Dear editors of traditional news outlets:
I'm a Professor of Communication and Head of Journalism at the University of Washington. I write as a supporter, not a critic.
For almost 100 years, "mainstream journalism" in America has strived for a practice of objectivity. That is, journalists at newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times; the TV networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN; and the newsmagazines of Time and Newsweek have sought to publicly convey their best assessments of reality, regardless of a reporter’s own values and political leanings. Opinions are left to sources, not reporters.
It’s not the chosen model of today's generation of bloggers, yet it's still a noble approach, one that has produced important news coverage. But a journalism of objectivity now faces a crisis -- and as a result, so does the nation.
Every presidential campaign in the United States includes its share of half-truths, distortions, and even outright lies. In this campaign, for example, we’ve seen Barack Obama tell a civil rights audience that his parents conceived him after the March on Selma in 1965. Not true. Hillary Clinton said that as First Lady she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. False. And Mitt Romney said he grew up hunting. Not remotely.
In these instances, news organizations—often with jump-starts from bloggers—eventually informed the public of what actually happened. In turn, this reporting compelled candidates to correct their claims. When they operate this way, journalists practice what Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach, of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, have called a "journalism of verification."
In the American mindset, journalists are expected to verify truth claims and hold others accountable for their words. But it didn’t happen adequately in the run-up to the Iraq War, when the Bush administration’s claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction largely echoed unchallenged through a deferential press.
It was a different story two years later after Hurricane Katrina, when many in the press served as citizens’ surrogates—asking tough questions, refusing to be satisfied by unvetted talking points. Think this mattered? Consider how differently federal and state governments prepared for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in recent weeks. A vigilant press does much to ensure a competent political leadership.
John McCain’s presidential campaign now presents a crisis for mainstream journalists.
For weeks McCain and surrogates have said things that have been declared false across the political spectrum (even Karl Rove made this point, on Fox News, on Sunday). In just the days since McCain added Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket, the McCain and Palin campaign have said she opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. She didn’t, and still has the money. Republicans said Palin opposed Congressional earmarks. Actually, she requested $200 million this year alone. McCain said Obama supported sex education for kindergartners. In reality, Obama voted to make sex-ed teaching age-appropriate, and tightened the standards on it. McCain and Palin said that Palin visited Iraq in an overseas trip. She didn’t.
In response, the news media have begun to cover these false claims. The Associated Press, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the TV networks have all produced coverage that lays bare the facts, as best they see it. So far, so good for citizens hoping to be informed.
In response, though, the McCain campaign has made clear that they have no plans to change their claims, or more generally their approach. Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers told Politico.com on Friday, "We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again," when McCain wooed and wowed the press with his "Straight Talk Express" campaign. "But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."
In other words, a journalism of verification means zip to the McCain camp. This raises a defining dilemma for journalists: if you lay out the facts and the politician doesn’t care or change, what’s your next act? Are you prepared to call the politician out in a direct way, ala pundits? Are you prepared to do what the press did not do as a president moved the nation toward a war of choice? Or will U.S. news organizations throw up their hands and pass the buck, saying that they’ve done all that a journalism of objectivity allows?
Please, don’t go there. Not again. The news media have a profound responsibility to state, unequivocally, what is true and what is not—and in a visible fashion. There are many ways to do this, here’s just one suggestion: let’s have a truth-o-meter on Page 1, every day, in which editorial boards speak with authority.
My view is not a partisan one; it’s a democratic one. Whether it’s Obama or McCain or whoever else making the claims, Americans need a strong, independent press that holds leaders accountable. I still believe in that kind of journalism. I know my students do. Are today’s journalists willing to fight for it?
We need you.