Trust: How Can the Media Gain Our Trust Back?

How Can the Media Gain Our Trust Back?

The election of 2016 certainly has made the "elephant in the room" visible to everyone. What am I talking about? Bias in the media, of course.

Since the word "deplorable" seems to have become a popular term, I think it is deplorable how journalistic integrity has been thrown out the window in favor of agendas. What happened to reporting the facts and letting the listeners or readers come to their own conclusions about the facts? Since when does journalistic integrity mean reporting only the facts that align with your agenda?

While Christian journalists point fingers at major news networks like CNN and NBC, or newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post, I have to say that Fox News is not innocent, either. Although Fox's bias somewhat balances the biases of liberal news networks, Fox still screams its bias loud and clear -- always has.

Now that all masks are off, how can the American public ever trust the news again? How can we pick up a newspaper, log onto a website, or turn on the TV, and be fairly certain that what we are getting is the whole story?

It's up to us as journalists, especially as Christian journalists, to go back to the roots of good journalism. Going back to the very first post I wrote for this blog, we have to look at what journalistic integrity "looks like." It means the facts are right and the reporting is balanced. It means quoting accurately and within context, checking the factuality of comments made by sources, interviewing people on both sides of an issue, etc.

Can this be done without letting our biases show? Absolutely.

I once did an article on a peaceful protest outside a local Planned Parenthood location. I interviewed the church members protesting and got their backstory and reasons. After the interview, I let them know that, although I agreed with them 100 percent, I had to talk with Planned Parenthood and write a balanced story.

When I interviewed the director of that particular Planned Parenthood location, the way he spoke indicated that he assumed, because I was a woman and a newspaper editor, that I was on his side. I didn't say that I was or wasn't; I just got his backstory and reasons.

Then I sat down to write the article.

I was respectful to both sides, using the terms they preferred -- Pro-Life and Pro-Choice -- and told the story of each side. I tried to be as objective as I could be.

When the paper went to print, I sat back and waited for the backlash. After all, abortion was and still is a hot button issue.

What I got was a call from both sides thanking me for the balanced story.

Is it possible for the media to report totally without bias? No. The media is made up of human beings, and each human being has his or her own bias.

However, the media can take steps to keep bias to a minimum. That means no right-bashing from CNN and the Times, and no left-bashing from Fox. That means choosing what to cover based on newsworthiness, not agendas. That means giving the public the facts and letting them come to their own conclusions.

That's the only way the public will ever be able to trust again. And I'm afraid it's going to take a long time for the media to gain that trust back.

Seizing the opportunity

These opportunities don't happen often. But when they do, the Christian journalist needs to be ready to seize them.

A few weeks ago I was in a joint meeting with a fire department, a village board and a township board to discuss the fire department's budget. You could feel the tension in the air.

The meeting was conducted in a strained sort of civility, and soon the budget was approved by the three entities.

Then the fire department board president took the floor. Often, after a tense meeting with restrained emotions, the last person to take the floor will use it to lambast some entity or person in the room. So when the president said, "I'd like to say something," I got ready to take copious notes.

I never expected what came out of his mouth next...

"I was in church Sunday, and some of you were there, too," he said, "and they read these words, 'If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.'

"Those words changed what I was going to say tonight. Instead I'll say that I think we can all work together better in the coming year."

To have someone quoting the Bible in a public meeting, and then demonstrating how the scripture passage changed him, is an amazing thing to witness.

Yes, I included the quote in my story. Christian journalists have to seize these opportunities when they come. No, the newspaper did not edit it out.

I love this job.

Debate: A great course for aspiring journalists

 

Recently I took a college-level Debate course. Although I felt light years out of my league, I came out of it thinking, "I wish I had taken this course before becoming a journalist."

This was not debate like the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate. This was academic debate with flow charts, time limits and strange terms like "prima facie."

As a writer, I had always had the luxury of time -- time to develop a story idea, time to organize what I wanted to say, time to search for just the right word. In academic debate, there is no time, especially for the negative team. Team members research ahead of time and then develop arguments to what is being said while it is being said. When it is your turn, you just get up there and spew out as much of that information as you can in six minutes, sounding like the guy who reads the "small print" info on prescription drug commercials.

So, what does Debate class have to do with journalism? More than you think.

1. Research -- Research is the name of the game in academic debate. Each team has to back up its arguments with solid research, citing sources. This is great training for journalists, who have to write articles and sound knowledgeable on subjects they didn't even know existed until the day before yesterday.
2. Objectivity -- In one Debate class period, I found myself on the affirmative side of Felon Re-enfranchisement, and five minutes later arguing the negative on the same issue. Being ready to make both cases prepares the aspiring journalist to achieve balance and objectivity in his or her writing.
3. Thinking on your feet -- The speed and nature of academic debate makes questions come to mind quickly, which is perfect practice for interviewing. While a journalist will generally have a prepared list of questions for an interview, sometimes the unexpected rabbit trail makes for a better story than sticking to the list. The journalist has to be ready to think on his or her feet to follow those rabbit trails.

I would highly recommend some sort of academic debate course as an elective sometime in every aspiring journalist's college career. The training will prove invaluable.

Remembering Bill

The voicemail greeting used to begin with "Hello. You've reached the Bill Smith with the newspaper, not Bill Smith the locksmith..." It went on to give the phone number of the locksmith, just in case the caller had the wrong Bill, before giving his own number, in case the caller had a news item for the paper.

That was our Bill Smith -- somewhat self-deprecating, but always a disseminator of useful information -- the perfect combination for a "newspaperman." Former colleague Georga Bray once paid him the highest compliment one editor can give another: "If Bill were to cut his hand, he would bleed ink."

I got to know Bill when we worked for sister newspapers. I didn't know him well, though, until one joint-office Christmas party, when I found myself sitting next to him talking politics and newspapers at great length. I developed a deep respect for his vast knowledge and integrity.

That's why a few years later, when he had started the Trail Communities Messenger in Elroy, Wis. (after our parent company had closed his Elroy newspaper office), and I had been urged by community leaders to start my own newspaper on the other side of the county, the first thing I did was to talk to him. I thought maybe we could sell ads into each other's newspaper, offering customers one-stop countywide coverage.

But Bill was a little more forward-thinking than that. He thought about it for a month or two, and then came back to me with a different idea.  What if I bought into The Messenger, and we took it countywide? I actually liked his idea better than mine; I had been terrified of trying to start a newspaper from scratch. So another colleague, Betty Waits, and I became his business partners, co-publishers, and co-owners of The Messenger of Juneau County.

Those early days were incredible. We could not believe how the people of Juneau County accepted us with open arms. I remember Bill clapping his hands with delight when I came back to the office with two full-page ads after my first day on the job. I wasn't even selling ads. That was when we knew our beloved county stood behind us. After the required two years of being a newspaper, The Messenger was named the official newspaper of Juneau County (over the existing 100+ year old newspaper).

Over the several years that we worked together at The Messenger, Bill and I had many deep discussions about politics, journalism, and faith. Although he wasn't very vocal about it publicly, he told me that he had accepted the Lord as his Savior. And he showed that faith in his integrity and his willingness to help others.

Bill had always dreamed of being an "editor emeritus," and his last few years he realized that dream. He would make his way down the street from his apartment to the newspaper office less and less to write his column, lay out a page or two, or just visit with people. He entered hospice late in 2013 and went to be with "his Mary" (late wife) the morning of Saturday, Feb. 22, 2014.

There are a lot of things I'll miss about Bill. I'll miss knowing that he was out there, pacing back and forth on the sidewalk outside the newspaper office, formulating articles in his mind and keeping an eye on things. I'll miss his gentle mentorship. But most of all, I'll miss his friendship.

Interview: Andy Call

Even in first grade, Andy Call would get bored with class, open an encyclopedia and start reading. Being a reader as a child eventually led to a career as a sports writer for the Cleveland Indians and then beyond.

"It (journalism) was always in my blood," he said.

So was Christianity. He said his parents were saved about the time he was born, and he was raised in church. He accepted the Lord as his Savior at the age of nine at an evangelistic meeting.

In high school, he began writing sports stories for his school newspaper. Then one of his articles, about the football team going to state, was published in the local newspaper. He had always been a reader, and now writing had become a way to express himself.

After graduating from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College with a BS in English, he began covering the Cleveland Indians minor league team for the newspaper. Before long, he moved up to the major leagues, becoming a beat reporter for The Repository, covering the Cleveland Indians' major league baseball team. In 2008, he joined the Communications Department of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (now Maranatha Baptist University) as a writer/editor. Today Call is a media relations strategist at Wright State University in the Dayton, Ohio area.

While covering the Cleveland Indians, he said that his faith gave him opportunities he would not have had  otherwise. For instance, Call was asked by a Christian magazine, Sport Spectrum, to write about third baseman Travis Fryman. After the interview, Call and Fryman began talking about deeper, spiritual things. That's when Fryman told Call he was retiring. Call got the scoop on the story, because he and Fryman connected on a spiritual level.

When talking about sharing his faith in the newspaper, Call said, "I didn't feel I could shoehorn it into a story, but when I got the opportunity to speak a word for Christ, I took it."

In working for a secular publication, Call didn't concern himself with the political leanings of the newspaper. He said part of the reason the media is considered to be so liberal is that conservative people have abandoned it.

He said that journalists are faced with ethical issues every day. "My professional ethics reflect my faith," he said. "If readers can't trust me, that reflects poorly on my faith."

His biggest ethical issue, though, was his family life. After 18 years covering a major league team, at home and away, he saw how much time he was spending away from his family. So he gave up the road to work at Maranatha, where his family could be together.

"There's give and take in this business," he said. "You have to give up some things, but
when it affects your family..."

Having worked for both Christian and secular organizations, Call said there are positives and negatives to both types of journalism. Writing in the Christian realm, he said a person can feel good about the cause he or she is supporting. In the secular realm, he said a person can speak for Christ where it wouldn't happen otherwise.

"Every career move I've made, God has led in it," Call said. "It's however God leads."

The Power of THR3E

ABC...Three Blind Mice...Snap, Crackle, Pop...

Ever since childhood, we have been bombarded with the subliminal message of the power of the number 3. For some reason, the brain seems to grasp things easily in groups of three. Why? As one of my former editors put it, "Because four is too many, and two is not enough."

We don't have any clear reason why we like things in three's, but the mathemetician may say it's because the three-sided triangle is the most stable shape. The psychologist may say it's because the  human brain wants choices, but not so many choices as to confuse it. The Christian can speculate on it's connection with God -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- or that Jesus was in the tomb for three days before rising from the dead.

Instead of spending time trying to figure out why people like the number three, we as journalists just need to use it in our communications. For instance, if we are going to list examples, list three. If there are several aspects of an issue, try to group them under three subheads.

The order of the three items makes a difference, as well -- especially the last item. Think of it as the punchline to a joke. While the first two go one direction in indicating what the list is, the third one needs to do something different. Perhaps it could be the most important item in the list:

1. Places in the news
2. Issues in the news
3. People in the news

Perhaps it could be the most recent event in the list:

1. The Civil War
2. World War I
3. World War II

Or it could go a completely different direction than the other items in the list:

1. He hates it when people question his integrity.
2. He hates it when people question his faith.
3. He hates it when people don't rinse out the coffee pot.

So whenever you find yourself needing to use examples in a story or list aspects of an issue, try to pare it down to three items or groups, and pay attention to the order in which you place them. While it won't make or break your story, it will give the story an added touch of professionalism.

Speaking Up: When and how it is appropriate

Sometimes in the course of covering the news, you as a Christian journalist will encounter a situation that is so wrong, you can't help but speak up. You most likely will be able to do this in a news story. But sometimes a local controversial issue will get so out of hand, that you find yourself needing to use your column to either calm the waters or remind parties of the "rules" of fair play.

I found myself in this situation once when I was the editor of a local newspaper. The local wildlife refuge had been contacting area property owners, letting them know that they could receive a tax break on any land they put into a government conservation program. The property owners saw this as a veiled threat to their property, and thus began a heated argument in the editorial section of my newspaper. I provided fair coverage, explaining each side of the issue, and then let them "duke it out" in letters to the editor.

The wildlife refuge director wrote one letter to the editor to explain that this was a voluntary program. The property owners formed an organization, and its members sent one letter to the editor after another lambasting the refuge and the federal government. The letters from the property owners got so heated, that I had to edit many of them for vulgarity and libel.

Finally, I'd had enough. I wrote a column one week to put a stop to it. I started by indicating that I had no opinion in the matter. My husband's family were property owners in a different part of the county, so I could truly say in the column that I understood the property owner group's point of view. I could also understand the refuge's point of view and that this was a completely voluntary program.

After planting myself firmly on neutral ground, I went on to say that there had been a lot of mud-slinging in the editorial pages of our paper recently, but the mud seemed to be flying in one direction. I put it right out there to the public that the letters to the editor from the property owners had to be edited for vulgarity and libel; while the refuge, other than the first letter, had remained silent no matter what the property owners had thrown at them in print.

I ended by saying that we will always welcome letters to the editor, but we need to "keep it above the belt."

I sent the paper to press, and then sat back and waited for the phone calls. The refuge director was the first to call.

"The column made my wife cry," he said. "You can't imagine the stress we've been under. Thank you so much."

The next call I received was from the director of the property owners' group. I expected yelling; what I got was a calm, controlled voice saying, "Could you please tell me which letters you are talking about that were a problem?"

I read some of the original versions to him over the phone, and we came to an agreement. He would talk to the group members and tell them to clean up their communication, and I would add to any letter not specifically from him a disclaimer that the letter does not represent the opinions of the group.

I wouldn't suggest doing something like this except as a last resort (I've only done it once in my career). But if you do elect to do a public reprimand, be sure to

1. Put yourself on neutral ground first,
2. Address only the part of the issue that is a problem, and
3. Let people know that you still welcome their opinions.