Freedom of the press. Responsibility of the press. These are not one and the same thing.Freedom of the press means that a voice reporting with the written word cannot be abridged. If there is news to be told, anyone may take pen in hand, or keyboard to fingers, or microphone to mouth, and tell that news without fear of retribution, without threat to life or limb.
Probably the key word in that paragraph, however, is “news.” What is the definition of “news?”
There is certainly fair debate over what constitutes news. If entertainment is your bailiwick, then, truly, the details of singers’ or actors’ lives is legitimate news to you. That is why there is television programming modeled after traditional news programming to bring the public the latest on the Kardashians or Beyonce, or periodicals dealing with movie-making, theater and the arts.
By the same token, if there weren’t a desire to know baseball statistics or football team rankings or tennis and golf seeds, ESPN would not exist to give full reportage to these areas of American life.
So, “news” has a broad range of genres and interpretation.
In the political arena, it is my opinion, that actual facts about the machinations of our government are at the highest level of news because of their importance to the health of the nation. Note that I rank this highest but not exclusive in the news category. Also note that I talk about facts, not alternate facts, or urban legends, or conspiracy theory, or nuance about actual events.
As Couchman pointed out in a recent response to a column by Army Bob, I have never seen in print the opinion of any Townbroadcast columnist that FOX News ought not exist. What I have seen is the opinion (my own) that it not be categorized as news, because of its all-too-obvious, ultra-conservative, and sometimes fabricated content. It may be, as I contend, mislabeled as news, but it has every right to exist, to not be silenced.
I have mentioned this web resource before in my column, the Media Bias Chart [https://www.adfontesmedia.com/], in which news resources (yes, FOX News is included, as are publications like Mother Jones and Breitbart) are ranked according to their success at giving the public accurate news, as opposed to propaganda, and their particular bias, left or right, and the extreme to which it is biased. (This link will take you to the most recent version 4.0. It is updated regularly, with explanations for the rankings.)
For those of us who legitimately want to learn and express valid opinions about what’s happening in the world, this is a priceless tool (actually it’s free) for the edification of our minds.
Because of using and reading (and subscribing to) various of these sources, I can now have unemotional, educated discussions with people whose points of view I don’t share with a better understanding of where they are coming from. And because I can cite the sources they most value they have less of a beef with me for how I interpret the news. And if you’ll pardon my own disdain for FOX News, I do follow it so I know what kind of drivel it is peddling. Because they have a right to exist, I have an obligation to know what they are saying.
Which brings me to responsibility of the press.
As I see it, there are two categories of responsibility to which the press must ascribe. First and foremost is the obligation to be factual, to present facts in a manner that is neutral and to the point. The good old “who, what, when, where, why and how” of news reporting. Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts. Don’t over blow it as a conflagration when it is merely a fire. Don’t label it as a disagreement when it is actually a full-blown riot.
The second responsibility, as I see it, is that the words that are used, as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., whether in straight reporting or opinion pieces, be selected carefully so that each one conveys the actual meaning the writer intends. For a reporter or opinion-spouter (which I am), it is important that words say exactly what the writer intends to impart. Carelessly used words lead to misunderstanding, hurt sensibilities, and establish barriers against hearing and internalizing another point of view. To paraphrase an overused expression, words matter. If we write only in superlatives and absolutes with highly charged and inflammatory descriptors, our thoughts become meaningless.
I’d love to sell everyone on the idea that each of us has a moral obligation to at least look at the Media Bias Chart 4.0 (the newest version). It can be an eye-opener. It can be a confirmation that we’ve been using media wisely, or it can be a shocker that we’ve been relying on sources that are not intended to edify but to manipulate.
Freedom and responsibility don’t have to apply exclusively to the press. They can also apply to those of us who have that rare privilege of taking them for granted.
Very good article…using the chart is an excellent concept to judging news. If one looks closely you will observe more of the media seem to lean to the left.
The broadcasting and written words of news seem to always be slanted one way or the other.
The facts and only the facts are long gone
Your words “As Couchman pointed out in a recent response to a column by Army Bob, I have never seen in print the opinion of any Townbroadcast columnist that FOX News ought not exist.” Did not say anyone said it should not exist, I stated they are angry it does exist a big difference. As you said the first amendment covers the right to exist but it dose not mean you can be angry at a news source .
Quoting Mr. Couchman may not be a good idea. Using Mr. Couchman as a reference to what I say may not be a good idea.
Thank you for your time.
Enjoy Arizona and the Grand kids.