In his Talk to the Newsroom, a useful but extremely limited version of transparency at the New York Times, Executive Editor Bill Keller inadvertently reveals a common failing among today’s journalists when he writes:
Perhaps it’s a reporter’s curse, but I seemed to have a gift for seeing both sides of almost every issue.
It’s not a curse when it’s self-imposed.
And given Keller’s exemplary record of journalism, he’s obviously not cursed with the shallowness that line might suggest. But the fact that he wrote it is worrisome for the mindset it reveals.
There are almost never just two sides to anything, at least not two equally compelling and truthful positions battling it out based on actual facts. Issues are infinitely nuanced in most cases, a universe of grays in a culture (journalistic and beyond) where we pretend, or maybe wish, that everything is black or white.
Keller’s statement also reflects one of journalism’s most egregious modern tendencies: uncritical regurgitation of what people say instead of deeper truth-telling. When we get “both sides” of issues where one side is essentially (or wholly) telling the truth and the other is not — and then fail to say so in plain words — we betray our principles and insult our communities.
Journalism is not stenography. Or it shouldn’t be, anyway.
on Apr 11th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
[…] Dan Gillmor: “Keller’s statement also reflects one of journalism’s most egregious modern tendencies: uncritical regurgitation of what people say instead of deeper truth-telling. When we get ‘both sides’ of issues where one side is essentially (or wholly) telling the truth and the other is not — and then fail to say so in plain words — we betray our principles and insult our communities.” […]
on Apr 11th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
This is the full paragraph:
“During my roughly two years as a columnist, I was probably the least opinionated opinion writer in Op-ed-land. Perhaps it’s a reporter’s curse, but I seemed to have a gift for seeing both sides of almost every issue. My columns, therefore, tended to be reported musings — “Here’s how I thought my way through the subject of X” — rather than polemics. Perhaps someday I will be permitted to return to the columnist’s life. If so, I expect to have some second thoughts on a variety of subjects.”
Sigh … why bother …
on Apr 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
That’s nothin’. How about the poor Santa Barbara women with a “Dr.” in front of her name, who says that she cannot afford Times Select. What is this world coming to, where doctors are unable afford a fifty dollar subscription? (Doctors Without Borders, meet Doctors Without Columns)
The Keller Q&A is turning out to be a lot of fun reading.