Editorialising vs. Reporting

Editorialising vs. Reporting in the new millennium
It seems as if news has become roadkill on the information highway. No longer do we have a reporter simply informing us of events, but interpreting what s/he sees, hears, and thinks not necessarily based on any expertise. I miss the news reporting of the past in which we were informed of facts. Reporters used to leave editorializing to editorial pages. With the great amount of information instantly available to us, we must sift through it to ensure that we are gathering data, and engaging in discourse based on information, not opinions.

This morning one CBC sportscaster decided to weigh in on a decision to put his two-cents worth on one story. They were discussing the paralympic wheelchair event in which a Canadian woman won gold, but due to one person’s crashing and destroying chances of 4 racers, they chose to redo the event. What surprises me is the arrogance, and disrespect reporters demonstrate for those who make these decisions. In this case the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) made a decision questioned by said reporter, who may or may not have background and experience in such things. Now, while we are aware of corruption and doping issues in sports, the IPC made a decision to rerun the race in a spirit of fairness. I have no idea if this decision is based on rules or morals or values. I find it insulting to be told what I should think.

Not only do reporters interpret news, but they create it, as well. As if direct experience were more valuable than speaking to people involved, the Globe and Mail had a reporter act as a maid in order to play with investigative journalism in a bid to dig deep into a story. The family, whose identifying information caused them embarrassment amongst friends, tried to sue them for charter rights violations.

This is a parallel with embedded reporting in which journalists live and travel with soldiers. Is this news? Are we jeopardizing the safety of both journalists and soldiers in a bid to find truth? Can you be more or less objective in such a situation? I wonder. Christie Blatchford’s book, Fifteen Days (2007), provides an interesting point of view of a soldier’s life, but she, too, seemed to cross boundaries. In this book she concludes, from the soldiers she interviewed, that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is of minimal concern to our Canadian Military personnel. Recent reports from CBC through Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) state that PTSD has tripled since Afghanistan and affects 63% of returning soldiers. (VAC fact sheet on PTSD) The affect on these families and their children is profound. Any military base teacher I have spoken to will echo this concern.

I put out a call to editors to rein in reporters. Granted, there is much injustice in the world. It demands discussion. Let us ensure that we place facts in the fact column and opinions in the editorial columns. We do a disservice to the people who have a right to know when we are being offered truths or well-researched facts. In the Information Age we must draw lines between the two.

Journalists vs. Editorialists vs. Experts

RE: "Earlier discussion
Jane Taber took questions on the Bernier resignation
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080527.wlivetaber0527/BNStory/National/
JANE TABER
May 27, 2008 at 7:51 AM EDT"

I have a question for this newspaper. Since when did a journalist become an authority on subjects? They are biased and report and create editorials based on the newspaper's political viewpoint and biases.

I know that Jane Taber, for example, has had great opportunities to cover politics and is often on CBO on a panel, but when did we begin to see journalists as experts?
It is one thing to write about a subject, to report on it and to be interviewed, but quite another thing to be seen to be an expert and to be able to answer questions from on-line readers.

I am concerned that the media has moved from reporting to interpreting (which is based on their experience, knowledge and research) to now giving their opinions as truth. I am not being disrespectful of highly regarded journalists, but simply questioning the purpose in this. Sometimes, the viewers/internet users have more knowledge and experience than the journalists, but not often. On the other end of the spectrum what is the reason for the 'man-in-the-street' polls and interviews? We take as gospel truth the opinions of those casually approached in TV Media, the Globe publishes polls with viewer responses. This violates all aspects of good research validity and reliability. I continue to be amazed that media devotes pixels, ink and air time to these pieces.

I would prefer that the Media deliver the news.