By
Kelly McBride:
(Additional comment below from Poynter's Roy Clark, Tom Huang, Bob Steele, Al Tompkins and Keith Woods.)
Most Americans will not learn about
The New York Times' allegations that John McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist from
The New York Times. They'll hear it from cable television or talk radio or their local newspaper.
The rest of the world of journalism has as much credibility at stake today as
The New York Times does. Here's why:
- If you start with McCain's denial of wrong-doing, he looks guilty.
- If you start with a statement that the McCain campaign was thrown into turmoil today, he looks guilty.
- If you start with the allegation that McCain's staffers were worried that he was having an affair, you make him look guilty.
Our formulas for repeating news could work against us if we don't take some care and caution.
Here's an alternative structure: Give your audience the big picture. Tell them that the nation's largest and most prestigious paper published a long, complex story today, calling into question McCain's judgment on many issues. As part of that story, the newspaper revealed that eight years ago the senator's staffers feared he was having an affair with a lobbyist, who seemed to show up at unexpected times. Explain how news is originated and then repeated. Explain that many people have questions about
The New York Times' approach. Examine the entangled relationship between journalism and politics.
The
Times' decision to lead and end their story with McCain's relationship with Vicki Iseman is potentially distorting. The rest of the journalism world bears responsibility for minimizing or magnifying that distortion.
More From Al Tompkins:
This morning, the media pack dutifully followed the story all morning
by showing split screen images of McCain and the cocktail dress-wearing
lobbyist. They didn't focus on campaign reform laws or lobby laws. They
didn't focus on legislation she was interested in versus McCain's
support or voting. They focused on whether he had a romantic
relationship.
In my video storytelling class I usually teach this lesson: "When the
eye and the ear compete, the eye wins." No matter what you are saying
while those images are on the TV screen, the audience will not hear you
clearly -- they will remember the images.
Be VERY careful about what images, headlines and teases you
use in your coverage. For television, showing McCain and Iseman on the
screen at the same time may visually imply a relationship. Showing
Iseman on the screen at the same time that you are showing McCain
standing with his wife sets up a visual tension that is hard to deny. A headline that says "McCain
Denies Inappropriate Relationship" is very different from "McCain
Denies Lobbyist Ties" or "McCain Says He is Disappointed in
The New York Times." Read more in Al's Morning Meeting.
From Bob Steele:Rigor. It's an essential value that supports responsible journalism. And it's key in this case.
The
New York Times had the obligation to apply rigorous, exacting,
substantive standards of reporting, editing and ethics on the McCain
story.
Times' editors clearly believed this story was important, given
its strong play and length. The
Times could have and should have given
readers more information about why and how they developed, reported,
vetted and edited this story. They should have revealed proactively the
story behind the story. They should have better explained the decision
to use some unnamed sources, better explained the timing of the
publication.
The
Times should have offered a better account of
the rigor behind the story. They shouldn't have waited until critics
started firing machine guns. It appears defensive rather than
legitimately justifying the journalism.
It's just as important
for all other news organizations following up this story to apply their
own level of intense rigor. Newsroom leaders must ask hard questions as
they decide why, how and what to report. Editors, news directors,
producers and reporters must constantly ask themselves questions about
accuracy, fairness, context and newsworthiness. Can we independently
verify that information? How can we heighten fairness? What else do we
need to report to make sure our story honors the context of the
original story? How do we give proper tone and proportion to this story?
Rigor. It must be a linchpin value at every stage of the reporting.
Rigor is at the heart of responsible journalism.
From Roy Peter Clark:
The timing of
The New York Times story about John McCain is a conspiracy theorist's dream come true.
On the right, the narrative goes like this: The
Times wants the
Democratic candidate to become the next president, which means it needs
to help create the weakest possible Republican candidate. The
Times had the story of an inappropriate relationship with a woman
lobbyist as early as last December, and held it until after the primary
election cycle, during which they endorsed John McCain.
The theory goes that they withheld news that might have weakened McCain
at exactly a time when a weaker McCain could have been defeated
by a more reliably conservative candidate. Now that McCain has
essentially become the Republican presidential candidate, the
Times
rolls out an explosive story designed to undercut him in the fight
against the Democrats. Whew.
Times editor Bill Keller
released a statement on the timing of the story:
"On the substance, we think the story
speaks for itself. In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually
reported. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are
ready.
"'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our
satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to
respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and
caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It
reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check
by our lawyers, we published it."
For Keller, then, the readiness is all.
I would argue, in response, that while readiness is the key factor in
deciding when to publish, it's rarely the only one. Reporters and
editors know that stories are sometimes held so they can be
lawyered. At other times they are rushed into print because of
competitive pressures -- especially fears that they'll get scooped on
their own story. Often on explosive political stories, internal
pressures come into play that include disagreements on story focus and
play.
There is a long tradition in American journalism of taking special care
with the publication of explosive stories that can affect the course of
an election. Remember when the
Los Angeles Times ran stories about Arnold
Schwarzenegger's alleged "groping" of women? The timing of that
story became central to determination of its fairness. Politicians at
every level know this dirty trick: If your candidate is losing,
leak a story to the press close to the actual election that will turn
the outcome.
Here are some questions that might help journalists determine when to publish:
1. Do we have a strong consensus inside the newsroom that now is the time?
2. Have the key stakeholders been consulted?
3. Are we prepared to explain to the public why we chose this time to publish?
4. Is it possible to publish a part of the story that is "ready" while other parts of the story are still cooking?
5. Are revelations about the personal life of a candidate relevant in this particular story?
6. Are such revelations central to the story, or just the carnival barker at the door of the tent?
7. What public interest is served by publishing this story now?
From Keith Woods:Why now? It's such an obvious question. When a news organization tosses an explosive story into a roiling political campaign, whether it's
The New York Times and the presidential race or your local newspaper and a mayoral election, the public will surely wonder about the timing.
Set aside the obvious partisan reasons people are likely to question the
Times' timing on the story of John McCain's relationships with lobbyists. It's a fair question to wonder why allegations so firmly grounded in a campaign eight years ago only now are making their way into the newspaper. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist or even a Republican to wonder, "Why now?"
The
Times should have answered that question at the same moment it raised questions about McCain's marital fidelity and political fealty. What does it take, really? A few paragraphs that explain the reporting process; a few words that tell readers how many phone calls, private conversations, e-mails -- years -- it took to nail this story down.
That sort of transparency is good for a couple of reasons. For one, it answers a news question. Yes, a news question. When the nation's powerhouse newspaper plops a story like this one onto the political tabletop, the newspaper, like or not, becomes the news. And "Why now?" becomes as important a journalistic question as "Who?" and "What?" and the other core queries of the craft.
Given the new, interactive, two-way relationship news organizations must forge with readers, listeners and viewers, it's not just appropriate but necessary that the newspaper should offer timely insight into its decision-making. The old "we-stand-by-our-story" posture is trite and betrays the new terms of journalism's pact with its audience. It invites charges like "arrogant" and "elitist," and it erodes our fragile credibility. And it only takes a simple act of journalism -- answering the obvious questions -- to set the record straight.
From
Tom Huang:
By noon today, more than 1,500 readers had posted
comments about The Times' McCain story to the paper's Web site.
The reader feedback -- impassioned and intelligent for the most part -- reveal the power that news Web sites have for fostering dialogue and debate about high-profile stories. Readers are debating how The
Times framed the McCain story, and whether the story is relevant to the campaign.
"The article was about Mr. McCain's blind spots and his tin ear for feedback about how others are perceiving him," wrote one reader. "I think that is relevant information for voters to consider when someone is running for President of the United States. Mr. McCain's involvement with lobbyists is relevant as well in whether he is a part of the solution or is one of the problems in the economic challenges we face. We need something more than simply a person's opinion of themselves as a qualification to run for this office."
But another reader disagreed with the
Times' decision to run the story: "I am disappointed and dismayed by the lack of judgment and professionalism displayed by
The New York Times in publishing this article. To print such unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo is the type of journalism one would expect from the
National Enquirer. By publishing news that is NOT 'fit to print,' don't be surprised when the overall prestige and influence of your publication is eventually compromised and lost…"
At the same time, the reader comments reveal a potential pitfall. Some readers are asking about reports alleging that the
Times delayed the McCain story for a few months. Readers are also questioning the timing of the story's publication.
One reader asked: "I'm a full-fledged Barack Obama supporter, but even I have to ask
The New York Times the old Watergate questions: 'What did you know?' and 'When did you know it?' and an updated question, 'Why this story now?'"
By enabling readers to comment on articles, editors raise the expectation that the paper will explain the decisions behind these stories. There’s a greater demand for transparency. And yet, as Keith Woods notes, the Times for now is taking a “we stand by our story” posture. As editors allow readers to communicate with one another, they will need to re-examine how well they themselves communicate with their readers.
1- your typical, belly sliding, low life, lieing, politican! 2-...
