SuperVision

RELATED RESOURCES

Learn more about leadership in one of our seminars. Sign up to receive Leading Lines by e-mail: * Click here (sent Tuesdays at 9 a.m.)

I don't believe there are two sides to every story.

In fact, it's hard to think of a single important issue journalists cover that has only two sides. We just tend to stop looking after that. It's harder still to imagine a challenge facing newsroom leaders to which there are only two possible solutions. Sometimes the best alternative is the third or fourth or fourteenth -- if we bother to find it. That's why, as journalists and as leaders, we need to get over bipolar thinking. It leaves too many important ideas unexplored.

It's easy to see why we fall for false dichotomies so easily. There's a long-standing tradition in journalism of looking for heroes and villains, good and evil, red states and blue. Life does look more manageable when we cast it in such simplistic terms. Reporting is richer when it resists that temptation. More credible, too -- and we can use some help with that.

Managers also are tempted to explain themselves in stark terms: We do not cover suicides. We never name rape victims. Our top story is always local.

Journalism and leadership both improve when practitioners open their eyes to more than the obvious, easy answers.

When I hear people boast about offering "both" sides of an issue, I start looking elsewhere for fuller reporting. When I started looking for somebody to help me understand the bipolar tendencies of journalists, I found Michael Gartner, former newspaper editor, publisher and network news president.

"There are about 11 sides to every issue," he told me. "I learned in law school that there are very few absolutes, except for the First Amendment, and I'm not so sure about that anymore."

Newsroom leaders who want reporting that reflects the reality of a complicated world need to help journalists come to terms with complexity. Talking down to people does nothing to elevate their understanding. That's important to remember in covering the communities we serve and in leading the newsrooms we run.

"In most cases, there's a spectrum," according to Gartner. He says journalism requires a level of comfort with nuance, involving a set of skills that improve with practice. That's hard work, and it's an important part of the distinction between journalism and the exploding universe of other information sources now available.

"There's a big difference between journalism and stenography," Gartner says.

Here are some words to watch for that, when used too loosely, can be symptoms of simplistic thinking:

• Balance. It's nothing to brag about, if all it means is finding two people with opposing views and providing each the same number of soundbite seconds or column-inches. If "balance" brings to mind the scales of justice, weighing one side against "the other," leave it to the lawyers and courts. Fairness and accuracy require context, and the two-sides-fit-all approach doesn't accommodate that very well.
• Dilemma. It has come into common usage to mean just about any predicament or quandary, but -- as the "di-" prefix implies -- its strictest definition is a choice between two and only two equally unacceptable alternatives. The good news is, true dilemmas are pretty rare. Other, not-so-obvious alternatives almost always exist. The bad news is, we often overlook those other alternatives out of habit, laziness or lack of decision-making skills. Joann Byrd, former editorial page editor at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and ombudsman at The Washington Post, suggests seeking a minimum of three alternatives in problem-solving. There are almost always at least that many possible solutions, and if that's the case, there wasn't a dilemma in the first place.
• Either/Or. These are red flags of the false dichotomy, the logical fallacy of implying that only two mutually exclusive possibilities exist, and denying the existence of other alternatives. It's a popular persuasive device: Either you're part of the solution or part of the problem. Either you're lying now or you were lying then. Either you're with us or you're against us. Poynter Vice President and Senior Scholar Roy Peter Clark wrote about the false dichotomy for Nieman Reports in the fall of 2000: "It diminishes our conversations, limits our options and divides us into camps, setting one orthodoxy against another; all of this violates the interest of those we serve." Clark used some examples from journalism in which the "either" and "or" are implied: "Give readers the news they want. No, give them what they need. Graphics are the answer. No, writing is the answer... Improve quality. No, focus on profit."
• Policy. On things like violence and sexual harassment, newsrooms -- and all workplaces -- need strong policies with as little wiggle room as possible. On editorial, ethical and other leadership issues, they need protocols, guidelines and systems for decision-making -- resources that more effectively address the nuance Gartner mentions. As a customer, when I ask about a particular business practice and get the response, "It's our policy," I'm not satisfied. I don't think the person speaking really knows the reason. As an employee, I feel the same way, if all my boss can say to explain a decision is that it's "policy." Policies appeal to rule obedience. They tell us what to do. Protocols and guidelines appeal to reasoning and reflection. They offer processes for making better decisions, and opportunities to articulate more clearly how we did so.

Journalists and leaders need such skills. Reporting the news and running newsrooms require the willingness and ability to explore what lies between the extremes.

No two ways about it.

Note: Michael Gartner has spent the past nine months working on a book about the greatest newspaper editorials ever written. "Passion, Outrage and Uncommon Sense" is scheduled for publication in the fall of 2005. Gartner says it will be "available in obscure bookstores everywhere."