Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (101506)	2/21/2005 6:01:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793797

Interview with L.A. Times Editor Bob Sipchen – Part Two: Blogging by Reporters, Objectivity, and Transparency — Patterico @ 10:15 am This is Part Two of my interview with L.A. Times editor Bob Sipchen. (Part One was about the “Outside the Tent” feature.) In this part of the interview, Sipchen and I discussed objectivity and transparency in journalism. In connection with the topic of bloggers like Kaus being invited “inside the tent,” I asked Sipchen whether the L.A. Times had ever discussed the possibility of allowing blogging by reporters (like the blog run by Dan Weintraub at the Sacramento Bee) or editors (like the group blog run by editors of the Dallas Morning News). Sipchen said that the concept of blogging under the auspices of the newspaper had been actively discussed as a real possibility for the Opinion Section. Sipchen said that this was quite different from letting a reporter blog, which he said was unlikely to happen. Sipchen said that the reason reporters shouldn’t blog has to do with journalistic objectivity. The “higher beings” at the paper have a view of journalism that comports with his own view, which is that there is a real benefit to making an effort to be objective. The paper strives to have its reporters hold their biases in abeyance. The reader should not know what a reporter’s political viewpoint is after reading a story. [I’m biting my tongue so hard here I’ll be spitting blood soon. – Ed.] I asked Sipchen about the school of thought that journalism should be more transparent – that reporters and editors should be more forthright about disclosing their biases. I mentioned that some variant of this view has been advocated by many blogger-journalists, such as Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, and (to some extent) Dan Gillmor. I noted that Marc Cooper’s recent “Outside the Tent” piece made the same argument about the paper’s reporting from Iraq. Sipchen expressed strong disagreement: “When I’m reading a newspaper story out of Baghdad, I don’t give a rat’s ass about what some 28-year-old reporter thinks.” Sipchen said that he wants the reporter to tell him the facts on the ground, not what the reporter’s conclusion is about those facts. “Why on earth should I care about what the reporter thinks?” Sipchen asked rhetorically. “Maybe he’ll become an expert and I’ll care then.” Sipchen said that he understands what Marc Cooper was arguing for, and added: “There’s a place for the sort of subjective reportage that he talks about.” But Sipchen doesn’t think that place is on the news pages of The Times, and says that he’d rather see reporters subjugate their own biases and simply report the facts. And allowing reporters to blog would inevitably bring their biases to the forefront, where Sipchen believes they don’t belong. My own view is that reporters should strive for a mix of transparency and fairness. As long as journalists follow basic values of fairness, the value of transparency counsels that they should not pretend to objectivity on an issue as to which they have reached a decision. But they should disclose every material fact that they reviewed in making that decision – including those that tend to contradict their position. They should also tell us something about their background and views, so that we can see where they are coming from and judge their views accordingly. I think that allowing reporters to blog – unedited if possible – would be the best way for readers to learn their views. Interview with L.A. Times Editor Bob Sipchen – Part Three: Sipchen’s Reaction to the Interview — Patterico @ 10:15 am In two previous entries, I posted an interview with L.A. Times editor Bob Sipchen. Part One is about the “Outside the Tent” feature. Part Two discusses objectivity and transparency in journalism. I showed the interview to Sipchen before publishing it, to allow him the opportunity to object to any statements or quotations that he believed to be inaccurate. He indicated to me that he has no such objections, and that I “got it right.” He did ask me to clarify two or three things, where he was afraid that people might get the wrong impression based on things he had said. Rather than try to summarize his clarifications, I’ll simply reproduce his entire e-mail below, in the extended entry portion of this post. (I encourage readers to read the interview before reading Sipchen’s reaction.) Patrick, I’m impressed. You got it right and I don’t seem to have said anything terribly stupid (although I’m sure your readers will disabuse me of that notion). Two small points. 1). Re: Dunphy. I didn’t mean to suggest that the conversation between the reporter and the author may not have occurred. It clearly did, and while I have no reason to doubt the author’s account of what was said, I can’t be put in a position of trying to judge whether his account is more accurate than the reporter’s or to sort out the myriad reasons (bite your tongue again, but they aren’t necessarily nefarious) why the well-respected and by all indications entirely honorable reporter chose what information to include in his report–or whether an assignment or copy editor may have deleted it for a million other reasons the author simply doesn’t know. Those are the kinds of tail-chasing “investigations” that could wipe out hours I don’t have as Sunday Opinion editor, and it’s hardly a task I’d want to delegate. 2). Re: That interesting little tangent on objectivity you lured me into: I don’t want to leave the impression that I disdain the views of someone just because she or he is a reporter (whether 28 years old or 68 years old). I spent most of my career as a reporter and hope to go back someday because I think it’s a far more important and difficult job than pontificating (or editing). The reporter’s job is to be fair while accurately and honestly reporting the facts and providing unbiased context. That’s a much tougher assignment that it might seem, for all variety of reasons–one of the least of which is that we all have biases. A good reporter has the discipline to filter out most personal bias. His or her editors then try to squeeze out any remaining slant or prejudice. It’s an imperfect science, but I think readers would grow weary quickly of the blather that would fill newspapers if reporters freely spiced their stories with whatever political, religious, philosophical, or culinary views they happen to hold that day. I teach journalism, and I can assure you that most of my young students know exactly what’s wrong with the world and how to save it. What they remain clueless about is how to report facts. They have to be taught the exhilarating skill of keeping an open mind while wrestling respectfully with other peoples’ views. Oh, yeah. I only volunteered that I didn’t leak that to Kaus because you had a slightly accusatory tone in your voice when you brought it up (what do you do for a living again?). [For what it’s worth, I didn’t intend to sound accusatory. – Ed.] I never leak anything to anyone and speak only on the record in interviews. Bob Sipchen Editor Sunday Opinion I want to emphasize that I published this post at the same time that I posted the interview; it is only a separate post for space reasons. Wouldn’t it be great if newspapers could provide full and instant feedback from the subjects of their articles, as I have done here? Don’t get me wrong: I understand why they can’t. Still, I think that seeing this e-mail gives you, the reader, a much greater degree of confidence in the accuracy of the interview than you would have without it. And to the extent that the subject of the interview feels the need to clarify a certain point, allowing him to do so at the same time that the interview runs is in the interest of accuracy, fairness, and the truth. And isn’t that what we’re all striving to achieve? patterico.com