source is an influential member of a community, why does that warrant a story? It doesn't. If the source is part of a newsworthy story, then the source is someone you would interview. The bigger problem with this statement is that the newspaper's editor instructed the reporter on what kind of angle to take with the story, and that angle completetely threw "fair, balance reporting" out the window. Why not hold powerful figures accountable with in-depth stories that explore and investigate their job performance? If a source possesses a track record filled with great accomplishments, then the story will be positive on its own.
3. We should do stories on an ongoing story when there is no news because the story sells papers. Ongoing coverage is an important part of journalism and all newspaper Web sites should strive to provide continuous updates on developing stories. That being said, when there really isn't any new news to report, how advantageous is it to produce a story that only recaps prior coverage of an event? If your primary motive for running an update with no news is because you can place the story above the fold with a big headline that will get readers to purchase the newspaper, then you are getting so desperate to boost print revenue that you're trying to trick readers into spending their money for nothing new.
4. We can't question one of the city's proposed projects because the newspaper's owner supports it. It's a sad state of affairs when newspapers cannot hold the government accountable for how money is spent because newspaper owners support proposed projects that would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Sometimes newspapers completely forget why they became important in the first place -- to inform readers and to hold the government accountable. Newspaper owners should never become so supportive of government leaders' initiatives and proposals that it becomes forbidden for reporters to write stories that in any way question those initiatives and proposals. Readers deserve fair and balanced reporting.
5. We will continue to photograph twisted metal even though our readers don't like it. When newspapers started noticing major declines in their print revenue, many of them began conducting reader surveys in an effort to determine what consumers wanted and what they didn't want from newspapers. The problem is that not all newspapers really considered readers' preferences and instead continued to maintain the status quo. Now these same newspapers are laying off staff, reducing the size of their product and even cutting back the number of days they publish a print edition. If readers say they don't want to see pictures of "twisted metal" (aka car wrecks), then maybe you shouldn't print them.
Posts
