Columnist Fred Brown offers purposeful verse
By Leah Franklin

Fred Brown delivered the School’s commencement address on Dec. 18, 2003. A Sunday columnist and retired Capitol Bureau chief for The Denver Post, he is also a political analyst for KUSA-Channel 9 in Denver and co-chair of the Society for Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee.

Fred Brown

I’m honored to be chosen to send you forth into the world of journalism – if that, in fact, is where you end up – with some words of what I hope are good advice.

We’re at that time of year when it’s appropriate to look back at what has happened over the previous 12 months. We’re expected to keep charity in our hearts, and good will, and to learn from our mistakes and resolve to do better.

Well, journalists – and other communicators – we’ve got a lot to learn and resolve. And I’m afraid the public isn’t in a mood to give us a lot of good will and charity.

Our record has not been good. It’s been a year of plagiarism and invented “facts,” of celebrity pandering and caving in to controversy and newsmakers’ putting conditions on what we can report.

But Dean (Paul) Voakes said it might be refreshing to take a light tone. So, rather than dump all of this burden on you too heavily, I thought about putting my words of advice into verse appropriate to the season.

Twas the week before Christmas; in the newsroom, ill humor.
Not a story was stirring, not even a rumor.
The editors grumbled; reporters were restive,
So weary of articles jolly or festive.
Nothing hot on the scanners; nothing good on the wires.
No triple ax murders or four-alarm fires.
No graft at the statehouse; no stock-market scandals;
No sports-star abusers or celebrity vandals.
And just as we’re feeling frustrated and mean,
A fat guy shows up wearing red velveteen.

As I said, I thought about putting this advice into verse form. And then I thought better of it. Or at least I thought I ought to interrupt myself here to make a few serious points.

All this week, I’ve been watching a big debate on the Internet involving at least 15 or 20 statehouse reporters from around the country.

Actually, it isn’t much of a debate. All of the reporters are on one side. Let me tell you a little about it.

There’s a list-serv for statehouse reporters called Capitol Beat. On Monday, a reporter in Florida complained that Gov. Jeb Bush had banned one newspaper – it turns out it was The Palm Beach Post – from the governor’s traditional end-of-year press interviews. The newspaper’s Capitol bureau chief had previously been banned from the House floor as well.

The reporter who posted this message said the newspaper “has been aggressively reporting topics that have made the governor and the previous House speaker uncomfortable,” then added, by way of coming to the paper’s defense, “yet the newspaper hasn’t, to my knowledge, been asked to write corrections or clarifications on any of the stories.”

The poster’s bottom line: Had anyone else ever experienced anything similar? And what did you do about it?

Well, let me tell you. There was a screenful of response. But it wasn’t very diverse.

It was mostly along the lines of how dare the governor do that. Make him pay for it. Write a story about how he’s trying to shut out the press and, by extension, the public.

At his next press conference, ask him what he’s afraid of. Walk out en masse. Make a big story out of it; talk to political science experts about the possible reasons for a governor to do this. Keep hounding him.

There were only a couple of slightly calmer views, from my perspective. One response pointed out these year-end interviews are primarily for the governor’s benefit. And another writer dared to suggest that maybe the public doesn’t care about the press’ problems.

You know what? That’s right. In a fight between politicians and the press, the public isn’t going to be very sympathetic to either side.

It reminds me of something my old friend Carl Hilliard – who covered the Colorado Capitol for decades (for The Associated Press) – was fond of saying: “I don’t care if trash like that kills each other.”

It was usually said about floor fights between right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats, or football games between, say, the Oakland Raiders and the Dallas Cowboys.

But it probably accurately reflects majority public sentiment about politicians and – despite our innate nobility and pursuit of truth – about journalists, too.

This is especially true after events of the past year. We have not done much to get the public on our side.

Jayson Blair, a reporter for The New York Times, resigned under pressure for copying big chunks of a story from the San Antonio Express-News. A subsequent investigation showed there had been dozens of similar instances. Blair’s editor and managing editor resigned.

The editor of The Salt Lake Tribune resigned two days after firing two of the paper’s reporters for lying about selling information to The National Enquirer about the Elizabeth Smart case.

A television station in Florida was selling time on its newscasts to local businesses – not commercials, mind you, but face time with the news anchors.

The New York Times, continuing its year of atonement, asked the Pulitzer committee to review a prize granted more than 65 years previously to see if maybe the reporter had covered up the truth about Stalin’s regime. The committee decided, no, that’s OK.

And then there has been all manner of crime news and celebrity news – and criminal celebrity news – that seems to get much more than its appropriate share of ink and air time.

But at least these recent and continuing challenges to journalism’s reputation – and let’s face it, this stuff hurts all of us in the news business – have already spurred a lot of talk in newsrooms.

Here’s what I hope is being said:
One of the most effective ways to deal with a disease is prevention. And, to cure bad ethics, nothing is better than to remember the lasting journalistic ideals of Accuracy, Fairness and Objectivity.

Of these, Accuracy is the one absolute essential. It’s also the easiest to define, but not always the easiest to achieve. Either a story is accurate or it’s not. Yes, there are occasional differences of opinion about a fact, but for the most part, facts are facts. Every name must be spelled correctly, every set of figures must be correct. It’s critical to get every detail right.

Fairness is a little less easy to define. But mostly it involves listening – listening to every point of view, everyone who has a stake in the development or outcome of the story you’re working on.

Objectivity is the hardest to achieve. Some argue that it’s impossible to achieve. It’s an attempt to free journalism from the biases and values of sources, reporters and even the audience.

And so, in an effort to help you think about this very difficult goal, I am prepared to offer you a few, comparatively short words of advice. You knew I would finally get to this point, didn’t you?

I’m here to make a pitch for objectivity. It may be hard to define and even harder to achieve, but give it a try.

I’m not recommending a total disconnect, total detachment from one’s community; that’s not where journalism needs to be. But objectivity, according to Webster’s – which I have always found to be a good source for definitions – is something different: “uninfluenced by emotion, surmise or personal opinion.” Also “based on observable phenomena.”

That’s a perfect description of the approach that a reporter of news, especially one just getting started, ought to take.

First, don’t do what those statehouse reporters suggested to get back at Gov. Bush. Don’t become part of the story.

Your job is to observe and report. It’s not to try to embarrass the people on your beat. Or to take sides. It’s to fully and accurately report what happened or what’s happening now or what’s about to happen.

Second, remember that “pursuit of truth is not a license to be a jerk.”

Jack Fuller, formerly of The Chicago Tribune, said that in 1996. And the SPJ Code of Ethics says, “Journalists should recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.”

Good advice. Journalists should fight their unfortunate tendency to revel in other people’s misfortunes. Remember your humanity. Show a little compassion. It doesn’t make you a wimp.

And don’t be a bully. If you think your mission in life is to get even with someone or something, please find some other line of work. Professional wrestling, maybe.

Third, don’t assume that negative news is objective and positive news is fluff.

Too many reporters seem to think that every big story has something to do with corruption, graft or scandal. Not necessarily.

Our job is to seek truth and report it. That means the whole truth. And sometimes the truth is good news.

Part of seeking the whole truth is to follow problems to their solutions.

Journalism has a role that no other institution can really fulfill: to find the flaws, the aberrations, the corruption, the problems — and expose them.

But there’s more to reality than problems. A journalist should complete the loop. That’s my fourth suggestion: Follow a story all the way; don’t drop it after revealing how bad things are.

Maybe this is what the new journalism should be about: not setting the agenda, not solving people’s problems for them, but paying more attention to the people who are looking for solutions, to telling the good stories as well as the bad.

Fifth, don’t write only for other reporters.

Too many reporters write to impress the other people in the newsroom with how tough they are. A journalist needs to outgrow that.

Your first duty is to the public – not to your colleagues or even to your editors.

Good journalism means getting out of the office and talking with real people – people who may not look like you or think like you. Diversity is more than a matter of race or ethnicity. It’s diversity of gender and age and – maybe most importantly – politics and philosophy.

Demand openness; but avoid unnecessary secrecy yourself.

Know your state’s open meetings and open records laws. Be prepared to cite them and demand their enforcement. But don’t try to hide your objective from your sources. Let them know what you’re working on; maybe they’ll help.

And don’t be embarrassed to ask a source to check your facts on a complicated story. Don’t let the source rewrite it, but remember that your first obligation is to get it right. If you’re writing about a complicated tax policy or cold fusion or a tricky personnel problem, you’re going to need help. Sometimes that means saying, “Here’s how I interpreted what you told me. Did I make any mistakes?”

I should point out that this works for most stories except those big investigative blowouts. But you shouldn’t measure your success by big investigative blowouts. It’s far better to be respected than feared.

Seventh, don’t plagiarize. That should be obvious after Jayson Blair and all the other reporters – including some locally – who’ve been fired for copying someone else’s material.

I know, there’s a lot of good stuff on the Internet – so much that you’d think it would be tough to trace. But it isn’t. Inevitably, you’ll be found out. You absolutely must resist the temptation to copy the work someone else has done. It’s unethical and often illegal, too. It will get you fired.

Finally, close your mouth and open your mind.

Don’t jump to conclusions. Always be ready to accept new evidence, new information, new sources. Be sure you have all the facts before you attempt to organize and deliver them to someone else.

Remember that definition of objectivity: “based on observation” and “uninfluenced by emotion, surmise or personal opinion.”

And always finish what you start. So, as I was saying …

We thought, just some homeless guy, typically weird,
But that fur trim was real, and so was his beard.
His eyes twinkled wisely, his voice had authority.
“Ink-stained wretches,” he asked, “what’s your utmost priority?”
Then he answered himself, “Whether veteran or youth,
Your first obligation is telling the truth.”
And I heard him exclaim as he cut to the chase,
“Remember you’re part of the whole human race.
“Don’t always be wishing for scandal and strife;
All news is not bad; for Pete’s sake, get a life!”