Two Views of the Same Middle East

Occasionally, it happens: two reporters in two different newspapers come up with entirely different perspectives on the same issue on the same day.

Call it harmonic divergence.

In today's New York Times, Ethan Bronner's analysis: "Half-Truths Dim Chances for Renewing Mideast Talks."

In today's Toronto Globe and Mail, Patrick Martin's analysis: "Despite the Criticism, Netanyahu is Making Inroads."

Bronner is deeply pessimistic about the Israeli government and its approach to possible peace talks. He even invokes the likelihood of another Intifada.

Martin says that life for the Palestinians hasn't been this good for years. Business in Nablus and Bethlehem is booming and breakthrough talks seem to be proceeding between Israel and Hamas.

So much for the idea of "pack journalism."

Memo to Journalism: "You Can't Handle The Truth"

A student in my class this week raised an interesting question: "Is the goal of journalism," he asked, "to get to the truth or is the truth always elusive?"

In probing where this was coming from, he allowed that in an English class, the professor told him that there is no truth, only the reader's perception of truth.

My response was to explain that English departments have always been centers of "deconstruction." Which, as I understand it, means that the reader and the text are always changing, because people are always changing. So re-reading Dickens means that you can never read him the same way twice.

Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher once stated that "You can never step into the same river; for new waters are always flowing on to you."

My friend Murray Horwitz, former head of NPR's cultural programming once told my class at Georgetown that journalists can never get to the truth. Only artists can. Murray was being, as usual, provocative. And effectively so. The students were upset that someone was assuming that journalists can't have a monopoly on truth-telling. Obviously Horwitz must be a descendant of that eminent Greek.

But to get back to my student at Ryerson, I thought he asked the right question. At a time when journalism is on the defensive everywhere and ideologues insist on one version of reality only (theirs), I still think that the goal of journalism must be to tell the truth. Or at least to tell a version that is as close an approximation to the truth as we can honestly provide.

"That's A Good Question"

Too often, media interviews reveal that no actual listening is going on.

The best interviews are ones where there is actually some sort of engaged dialogue between journalist and guest. The dialogue leads (or should lead) to a sense of discovery by both parties. The journalist actually learns something that the research doesn't mention; the interviewee learns something new about his/her work.

Most journalistic interviews are conducted in a way that the outcome is pre-determined. In the case of Sarah Palin on the Oprah Winfrey Show, there were no real traps, no delicious examples of "gotcha" journalism. But both Palin and Winfrey stayed with their own talking points, while hoping that the other would appear to have "lost" the battle of wits.

On CBC Radio's The Sunday Edition today, regular host Michael Enright (one of the best in the business) was replaced for today by Kevin Sylvester, a young and talented radio host who showed much promise when I knew him at the CBC ten years ago. Today, that promise seemed to be realized. Kevin is also a brilliant sketch artist and children's book author. Clearly a man of many qualities.

Sylvester did a lengthy interview with journalist and professor Ben Yagoda, author of a recent book entitled "Memoir." I haven't read it, but after Sylvester's conversation, I plan to. The book is about the why of memoir writing and especially why there is much self-confessional journalism at this time. Sylvester was erudite (referring to Rousseau and the differences between Catholic and Protestant "mémoiristes") but he did it without being showy. The research was solid, but not intrusive.

Yagoda was clearly impressed with the range of Sylvester's knowledge and both host and guest clearly share a sense of humor. I counted four times when Yagoda paused to say "That's a good question..." The interview could have been dry and arcane. It was anything but, because both parties were clearly engaged.

I think the reason for that is because Sylvester knows that the secret to good interviewing is listening. There were moments when I sensed that Sylvester just tossed the script and the research aside so he could engage in his own curiosity and not that of the producer. It takes a nice level of confidence to do that.

It was an amazing bit of radio and showed a remarkable intellectual curiosity to create some memorable radio around the art of the memoir.

You can listen to it here, for yourself.

"When Government Supports Journalism"

Increasingly the discussion is around whether there should be more direct government funding for journalism and media organizations.

One of the most eloquent advocates for an increased government presence is James Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine. Nichols argues here that so-called free enterprise journalism is so unwell that it should be on (government) life support. It's a powerful argument and one worth considering.

Despite being a life-long public broadcaster, I would strongly disagree with Nichols on certain aspects of his position.

As Nichols acknowledges, in the United States, there is a tradition of government support for various media, going back as far as funding for the telegraph and ham radio. The abolitionist press was initially supported by government before the civil war until southern members of Congress removed the subsidy.

But Nichols does not address the complication of the First Amendment of the US Constitution which states in part, that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

That is usually interpreted to mean that Congress shall not place itself in a position where it might unduly influence freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Would government's financial support for journalism indicate that it plays favorites? Would all media be eligible? Would certain media be ineligible? And if so, why? Members of SCOTUS has their work cut out for them.

Professor Alan Stavitsky and I have explored this issue for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In our position paper entitled, "Public Media: Journalism When Government Supports the Enterprise," we argued that while America has often supported a free press and in many instances has backed that up financially, there is also a considerable tradition of political meddling and pressure. This has been especially true as Republican administrations have fought hard to ensure that commercial interests predominate in American media over government supported ventures.

Could Nichols' notion of government support for journalism be realized? Not until Congress agrees that political influence must be banned by law and that a strong "arm's length relationship" between Congress and media be understood and established.

That is what the First Amendment might still provide, more than two hundred years after it was first enacted.

Another issue that should be raised is whether government support for journalism might result in self-censorship. Too often in the US and increasingly in Canada as well, public broadcasters won't challenge power directly.

In my experience, no one in management tells the journalists what not to say. Management doesn't have to. Self-preservation in these dangerous times is the elephant in the room.

Few Journalism Pearls in Swine Flu Coverage

The coverage of the H1N1 "Swine" flu outbreak in Canada is been instructive in that there has been a phenomenal outbreak of media hysteria to go along with the pandemic.

The flu this year is serious with some well publicized examples of heartbreaking deaths. But the coverage has given little, if any perspective on whether this is more serious than in past years.

Some thoughts on what is missing:

1. The intensity of the coverage by the Toronto-based media is due, in part, to this particular media-market where there is a fight to the death among newspapers and broadcasters for circulation and ratings.

2. The financial troubles of CanWest Global - a major media conglomerate - have created an urgency to hype this story to make circulation figures and ratings numbers look better before the company tries to sell off its assets.

3. The loss of editing and reporting positions among all media have reduced
the ability of many media organizations to engage in a journalism of verification and to fact-check. Rumors abound about vaccine availability and queue jumping by hockey teams and hospital administrators.

4. The serendipitous launch of CBC TV's flagship newscast, "The National" almost two weeks ago has allowed the story to be more visually driven than usual.

5. The incompetence of various federal departments who have been working on
disaster planning for five (or is it seven?) years without an outcome was
just condemned by the auditor general. What would happen in an even more serious health crisis?

6. The pharmaceutical industry has not been held accountable, either by the
media or the House of Commons standing committee on health and welfare in terms of production or distribution. Why have the opposition parties not called for hearings?

7. Why hasn't the medical community been brought into the distribution
system instead of leaving inoculations up to local and provincial health bureaucracies?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Fistfights in the Newsroom: More Please!

A fight broke out in the newsroom of the Washington Post a few days ago. It involved two long form feature writers, Henry Allen and Manuel Roig-Franzia. Humorist Gene Weingarten said it was long overdue. Not because there was particularly bad blood between these two writers. Just that newsrooms used to be places where the inhabitants (mostly male) would sort it out from time to time, thus clearing the air and giving the folks something interesting to talk about.

Now newsrooms are hushed places that resemble insurance offices. The rattle of typewriters is gone, replaced by the quiet ergonomically correct computer boards that more sweetly resemble water tinkling in a brook.

Corporate pressures ensure that people behave. Getting fired these days means exile from the community of journalism since no one is hiring. The larger number of women in newsrooms also means that newsroom disputes now rarely end with punches thrown.

The CBC used to have a revolving door for journalists behaving badly. They would be fired for some dispute with a co-worker or a manager, head out the door and into the eager arms of the competition. Six months later, they would usually show up back at the CBC and usually in the same job they left.

The Montreal newsroom was particularly rambunctious, especially among the Radio News types (we TV folk considered ourselves slightly more refined for reasons I can't quite recall).

I do recall one morning a fight broke out in the adjacent radio newsroom. One editor who, shall we say, was somewhat vertically challenged, began arguing with a much taller reporter. It quickly became heated and the tiny perfect editor jumped up on the desk of the reporter, the better to kick him. The newsroom manager, a Ulsterman of indeterminate sobriety, who had a dreadful stutter, raced out of his office to separate them: "B-b-b-b-b-oys...b-b-b-b-boys," he cried as he pulled them apart.

They don't make newsrooms like that anymore.

At NPR the level of civility was much greater. I only witnessed one serious confrontation when a very nice woman in the support staff of the news department developed a serious case of hatred for her supervisor. Nothing would reconcile them.

It ended one day when the lady in question walked in to her supervisor's office and showed her a .357 magnum in her purse. The gun remained in the purse and no shots were fired, thankfully. But I heard a scream, went into the office, saw the gun and called security. She was escorted off the premises in about 5 minutes.

I believe she found another job working in some government department on the other side of Washington, DC.