Journalistic Spine Surgery

I suggested in this space on Friday that a new technological innovation could increase the ‘watchability’ of presidential debates – Pop Up Politics. The concept, admittedly ripped from VH-1’s “Pop Up Video,” would supply a little bubble next to a candidate when their rhetoric stretched or mischaracterized their previous stances on an issue or vote. (The other innovation I suggested – cutting off the debate right in the middle, with an old Journey song blasting – doesn’t seem to go over so well.)

The way I figured it, Pop Up Politics would be a very useful gimmick to provide real-time fact checking – even if it was seemed susceptible to bias claims from one side or the other. So it was very good to see no less than the Associated Press coming forward to stress the need for a similar concept: “Accountability Journalism” in Campaign 2008. (Not quite “Pop Up,” but hey, it’s the staid AP.) In an in-house memo, the vaunted political correspondent Ron Fournier wrote:

We can be provocative without being partisan. We can be truth-tellers without being editorial writers. We can and we must not only tell people what happened in politics today, but why it happened; what it might mean for our readers and their families; and what it might reveal about the people who presume to be our leaders. Sometimes, they’re just plain wrong.

Earlier in the piece, Fournier suggests four methods to build Accountability Journalism:

Do Follow-Up: Journalists should make a note to check in on legislation or policy-making to make sure that progress is being made and promises are being kept.

Commit Yourself To The Truth: This one is a bit more squishy, but Fournier is making the “Pop Up” point and saying that if you see a bit of obvious spin or double-speak, say so.

Work Your Sources: The people you call for breaking news are the same people who track miniscule developments with a greater attention than a reporter can. Reporters should call occasionally and check in to get the feel of things, not always when it’s five minutes before deadline and “Gimme a quote” time.

Write With Authority: Similar to the second point, but a more overarching approach of writing with a tone that is confident, forceful and informed. To this point, Fournier shares his ‘A-Ha” moment:

Shortly after Katrina struck, I dutifully reported that President Bush had said nobody anticipated the breach of the levees. In fact, many experts had predicted a major storm would bust New Orleans’ flood-control barriers. In the past, that’s all I would have written; readers would get both sides of the story and then be expected to draw their own conclusion. This time, I went a step further and simply wrote: “He was wrong.” Why not? Why force the readers to read between carefully parsed lines when the facts are clear? Why not just get to the point? The president of the United States was wrong. The governor lied. The congressman broke his promise. The preacher, the CEO, the banker, the coach, or whomever, failed. Don’t mince words.

Reporters for far too long have taken the quest for objectivity and boiled it down to a simple, non-threatening equation: summary sentence + this side + the other side = File story. And go for coffee.

And with each political side having screaming monkeys or attack dogs champing at the bit to come out with a claim of bias against their side, reporters have been conditioned to keep it simple and even-handed to a fault.

But these reporters are the people who spend all day following the politicians and tracking their progress and therefore the most qualified to call attention to a curious omission in a speech or an occasion where reality is misrepresented.

What Fournier is doing is nothing short of a call to arms for those in the mainstream media to play to their strengths and show off their relevance. They are not the voice of God, nor should they try to be. But to be objective is not to be a political eunuch, either. Reporters don’t have to merely provide the bricks of information in the news cycle; they can add some mental mortar and see if everything fits, and call attention to when it doesn’t.

Politicians have learned how to game the “this side/that side” story format. Now it’s time for the mainstream media to evolve past it. Lines in the sand need to be dug, not traced. The truth needs to be stated, not implied. Electronic and interactive media have shown that the public is ready for more robust media content. And the mainstream media, rather than shying away from the fray and choosing to merely inform the debate, should simply tell it like it is.