Reporters Should Be Subject-Matter Experts and Honest Brokers

Kevin Drum asks:

The Washington Monthly: OBJECTIVITY....Mark Kleiman comments on the convention of objectivity in the reporting of straight news:

A news account isn't an editorial. The ideal-type "reporter" is supposed to give "just the facts, ma'am," and not his or her own opinions.

This creates a problem when a reporter has to report false statements, especially by candidates for office. If a candidate says that the Earth is flat....should the reporter "objectively" simply report the statement, or should she add the objective fact that the world is actually round?

Mostly, reporters find it more comfortable either to copy down the b.s. and let the reader sort it out, or to find a source willing to be quoted as saying that the world is round.... So the conventions of reportorial objectivity give a big advantage to liars, who get their lies reported on equal terms with the truth.

In theory, everyone agrees with this. The problem is, I haven't yet come across a single person who's proposed a workable solution. Who gets to decide whether an issue is still debatable? The reporter? But most reporters aren't subject matter experts. Would you trust the average reporter to take on this role on a daily basis? And even if we do believe reporters should be routine arbiters of the truth, how exactly should they express this? Flatly call things lies? Insert contrary evidence in their own voice whenever they decide someone has crossed the line? Something more subtle?

The problem with the convention of objectivity isn't that no one recognizes that it's a problem. Everyone recognizes that it's a problem. Entire tank cars of ink have been spilled discussing it. The real problem is that so far no one has come up with a solution — a practical, functional, real-world solution — that's broadly acceptable. Any ideas?

The pressure point is "most reporters aren't subject-matter experts." Why not? Replace non-subject-matter expert reporters with expert subject-matter reporters who have reputations as honest brokers. You need both: subject-matter expertise, and a willingness to be an honest broker interested in informing readers rather than a propagandist or a stenographer. The Washington Post should throw Nell Henderson out the window and buy its Federal Reserve coverage from the Wall Street Journal and Jackie Calmes. The New York Times should throw Michael Gordon out the window and buy its Iraq coverage from Steve Negus of the Financial Times and Nancy Youssef and Leila Fadel of McClatchy.

Comments

[Anon]

As someone with personal experience, I can tell you that it's not just the reporters. A reporter who calls someone a liar, even if they are, will be called into his editor's office. That editor will have been previously called into his editor's office, and that editor will have been previously called into the publisher's office.

The political will to call a liar a liar has to exist all the way up the food chain.

[ppgl]

What happens when a "business reporter" does not have a clue even to basic finance? Just posted over at Angrybear where CNN/Money bumbled the privatization of toll roads concept thinking it was a neat way to raise funds to repair bridges. Tossed in some wisdom from Max Sawicky who is a subject matter expert as opposed to the CNN crew that is even dumber than Don Luskin's Mini-Me.

[Robert Waldmann]

First while reporters should be honest brokers they should not ask us to trust them to be honest brokers. A system that depends on the integrity of people is a bad system.

Second reporters have to cover a wide variety of subjects. People who are not Brad DeLong can't be expert on a wide variety of subjects. People who are Brad DeLong should get that through their head (I use the plural because I think there are about 10 brains in it).

You make a great point that newspapers would be greatly improved if they cut and pasted as blogs do (they would have to pay). There are problems however. First what are we going to do when Jackie Calmes retires. Worse, a tiny elite of a very few people who report on an issue for all papers is even more dangerous than the current reporter herd. We need competing reporters and there are not that many experts who are willing and able to write to deadline. (other people read and write real slow Brad. You should watch them some times).

I have a proposal here http://tinyurl.com/29svkc.
I think a big improvement would be to insist that if there are facts in the public record which prove a claim is false, they must be reported or the reporter is responsible for the failure to report them. Misleading but not false claims are suited for "he said she said" as "misleading" is subjective. It would be a big improvement if claims such as "Saddam Hussein refused to allow inspectors in Iraq" were followed imediately by "in fact Saddam Hussein allowed inspectors in Iraq on (date) and never asked them to leav. They left when they were warned that the coalition attack was imminent." or "we were wrong about WMD in Iraq but so was everyone" with "The international Atomic Energy agency concluded that there was no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and they so no use in looking further on (date)"

I'd say another rule that reporters can note past lies as many times as they want when a person appears in the news would be nice.

[Steve J.]

The pressure point is "most reporters aren't subject-matter experts." Why not?
===========================================

I agree, the best ones should be experts and the better ones should be at least as knowledgable as a well-informed citizen. BTW, I thought that's why reporters have "beats."

[anne]

Robert Waldmann:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that there was no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and they saw no use in looking further on (date)"

No; this is too important a point to be left as is:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that there was no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program on March 7, 2003, but they continued looking further finding no evidence of a program until ordered by America to leave Iraq immediately on March 18, 2003."

[anne]

References:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

March 7, 2003

The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq
By Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei - Director General IAEA

United Nations Security Council ....

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30B1EFB3F550C7B8DDDAA0894DB404482

March 18, 2003

War in the Ruins of Diplomacy ....

[anne]

There is a critical need to know this is precisely the case:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that there was no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program on March 7, 2003, but they continued looking further finding no evidence of a program until ordered by America to leave Iraq immediately on March 18, 2003."

We must understand that we knew privately and publically there was no nuclear weapons program in Iraq, inspectors were intrusively combing Iraq for what did not exist and telling us all what did not exist until America ordered the inspectors to leave Iraq and attacked.

Please understand.

[anne]

Forgive the editing Robert Waldmann, but I have to make sure every reader will understand your fine example precisely.

Mohamed ElBaradei, who would win a Nobel Prize for the work of the IAEA, told us all that there was no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq but was searching anyway. That was ignored by us and is still ignored by apologists for war's terrors and such ignoring is beyond conscience. We must understand, for so many would hide this still and change the historical record.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I repeat my previous suggestion for the "baseball test."

A reporter should not be assigned to cover subject X unless he has as good an understanding of X as a baseball writer is expected to have of baseball.

[anne]

Michael Ignatieff a very Harvard professor would support war and then deceiving pretend to apologize for supporting war on the stance that even an expert such as he could not have known there was no reason for war. There was however no self-defense reason for war but he denies this still and expects me to throw my arms about him in comfort for a false apology. There is however history.

[Bruce Wilder]

IMO, a great "newspaper" should be, at its heart a kind of wikipedia -- an encyclopedia.

Expertise is less the issue than memory. The reporter may not have the expertise to determine the truth of falsity of a particular statement, nor may his editor, but once the truth or falsity has been established amid genuine experts, it should not be repeated unchallenged, nor should the original "mistake" or "lie" as the case may be, be forgotten.

Glenn Greenwald has been documenting the recent case of the O'Hanlon/Pollack Op-Ed, which has been used by numerous Media outlets to tout good news from Iraq, reported by "critics" of Bush's War.

This error of news judgment did not require a PhD in physics to avoid, just memory.

Editors and reporters may not become genuine subject-matter experts (although some have, in the past), but they should be expected in the course of their normal duties accumulate an institutional memory that stretches back a few years, at least.

[s9]

It won't make any difference unless you fire the editors.

[bo]

This is such a prissy position. If XYZ says that Earth is flat you bet the reporter is going to call him on that. If you elect XYZ the President you bet the reporter is going to just publish his statement. If you dont want the haer the lie unchallenged, dont make the lier the most powerful man on Earth.

[TW Andrews]

The pressure point is "most reporters aren't subject-matter experts." Why not?

Uh, because being a subject-matter expert is a) a lot harder than regurgitating talking points and hence there are fewer experts, and b) if you are an expert, typically you can do something considerably more lucrative than be a journalist.

[battlepanda]

For better or for worse I think within journalism circles breadth and the ability to quickly assimilate and synthesize knowledge is much more prized than depth of knowledge in a particular field. My view of this might be distorted because I work in a very small paper where being flexible is paramount. However, I deeply believe that to be a good reporter, this ability to handle an unfamiliar subject is paramount.

Of course, to do this, I have to rely on people who really are experts. Because I don't have a degree in the field I cover, I am at risk of becoming 'captured' by one particular source if I am not vigilant.

However, there is the practical point that real experts expect big bucks. I report on medical issues. People with real medical training would not want to do my job for my salary. If we do what Brad suggests and hire only experts, we would have very few medical reporters in the world supplying every outlet with medical news. In effect the world's whole news supply risks being "captured" by the opinions of these journalist/experts.

By the way, no matter how much expertise a journalist has on the subject matter, it does not lift them above the whole "he said, she said" conundrum. It would be a very bad thing if a journalist/expert is given special leave to make points with simple statements in deference their expertise whereas a less-expert journalist would be expected to look for an external source to validate those points.

There is a place for experts to speak directly to the public and call a spade a spade. It's called an editorial.

[Gerhard.Fritz]

Sure, it's a proven fact that the world is round. But, as Eco remarks, what would Columbus have discovered had he not stumbled over America?

[Barry]

"I repeat my previous suggestion for the "baseball test."

A reporter should not be assigned to cover subject X unless he has as good an understanding of X as a baseball writer is expected to have of baseball."

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov

Brad, you should promote this. Think of what level of knowledge about sports is required for any big-media sports reporter. Contrast with what's required of other reporters.

[Barry]

"There is a place for experts to speak directly to the public and call a spade a spade. It's called an editorial."

Posted by: battlepanda

Traditional, the difference between an editorial and an article was that the editorial was declared to be opinion. It wasn't held (up!) to the same standards as news reporting.

You're proposing a major change in the way that things are run.

[Ginger Yellow]

"By the way, no matter how much expertise a journalist has on the subject matter, it does not lift them above the whole "he said, she said" conundrum. It would be a very bad thing if a journalist/expert is given special leave to make points with simple statements in deference their expertise whereas a less-expert journalist would be expected to look for an external source to validate those points."

That's a false dichotomy. You can declare something to be true or false and then provide evidence. The (main) problem is the way that a) such counter evidence is (in the US) presented as "critics say" or "partisan opponents say", immediately devaluing it; b) the refutation is usually left many paragraphs below the assertion, and if it is read at all won't have the impact it would have with firmer juxtaposition.

To take a recent example, most US soucres flubbed Bush's comments on Iran's nuclear ambitions. The WaPo doesn't mention the lie (misstatement, if you prefer) until the very last paragraph. AFP, on the other hand, realised that this was in fact the story - the administration is ratcheting up the tension against Iran, and they're playing fast and loose with the truth in the process. Rather familiar, of course, although AFP didn't go that far.

In the interests of disclosure, I write for a specialist publication. I wholeheartedly endorse Brad's question. While having a practitioner-journalist is obviously not always possible, a) it should be for the country's largest papers running profit margins in excess of 20, b) there's no excuse for, say, a journalist covering economics not to know statistics, or a journalist covering foreign policy not to know that O'Hanlon and Pollack were supporters of the war and surge. It's particularly bad in science writing, where basic errors are made all the time because non-specialist journalists don't know how to read scientific papers.

[Dreamer]

Perhaps in a perfect world an academic disipline such as economics could take collective action on this point. I envision a web-based facility whereby a group selected by some criteria including e.g. a tenured universty post AND some number of citations in peer reviewed journals could respond in real time to queries from some places.

The response should be simple, of the form "This is definitely known to be false," "This is definitely known to be false and anyone talking about it should know that," or "This does not have a definite answer, and this statement in within/not within reasonable bounds," "No one really knows."

Obviously the practical difficulties are enormous, and probably insuperable. E.g. how could coverage be arranged? who decides who gets in? who gets to ask questions? etc. etc. etc.

I know I'm dreaming, but I can't help it.

[Rainy]

on the subject of honest brokers see this interesting looking book by the same title:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521694810

[Rainy]

on the subject of honest brokers see this interesting looking book by the same title:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521694810

[letterhead]

Professor: the answer is that it's an issue of economics.

As a p.r. professional I can tell you first hand that media outlets are not just downsizing their staffs, but downsizing their expertise as well. Even papers the WSJ hire inexperienced junior staffers who require extensive "background" briefins from "expert sources" in order to write an article. Fewer and fewer senior journalists remain on the job, or stick with a beat long enough to develop the required epxertise. Outlets also are cutting space and trying to squeeze news into a condensed summary format. And trying to use promotional news writing to lure readers. Finally, in a very competitive market with dwindling financial resources, journalists have become focused on their own brand recognition and marketability -- attuned to building their own celebrity and earning power more than the sheer quality of their stories. All of this leaves the PR indurety salivating becasue it's easier than ever to simply spin a reporter any way you like.

And just do a quick web search and you will find dozens of sites in India that will accept outsourcing of newswriting for US publications... and check out this article from the Annenberg Center.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070511niles/

All this hopefully answers your plaintive cry "Why oh why can't we have a better media?"