Nevada Press Association The best in Nevada journalism since 1924
Journalism in Nevada, as I’ve noted before, is famous for its tall tales and make-believe stories — the stuff popularly being called ‘fake news’ these days.
It might seem counterintuitive, then, to suggest there are a couple of lessons to be learned from the man who taught Nevada’s Comstock journalists in the roughest days of the frontier. It was the heyday of newspapers, when Carson City often had four competing dailies and Virginia City, the king of the hill, might have as many as a dozen newspapers slugging it out for readers.
One of the consequences, as we’ve seen, was the play for the sensational. Who could catch the most eyeballs and persuade readers to fork over their pennies for a copy?
But there were underlying ethics, as well. And, at first blush, they seem to go against what I was trained to believe and understand as a modern-day reporter. Yet I think they’re very much worth visiting as editors and publishers rack their brains for some answer to the loss of credibility in today’s news institutions.
These two points come from Joe Goodman, the Territorial Enterprise editor who hired Sam Clemens and taught other members of the Nevada Newspaper Hall of Fame.
I happen to be reading Wells Drury‘s book, “An Editor on the Comstock Lode.” As usual when delving into the history of journalism, I found some context helpful to understanding current events.
The first thing that caught my attention was Goodman’s instructions to reporters not to rely on vague attribution in their stories.
“As explained in the life of Mark Twain by Albert Bigelow Paine,” Drury wrote, “the first instruction given by Joe Goodman to a reporter was never to write ‘It is reported,’ or ‘We are informed,’ or anything like that, but to find out the facts and then give them as actual happenings. That was one good reason for the infrequency of retractions in the Nevada newspapers. It didn’t pay to make mistakes in a country where every man was his own judge as to whether his dignity had been offended.”
As a journalism student, I was drilled to attribute everything in a story. I did the same for 20 years as an editor. While attribution to sources is a valuable and crucial standard for journalism, I think our understanding of it has been oversimplified and, often, used as a crutch to spread questionable news.
Attribution is not shorthand for the truth.
The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics does a fine job of expressing the ultimate goal: Seek truth and report it.
The subtleties of how you go about doing that get trickier, but I think Joe Goodman did well in advising his reporters not to rely on what others were saying. Find out for yourself. Be satisfied you understand the truth.
He wasn’t setting a ban on anonymous sources — although that’s a good idea, too — but making it clear that anything that misconstrued the facts, that made the reader believe something other than could be verified, shouldn’t be in the story.
How often do reporters include a quote because it was juicy, or because it came from a recognizable name, even when it did nothing to improve the story? How often have we heard a TV reporter interview a breathless bystander who had no clue what was actually happening?
And, worse, how often have we seen legitimate news outlets — let alone the denizens of the ‘net — pass along information on the flimsiest excuse: “According to ….”
That, folks, is gossip.
Now, here is the second half of Joe Goodman’s equation.
“The Nevada newspapers had little use for managing editors and copyreaders in those days,” Drury recalled. “Every reporter wrote what he pleased and hung the copy on the ‘hook.’ The printer set it as written, and it went through that way. But, as has been hinted, the man who wrote an article was personally responsible for the statements and sentiments it contained. If a person who was criticised didnlt like an item he could always find out who write it by asking at the editorial rooms, and the author was supposed to back it up or back down, as the case might be. In any event, nobody else was called on to fight his battles.”
Imagine, please, if people took personal responsibility these days for everything they write. Every article. Every tweet. Every Facebook post and Instagram share. Back it up or back down, as the case might be.
I’m quite sure many people are willing to do just that. But I’m just as sure of the cowardice of anonymous posters, hidden hackers, online bullies and trolls who delight in spreading as many falsehoods as they can — without ever exposing themselves to the person who was criticised.
For professional journalists, though, the implication is equally clear. It’s not the editors, not the copyreaders, not the institution that pays your wages (or their lawyers) who are responsible for the accuracy and fairness of your reporting. It’s you.