By John Rains
[ This piece was written for the Feb. 2002 edition of Highlights & Hindsights, the internal newsletter of The Fayetteville Observer.]
One of the criticisms from our readers is that we are arrogant, elitist and liberal.
Let’s skip the debate about whether this is true. Let’s go straight to a point that unquestionably is true: A number of readers, maybe a large number, have that perception. And that means we have a problem.
The readers who say we are arrogant, elitist and liberal are saying they don’t trust us. They are saying, in effect, that the news we report to them is tainted, distorted, by our arrogance, elitism and liberal bias.
The distrust of the media is more than just a liberal-conservative divide. We have become a society with deep cultural and ideological divisions, and some of our critics think we have chosen sides.
What can we do about that? What should we do about it?
Let’s start with a bit of perspective. No matter what we do, we won’t please everybody. Some readers will always accuse of us bias, even if they can’t find a thing wrong with a story, simply because the story offends them. If we do our jobs well, we’re going to take some knocks. And we are going to do our jobs. We’re going to report the news, even when it is unpopular.
Another bit of perspective: We don’t have to change who we are. We need not try to placate critics by junking our beliefs or by overcompensating with fawning or uncritical coverage of this or that group.
But we should not simply dismiss the complaints. (That would really be arrogant). We ought, instead, to ask whether we can legitimately avoid giving people reason to think of us as arrogant and elitist. As it happens, we can do a number of things. The good news is that while doing these things won’t give a quick fix or a cure, they are steps that writers should take in any case.
They are steps that many writers do take, but perhaps we could be more conscious of, and more conscientious about, them. Consider these guidelines:
Avoid loaded language.
Loaded language is words or phrases that convey, through tone or other ways, meanings you don’t intend. We all know that words often have more than one meaning and that context can sometimes make the difference in whether a word is offensive.
But some loaded language is so embedded in journalism that writers don’t even notice. Media critics often have fun with this-they even have a word for it: mediaspeak.
In mediaspeak, “cult” is a code word for any group whose religious beliefs strike us as bizarre or unfashionable. To put it even more bluntly, a “cult” is a religious group that it is safe for the media to ridicule.
In the minds of our critics, labels are often no more than code words, whether or not we mean them to be. We describe someone as a “rightwing conservative,” and perhaps we mean it in purely a factual sense. Some of our readers hear us saying “boneheaded Neanderthal.”
If you start to use a label, ask yourself if you would use the opposite label for someone of opposite views.
Remember that language can be loaded for someone as well as against someone. We should be wary of doing either.
Avoid stereotyping people.
Here’s a little test. Ask yourself what comes to mind when you hear “used-car salesman.”
How about these words: capitalist, hunter, home schooler, moderate, fundamentalist, bikers.
You immediately have some reaction to those terms, don’t you? Of course you do; you’re human and your head is not a void. That’s all right. Your reaction may even be justifiable, in some cases.
After all, stereotypes exist because there are stereotypical people. If you’re like many people, what comes to mind when you hear “used-car salesman” is something like “fast-talking, sleazy character.”
But it is unfair to assume or imply that every used-car salesman fits that mold. Never let your writing use stereotypes either to tar people or to promote them.
People are individuals, and that is how we should treat them. That leads us to the next guideline.
Get to know people you don’t understand.
Instead of buying into a stereotype, find out for yourself what people are like. People you might dismiss as whackos. Ask them what they believe and why they believe it. You may be surprised. And if you are any sort of writer, you will certainly turn up fresh story ideas.
When you get to know people as individuals, it is much harder to dismiss them with a label. It is much harder to assume that they are evil because of their views, even if you still believe those views are wrong,
The more viewpoints and voices we present in the paper, the harder it becomes for people to accuse us of bias.
Newspaper people have the opportunity to meet all kinds of people; that’s one of the attractions of the work. Despite that, it is surprising how culturally cocooned some of them seem to be. They may know all about the current celebrities and entertainment fashions, but they don’t seem to have a clue about how people all around them live and think.
Stray off the beaten path sometimes.
Maybe we’re repeating ourselves here, but if you merely follow the pack, you will mostly get the same stories everyone does, with the same slants, based on the same premises. And our critics who think we’re arrogant and elitist will continue to think that. It’s a good bet, by the way, that some of those critics are lumping us in with the obnoxious national media figures they see shouting at news conferences on TV.
Check your premises.
Every writer ought to question his own assumptions and so-called conventional wisdom. When we look closely, we may find that our premises are wrong or too simplistic. This kind of questioning can lead to stories that are fresh and interesting, stories that cut against the grain, instead of stories that are predictable and boring.
Premise: We should be skeptical of research funded by corporations because the corporations have a vested interest in the outcome.
Most reporters would agree with that. But it doesn’t mean all such research should be dismissed out of hand. Some scholars are honest and their work valid no matter who financed it. It’s just that we should check it out.
Premise: We can trust research funded by the government because government scientists don’t have a vested interest in the results.
Do you agree with that one? It’s nonsense. Of course government-funded researchers have a vested interest. If they come up with politically incorrect data, they might lose their grants. Again, though, this doesn’t mean we should dismiss all such research out of hand. It just means we should apply the same skepticism and rigorous checking we should apply to corporation studies.
Dig for context and perspective.
One advantage we have is the space to give readers more depth, more explanation, than they can get from sound bites. We ought to press that advantage. When readers see that we have done our reporting instead of giving them superficial, perfunctory stuff, they have a harder time dismissing the work as “liberal propaganda.” Solid reporting earns respect even from readers who despise what they think are our political views.
Don’t be seduced by the snappy “sound-bite” quote or the impressive “fact.” Find out if the quote is fairly representative of the context. Find out whether the “fact” can be documented.
How many times, for example, have you seen references to the “fact” that 400,000 deaths a year are caused by smoking? How many times have you seen the assertion accompanied by documentation?
Many people think that “fact” is an outright lie. They won’t take our word for it. They want proof.
Renew your passion for accuracy.
Readers know that we are human and make mistakes. They can forgive and understand some mistakes if we are honest about them. They are less likely to forgive repeated mistakes and the kind of distortions that come from inappropriate language and superficial treatment. Our readers know what the meaning of is is.
In 15 years, for example, people in the media ought to be able to learn what an “assault rifle” is.
When knowledgeable readers see the term being misused, not just occasionally but constantly for years, they tend to reach the following conclusion: Either those media people are invincibly ignorant or they are deliberately using propaganda to further their agenda.
Remember that on almost any subject you write about, some readers will know more than you do.
Try substituting your brother’s name or your mother’s name in the story.
Early on, we said that we’re going to do our job despite criticism. But we can do it with sensitivity without compromising our principles. Ask yourself, If this story were about me or my mother, would I think the writer was being fair? That simple question can cause you to re-evaluate whether your language is impartial or loaded.
Strive for objectivity.
In recent years, it has been fashionable for some people in our business to make the airy pronouncement that there is no such thing as objectivity. We are being subjective, they say, even in choosing to write a story. They leave hanging a heavy implication that, since we can’t be “truly objective,” we might as well forget the whole thing.
That is nonsense.
Of course we have to make subjective judgments in this business. But we can still apply rational criteria. And we can write our stories fairly and impartially, with balance and without trying to sneak in our own views.
That’s what sensible newspaper people mean by objectivity. They don’t mean that we should act like robots or abdicate responsibility. “Balance” isn’t some half-way point between the truth and a lie. Being objective doesn’t mean that we just shovel in some of this and some of that and leave it up to anybody’s guess what it all means.
Being objective means that we try to keep an open mind, that when we don’t know the truth (which is often) we make that clear. It also means that when somebody says something we know to be wrong, we either leave it out or we expose its falsity.
Respect the readers’ intelligence.
In a way, this one takes in all the things we have just discussed. No one likes to be patronized, manipulated, talked down to or regarded as stupid. If we serve up loaded language, shallow reporting, or perfunctory window dressing to pass for balance, readers know it. If we write down to them, they know it. They resent it. They should.
When we print stories with sophomoric, cutesy leads, readers feel patronized. They resent it. They should.
For many years, it has been common for editors to say that we have to write for readers whose average education is seventh grade or ninth grade or whatever. Sometimes it seems we take that to mean readers have to be treated as if they were dumb. Or to mean that writing clearly and simply means dumbing down.
Many readers are smarter than we are, with vocabularies richer than ours. We should write clearly and simply for them, yes, but not because they are dumb. We do that because every reader deserves the courtesy of clarity.
And every reader deserves a basic level of respect.
If we give them that respect, they will reciprocate. Sure, some will always see us as arrogant, elitist and biased, but their accusations are likely to sound hollow even to themselves.
John Rains is the writing coach at The Fayetteville Observer in Fayetteville, N.C., and is author of Shooting Straight in the Media / A Firearms Guide for Writers, published by A Critical Mass.