Show Us Your Ballots Our case for journalistic disclosure. By Jacob Weisberg Updated Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2004, at 3:34 PM PT Today Slate continues a tradition initiated four years ago, when we asked our staff and contributors to tell us who they voted for on Election Day 2000. Last time, the tally was 29 for Gore; 4 for Bush; 2 for Nader; and 2 for Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate. This time, we've cast a slightly wider net and caught 46 for Kerry; 5 for Bush; 1 for Michael Badnarik (Libertarian); and 1 for David Cobb (Green). Interesting footnotes: One of those who voted for Bush in 2000 (our former publisher) has switched to Kerry. (The other Bush 2000 voters aren't in this year's survey.) One contributor who voted Libertarian in 2000 is now supporting Bush. The other four Bush supporters are new to Slate since the last election. One current Kerry voter, Daniel Drezner, was a Bush campaign adviser last time around. Other than curiosity, we're conducting this voluntary poll again for two main reasons. The first is to do something in lieu of an official endorsement by the magazine. Slate is a journal of opinion, but those opinions usually differ. Even writers who agree about a conclusion seldom cite the same reason. Collectivizing the fruit of unconventional minds in an endorsement would either ignore many views or yield a mushy compromise. It seems much more satisfactory to tell you who we're endorsing individually at the voting booth. The second reason is one Michael Kinsley and Jack Shafer cited when we conducted our survey in 2000: to emphasize the distinction between opinion and bias. Journalists, like people, have opinions that influence their behavior. Reporters and editors at most large news organizations in the United States are instructed to keep their opinions to themselves to avoid creating an impression of partisanship. Len Downie, the executive editor of the Washington Post, famously goes so far as to avoid even voting. Slate, which is a journal of opinion, takes precisely the opposite approach. Rather than bury our views, we cultivate and exhibit them. A basic premise of our kind of journalism is that we can openly express what we think and still be fair. Fairness, in the kind of journalism Slate practices, does not mean equal time for both sides. It does not mean withholding judgment past a reasonable point. It means having basic intellectual honesty. When you advance a hypothesis, you must test it against reality. When you make a political argument, you must take seriously the significant arguments on the other side. And indeed, Slate writers tend to be the sort of people who relish opportunities to criticize their own team and give credit to their opponents. Or so we'd like to think. By disclosing our opinions about who should be president, we're giving readers a chance to judge how well we are living up to these ideals. Our aspiration to fairness has been more tested in this election than in most. Personally, I do not remember caring as much about the outcome of any campaign as I do about this one. In a recent editorial meeting, one of our contributors proposed a complicated investigative story that he thought might be harmful to the candidate he wanted to win. Because I did not quite understand the idea—and because we didn't have the resources to pursue the story—I said that we should put the proposal in "the November 3 file." This was a joke, but with enough truth to it that the writer in question didn't think I was kidding. I don't think we have used our (very limited) power as journalists to try to improve John Kerry's chances of winning the election. The majority of the complaints I've heard this election season have been from Kerry supporters who don't understand why we're so hard on a candidate we mostly agree with. But the temptation to play favorites has been harder to resist than usual. News organizations that, for understandable reasons, are less open about the political views of their staff may have a harder time with the challenge of being fair to both sides. Repressed politics, like repressed sexuality, tends to find an outlet of one kind or another. This may explain how Dan Rather and other conscientious journalists at 60 Minutes ended up promoting some sloppily forged documents thought to be damaging to President Bush's re-election effort. Conservatives were right to point out that an equally flawed story harmful to Kerry almost certainly would not have aired. What if CBS reporters and producers openly acknowledged that the vast majority of them prefer Kerry and the Democrats? Perhaps in openly expressing their political leanings, they would be forced to try harder to be fair to the other side, lest they be dismissed as biased. The case most commonly made against fuller disclosure of opinion at "straight" news organizations like CBS—as opposed to journals of opinion like Slate—is that the information would be misused by media critics on the right. Movement conservatives would seize on the revelation that most journalists vote Democratic to discredit professionals who are doing their conscientious best to be fair. But wait—conservatives already dismiss the press as biased against them, on the well-supported assumption that most journalists at national news organizations are liberal. Is denying a cheap shot to critics really a good enough reason to withhold information that many news consumers would deem not only interesting, but useful and relevant? What's more, greater transparency of opinion, if it became a trend, would make it harder for conservatives to use surreptitious liberal bias as a license for their own malignant imitation of what they understand to be that practice. CBS journalists, whatever their politics, are professionals who aspire to be fair and resist bias. Many of those at Fox News Channel, on the other hand, aspire only to advance the fortunes of the conservative movement, even as they parrot the laughable slogan, "fair and balanced." Fox is not biased because it is a conservative network. It is biased because of the intellectually dishonest way it proclaims its neutrality while loading the dice for the GOP and for George W. Bush. As evidenced by this survey, the vast majority at Slate wants John Kerry to win the election on Nov. 2. But don't get the wrong idea. We're not trying to help him do it.
I really like this article... and you have to admit (whether you enjoy reading Slate or not) that this is a really important point that no one seems to acknowledge during their CNN/Fox mudslinging sessions. If people could actually agree that this is a fair point to make, they might be able to start sifting through the garbage a little easier.
I liked this best: Fairness, in the kind of journalism Slate practices, does not mean equal time for both sides. It does not mean withholding judgment past a reasonable point. It means having basic intellectual honesty. When you advance a hypothesis, you must test it against reality. When you make a political argument, you must take seriously the significant arguments on the other side... I found it weird that Kaus picked Kerry and all he does is slag Democrats and Kerry every day.
I found the premise to be horserot. Give me the Jack Friday approach to news: "Just the facts, ma'am." If I have ALL the facts that are indeed factual, I prefer to decide on issues myself rather than, taking my beggar's bowl in hand, to plead for opinions I am too lazy to formulate myself. If journalists would provide only facts -- ALL the facts sans opinion -- they would once again be of public service and once again reclaim an honored place in society. *My definition of "fact" -- information that is true, measurable, provable and/or unchanging.
So let's imagine that Slavery was still legal. Should the press just print the facts? Should they just point out that some people find it immoral as the facts on the one side. Then point out how a region's economy is based on the institution, and how beneficial it is for those that use any number products, eat produce, etc. The facts make it seem like Slavery is a huge boon for the economy, but from the opinion point of view Slavery was horrible. I don't mind the press reporting from the point of view of enlightenment rather than just the facts.
You stumble on your own argument. The pre-Civil War press did indeed cite the facts of slavery, pro and con, and a nation decided slavery's fate, despite being an ancillary issue within a cataclysmic economic disagreement. Or did you want the press to abandon the pen for the sword? Which in the long run is mightier? By making people aware of any problem, great or small, then the people can decide. Unless you want to assume planetary control as Supreme Poobah, I believe that people as a whole will come to the right decisions if they have all the facts -- not just selected facts. I have faith in people, not in personages.
Some of the press did just print the facts. There was also plenty of press that wrote from the point of view of enlightenment. I don't mind printing facts from both sides. That can be done and still write from the point of view of enlightenment. One thing that we can hope for is that the nation as a whole is a little more enlightened now than we were during the civil war. I'm not saying the news should always be opinonated, or always take a side of the issue, and I do believe they should always show different sides to the argument. But you don't give slavery equal weight to non-slavery. Their are issues that clearly deal with a more enlightened point of view, and it's not bad for the press to provide more weight to the enlightened side.
So, you're premise is that facts, in and of themselves, are not "enlightening?" They must have an accompanying opinion before enlightenment dawns?
And, who pray tell, is so omniscient that they can always determine which is the "enlightened" side? Is that Al Jazeera telling us about the need to lop off a head now and then?
I've spent a lifetime around journalists and they'll all tell you that good journalism is about three things: 1. Going into stories without assumptions. 2. Finding out the truth - or as close to it as you can come given the information at hand. 3. Tell your readers the whole story. There is reading between the lines. There are assumptions that have to be made. Investigation means making connections when one source tells you one thing and another source tells you something else. It is the same way police piece together clues from a crime. It's not perfect and it can be affected by bias, but you cannot simply report the facts for people because people don't understand "just the facts." You have to tell them what the facts mean and give them a layman's understanding of what the story is about. That is why the lead to the story is so important. It is intended to capsulize the essence of the story into one sentence or short paragraph and do so for someone with a 6th grade reading level. That's tough to do when you have a story loaded with twists and turns let alone statistics.
Jeff, from one journalist to another, that type of thinking is flat scary. People don't understand "just the facts." Oops, there went our jury system. You have to tell them what the facts mean and give them a layman's understanding of what the story is about. Clearly, you have no faith in the common man and his/her ability to think rationally and/or independently. Both Hitler and Stalin were great believers in telling people what the facts meant and providing the understanding what the story was about. What you have said here is precisely why the Fourth Estate resembles Tara in 1865. John Q. Public senses the condescending nature of the media and is repelled by their undeserved elitism.
Woofer, please. I know you are not kin to Garfield's Odie. So I ask you to think through what you liked best. Let's suppose you have a brother. Every Friday your mother bakes a cake you both absolutely love. She gives your brother a big piece of cake, and she gives you half of a small slice. However, she tells you that your brother is her favorite but at least acknowledges your existence. Your brother tells you that he is better, and since you've tested the statement against the reality of what is happening, you must take the arrangement seriously. Ergo, the explanation makes everything fair and reasonable. Afterall, it is intellectually honest. But how long will you remain content with the situation?
The article is quite clear about pointing out TWO types of journalism. They describe "journals of opinion" which includes their own publication, and "straight news organizations" that include folks like CBS. Are you saying that you don't think that "journals of opinion" should exist? If people are allowed to develop their own opinions, then why would a "journal of opinion" not be a legitimate endevour? Or are you saying that you don't think a "journal of opinion" can be fair under any circumstances or criteria? Or are you saying that you personally prefer only the "straight news organizations" and do not read any of the other type of journalism? I think there are several excellent "straight news organizations" that present themselves as such, have a high level of integrity, and that I trust. Most of them are bad... but that goes for about everything in this world.
The comparison between "a mother" and "journal of opinion" is not correct because journalist do not and should not have any obligation to the entity they are reporting on. So.... a mother not treating her sons equally is immoral by most people's standards since a mother has an obligation in raising her son because of the contract she entered giving birth to that son. Whereas a journalist has no such obligation. Their obligation is to the general public.
Dude, you are WAY overreacting. Jumping from analytical reporting of facts to propoganda is, well, hell, I don't even know what to say. When a reporter interviews someone and listens to responses, he/she has to try to understand not just what is being said, but what it means so that he/she can convey that information to the general public in a way everyone will understand. You cannot simply publish the results of a scientific study and hope people can figure it out. It has to be translated for people so they can understand it. If everyone understood it, the media wouldn't need to exist. Everyone would just read the New England Journal of Medicine. I'm not talking about CHANGING facts. I'm talking about taking a wide range of factual information and weaving it into the fabric of a story. Taking stories from 10 different people and finding the commonalities - putting the pieces together. You still report it all and let the reader decide for himself what to think. But, you have to order it and distill it down to its most essential elements. That's Journalism 101.
Woofer, in this reply to Doctor Robert, let me further the analogy so that you may understand. The "mother" in this case is "we the people of these United States of America" represented by the media and the sons are the two principal political parties. She feels that one of the sons looks like her and the other looks like the husband from whom she is separated for one reason or another. So. I agree that a mother not treating her sons equally is immoral by most people's standards since a mother has an obligation in raising her son because of the contract she entered giving birth to that son (try selling your contract theory to some of the welfare children! ). So why does favoritism happen among the media? Is this not, in your words, "immoral by most people's standards?"
This is a more fascinating area of dialogue -- "straight news" versus "journals of opinion." I hold journals of opinion in high regard. The better ones provide all the facts and state why they believe their way of thinking is better. Unfortunately, many often merely state their opinion with just the facts they want to use -- much like a trial lawyer who doesn't have to worry about cross examination. This does not advance the cause of truth. I read opinions of every kind because I seek the truth, and I know I cannot find the whole truth in one place. Opinions, when shared in a mutual search for the WHOLE truth and nothing BUT the truth, bond people...unite people... rather than separate them. "Straight" news organizations hold a tremendous obligation to society. A high level of integrity, as you said, is paramount. My beloved Fourth Estate stands tarnished with every false story by once trusted mediums such as the New York Times and CBS News. For me, with each irresponsible act, I grieve.
Jeff, I am dismayed that you consider my quest for all the facts reported without prejudice or intent as "overreacting." Let's look at our positions calmly and with clarity. When a reporter interviews someone and listens to responses, he/she has to try to understand not just what is being said, but what it means so that he/she can convey that information to the general public in a way everyone will understand. You cannot simply publish the results of a scientific study and hope people can figure it out. It has to be translated for people so they can understand it. If everyone understood it, the media wouldn't need to exist. Everyone would just read the New England Journal of Medicine. Why not report just what is said without any commentary? Remember in J101, "Car A struck Car B" was factual but attributed fault to Car A. As you recall, "Car A and Car B collided" not only becomes factual but also no fault is attributed. Do you see the difference? Now in your scientific story, why not say that Dr. A. said thus and so and could result in thus and so. .... Who said that the reporter must state Dr. A said thoraboric acid in recombination with suppormidex generates liverosporos with 32.78 percent histerological preculicides, with a margin of error at plus or minus 0.266 percent? Let the doctor explain in layman's terms -- not the reporter. However, the reporter is still necessary to get the facts of the story out to the public: "smoking causes cancer, research shows" -- not "smoking causes cancer." I'm not talking about CHANGING facts. I'm talking about taking a wide range of factual information and weaving it into the fabric of a story. Taking stories from 10 different people and finding the commonalities - putting the pieces together. Now, Jeff, in fairness I never said anything about "changing" the facts." I specified providing ALL the facts and making sure those facts were ACTUAL, REAL, TRUE facts. Again, all I am saying is that a responsible journalist will go out of his or her way to "weave the fabric of a story" into a garment that fits. If that reporter wants to shed his or her opinion, then let them shout from the byline that this is an opinion, not necessarily the right one. I came from the Old School of Journalism, but the principles and ethics I learned in my youth are still precious to me. If you think me a zealot for demanding truth, justice and fairness, then I stand convicted.
a.) Thanks. I don't buy the original analogy. b.) Everyone should be looking at a critical eye at all media fed to them, not just news reports c.) By implication one would deduct that you believe that it's possible to be 100% objective. I would state this is plainly impossible. d.) the NY Times and CBS screwed up when they reported WMD stories as fact because their sources lied and they failed to investigate further than the one source ( which pretended to be multiple sources) e.) most media outlets do not have a loyalty litmus test like Fox f.) the favoritism exhibited is a bending over backwards for the right wing.
