COLUMN: Give Us A Break

From Peter Morrison's "Think For Yourself," Fall '95 From Peter Morrison's "Think For Yourself," Fall '95We all watched through the eyes of the camera. At exactly 1 p.m., our attention was fixed on a television screen to watch the final decision. The supposed "Trial of the Century" was about to reach its climax and conclusion. We all sat, every single one of us, as a jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty on live TV. Throughout this trial, analysts have bashed the media claiming that the cameras in the courtroom changed how the participants would have acted if they were absent. They say the media sensationalized the issues and packaged the trial in order to maintain an audience. Judge Lance Ito himself advised the jury after the verdict had been read to expect the worst when dealing with the media. Is this isolated contempt for the media? I don't think so. For the past few years, the public has complained about the media's increased sensationalism and its constant inaccuracies. Nothing is good enough these days when the media is concerned. All the media sources are solely driven by money. Reporters no longer hold themselves to the highest standards. I have a professor that claims that studies and statistics show that what we see on television and read in the newspaper isn't exactly reality because the reporters are not always accurate or their sources can lie. But what really does not reflect reality is this ground swell of criticism directed at the media. The biggest criticism is a growing trend toward sensationalism. If it's not a fire, rape, robbery or murder than it's not news. (Students in one of my classes actually believe this.) Well, if you watch the first six minutes of the 6 p.m. news, then I can see why you might believe this. But the fact is that newspapers, magazines and television cover much more. There are examples in the DP alone that refute this criticism. When is the last time you saw a crime story in the DP? It was not this semester. This is because we now list the crimes in a crime box on page two. So, you cannot say that our stories are only about crime. Furthermore, we ran a three-part series on Shaw Middle School recently. Is this about a mugging or a robbery? Is this sensational journalism? No. Is this story unusual or completely out of the ordinary? No. We did a story because our readership might be interested that the University community has taken an interest in a local school and is helping to effect changes there. Pick up The New York Times or The Philadelphia Inquirer if you want other examples of stories that show readers a simple slice of life, or the so-called feel good stories for which the public so often cries. Take a look and then let's be fair about our criticism of the media. We are still going to report fires and such disasters because it is news. The public wants to know whose house is burning, if their friends live there, how their town will be affected. But this is not the only type of news we report, and it is unfair to say so. The second criticism is that many stories are inaccurate. On a college level there may be more inaccuracies because students are first learning about journalism, even though I believe we do a very good job. But on a national level, say The Washington Post, the attention to detail and accuracy is of utmost importance. To tell a journalist that he or she is inaccurate or biased is the worst criticism you can level against him or her. If a story is not accurate, then it is not proper journalism and the reporter is simply not doing his job. I'm not saying that there will never be another Janet Cooke, who invented an eight-year-old heroin addict for a story. But she is the exception, not the rule. Journalists live by a code of ethics that we are all expected to live up to. For your information -- we do not take this code lightly. At the DP, we are the most critical of ourselves. Everyday we meet at 6:30 p.m. to critique our own work and attempt to improve the next day. It is an ongoing effort for all journalists to be accurate and balanced in their reporting. To say that journalists lie or that their sources do not have answers for them is simply untrue. Or to say that a newspaper or magazine is at the mercy of advertisers is simply ludicrous. Inaccurate stories occur the smallest percentage of the time. The majority of the time, a journalist will cover a story and his sources will have appropriate answers and the story will reflect that. But for some reason, the public chooses only to focus on our mistakes and miscues. You focus on the exceptions not the mean. I can understand the frustration. The public is tired of seeing civilized people rob from each other or commit crimes. We are tired of hearing about court cases or tax evasion or the political cover ups. We don't like to judge ourselves. But the frustration we feel about society cannot be directed at the media. The media is not responsible for the harsh realities of society, we simply report on it. It is a case of killing the messenger. I can also understand the public's uneasiness about the power that the media now garners. Anytime power is concentrated, the public tries to curb that power. But maybe you need to be reminded of our goals. Maybe you need to be reminded of the service we provide. Our mission is twofold -- to inform the public and to seek the truth. We try to attain two very simple goals. We are the public's eyes when citizens cannot be every place at one time. We attempt to educate the public about important happenings, such as political decisions that may affect certain people, or parades that may go on or what happened at a particular meeting. We chronicle history so that citizens will be knowledgeable about their contemporaries actions. Without us, the public would be blind, or at least limited to their own local sphere. We would be a nation disconnected. Second, we seek the truth. We attempt to uphold democracy by uncovering hidden truths, keeping checks on power. For instance, the media discovered the Watergate controversy. The media discovered that congressmen were bouncing checks left and right. When we seek truth, we inform the public so that you may stop injustices. Without us, how will you know if any injustices occur? The bottom line is that you need us. And we, as journalists, try extremely hard to live up to your high expectations. If we fail, tell us. But we don't fail as often as you claim. The next time you think about criticizing the media, think about this: Where were you on October 3, 1995 at 1 p.m? If you were in front of the television watching the O.J. Simpson verdict, you needed us to do so.