The Trump Administration continues its assault on free speech. Among the latest examples is the Defense Department’s edict that journalists who cover the Pentagon can no longer gather or report information, even if unclassified, unless authorized for release by the government. Reporters who don’t sign a statement agreeing to the new rules will have press credentials revoked.
The chilling effect on ability to inform the public in a democracy is obvious. Nobody is served by controlled release of information.
The directive will likely have minimal effect on the broad landscape of community newspapers. But it draws attention to a disturbing trend: Newsrooms increasingly are relying on single sources for stories. The dangerous path inevitably leads to less substantive reports and legitimately prompts readers to question whether they are getting all sides of an issue.
Two factors are vividly in play. No. 1, lingering effects of COVID-19 protocol with respect to information access. No. 2, shorthanded newsrooms in the changing media landscape.
The pandemic strained everyone’s schedules and erected barriers to face-to-face interaction due to health and safety concerns. The environment sadly prompted increased reliance on publishing releases –often verbatim. Many traditional news sources in the public and private arenas have now adopted releases as standard practice for expediency and to ensure the newspaper “gets it right.”
It’s disappointing to see newspapers continue to accept the new regimen. Too many newsrooms make little or no attempt to follow up with sources or to seek other voices to add detail and context for readers.
Releases suffice for a variety of standard announcements. The city announces a street project. The school district releases its academic calendar. The county schedules hazardous waste collection.
In contrast, staffs must pay close attention to releases that beg for a more meaningful report. Closer examination is especially important in public affairs reporting.
Newsrooms continually seek efficiencies in collecting the everyday grist of information. Editors and reporters should explore and evaluate shortcuts on two fronts: Are you really saving time in the long run? Do reports remain relevant to readers and advertisers?
A distinct danger is that news sources, especially those you connect with regularly, will become accustomed to your shortcuts and regularly resist in-person, or even telephone, interviews.
A few examples to consider:
Web streaming of meetings: Reporting on meetings by viewing a broadcast minimizes time on several fronts and allows multitasking. But consider the challenges: How clear is the audio to accurately record quotes and votes? What’s your ability to get basic information such as full names and addresses of citizens who speak, and contact information for appropriate follow-up? Without the ability to interact with the audience, reporters can easily fall into the trap of writing for “those in front of the room” instead of translating what actions mean for “those in back of the room.”
Phone and Zoom interviews: Reporters maintain the ability to gauge the temperament of interviewees and to follow up with immediate Q&A. It’s easier to connect amid demanding schedules. At the same time, reporters have less control over the environment. Interviewees can more easily cut short conversations or refuse to answer uncomfortable questions.
E-mail interviews: Subjects typically have greater flexibility to respond to questions. It can be more expedient to write a story versus sifting through interview notes. The format can be compelling; write an introduction and follow with the Q&A email exchange. That said, the ability to pose follow-up questions in timely fashion is clearly diminished. Answers often are written by a communications specialist with little or minimal review by the source.
One drawback looms large among all these shortcuts. Reporters spend more time behind their desks and less time on the streets observing and talking firsthand with the people who are the focus of their reports.
Identifying all the voices in a story is the first step. Two other points are important in the spirit of fairness. Give the opposing voices equal prominence in the story. Don’t be afraid to hold a story if it results in delivering a more robust account.
Pursuing multiple perspectives is essential to delivering a substantive and impartial report, especially when a release is written by a PR specialist promoting an organization’s singular interest. The newspaper’s job is to pursue and present all sides.
Seeking and incorporating the many varied – and pertinent – voices indeed takes time and hard work. That’s the definition of solid journalism that benefits your newspaper and readers alike.
Jim Pumarlo is former editor of the Red Wing (Minn.) Republican Eagle. He writes, speaks and provides training on community newsroom success strategies. He is author of “Journalism Primer: A Guide to Community News Coverage,” “Votes and Quotes: A Guide to Outstanding Election Coverage” and “Bad News and Good Judgment: A Guide to Reporting on Sensitive Issues in Small-Town Newspapers.” He can be reached and welcomes comments and questions at jim@pumarlo.com.
Recent Comments