Truth matters isn't just a slogan. It's an operating principle.
Truth matters isn't just a slogan. It's an operating principle.
The big news over the weekend: New York Times opinion editor James Bennet and Philadelphia Inquirer executive editor Stan Wischnowski both resigned after each outlet’s procedural errors led to bad decisions enraging both newsrooms and many readers.
The Inquirer’s headline “Buildings Matter, Too,” and the NYT’s publishing Senator Tom Cotton’s op-ed were each systemic breakdowns, layered with poor judgement and decision-making. As the respective heads of each organization’s failures, they resigned.
And while this is beyond falling on swords—both cases were a dereliction of duty; the top opinion editor not reading an explosive column calling for the killing of American citizens (that whole ‘no quarter’ thought) from a sitting U.S. Senator should be a fireable offense—there is a glimmer of light here: at a time when cynicism, if not downright pessimism and mistrust of leadership, runs at peak levels, the fact that these two journalistic institutions, and their top brass, can be held accountable for their transgressions is something of a salve.
But as the New York Times’ Ben Smith pointed out last night in his column, the wounds, from years of Black reporters, “[s]eeing the brutality of a white power structure toward its poor black citizens up close, and at its rawest, helped shape the way a generation of reporters, most of them black, looked at their jobs when they returned to their newsrooms,” run deep across publications.
The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan dovetails Smith’s overall point that newsrooms are struggling with the most basic premise: what is a journalist supposed to be, toggling between stenographer and activist? In her Sunday column, she writes:
“As these difficult moments continue to arise — and they will — journalists and their newsroom bosses shouldn’t be trying to make their work inoffensive. They should concentrate on how they can best serve their mission.”
That mission, she says: serve the real interests of American citizens.
In other words, let truth be your North Star.
Newsroom leadership often grapples with these questions. But at a time when we have an administration that lies over the dumbest (and easily fact-checked) things, corporations use a variety of tools to distribute one-sided messaging, journalistic institutions need to slow down.
But it’s hard, and not just because of the fire hose of news that seemingly never turns off. I mean, we are in the midst of a historic news cycle where a pandemic has already killed 110,000 Americans over 2.5 months and protests against systemic racism have hit every state. (Let’s not forget about the president’s impeachment, which was in January.) This is just 2020, five months in.
Newsrooms grapple with several concurrent and interrelated headwinds. Diminished resources, stemming from a languid transition to a digital culture, but also because of loss of ad revenue, have put different kinds of pressure on newsroom leadership. And many of them buckle. Whatever elbows may have been sharpened from years as reporters, they have rounded off as senior editorial leadership finds themselves in dual roles: institutional voice that is often forced to balance between journalism and business goals.
So senior editors mistakenly push their staff to rush and pump out content because they “feel” more content means more pageviews, which means more ad impressions. It’s why many publications have story quotas.
When you move fast, judgement gets cloudy. Take the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, for example. The paper benched “two of its most prominent Black journalists,” Alexis Johnson and Michael Santiago, from covering the protests because of a tongue-in-cheek tweet from Johnson:
Additionally, the paper took the extraordinary, if not unethical, step of removing articles from two reporters who tweeted in support of Johnson.
Newsrooms of all flavors are caught up in trying to adhere to their mission.
ESPN, which typically shies away from issues-of-the-day stories, has leaned into the protests, allowing its reporters to voice their truths.
“If it feels and looks different and looks personal, it’s because it is,” said Rob King, ESPN’s editor at large of content. “At ESPN, we deeply care about the issue of fairness and equality, and the people we cover clearly share that point of view. That’s why this feels unique. This is a time when everything is heightened with so much uncertainty and feeling fear, but what you hear and see is about simple humanity.”
On the flip side, Refinery29’s editor-in -chief, Christene Barberich, who last week got called out for its ‘do as I say, not as I do’ behavior, resigned this morning, posting on Instagram, as reported by CNN: “R29 has to change. We have to do better, and that starts with making room. And, so I will be stepping aside in my role at R29 to help diversify our leadership in editorial...”
Of course, addressing systemic issues means that it takes a lot of will and power to change. Over the weekend, Fox News aired an infographic that showed stock market gains after the “infamous killings of Black men,” according to Variety. Fox News apologized:
“The infographic used on Fox News Channel’s ‘Special Report’ to illustrate market reactions to historic periods of civil unrest should have never aired on television without full context. We apologize for the insensitivity of the image and take this issue seriously,” the Fox Corporation-owned outlet said in a statement.
But does the apology work when the network has years of stoking racism? As Variety reports:
“Top executives at Fox Corp. have noted the tenor of the times. In a memo sent Monday, Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch told employees, “It is essential that we grieve with the Floyd family, closely listen to the voices of peaceful protest and fundamentally understand that black lives matter” and noted that “Our mission to provide the best in news is particularly vital at this time.”
We shall see.
Journalists are inquisitive; we’re paid to ask questions, often tough ones. The newsrooms that listen to their staff, that answer these very difficult questions, will be the ones that best tell the stories readers need to hear in order to be a more informed society.
Those who bend the knee to their executives looking to dismantle journalistic integrity, or speak in aphoristic bromides and not actually address the systemic issues within their own companies, will be the ones readers eventually turn away from. People need honesty. We do a disservice to our readers when we are less than truthful.
As Wesley Lowery, former Washington Post reporter, told the Times’ Smith: news organizations’ “core value needs to be the truth, not the perception of objectivity.”
For newsrooms, (and brands and agencies, while we’re at it), check out these actionable measures from Holly Epstein Ojalvo to create diverse, inclusive and equitable work environments.
Thank you for allowing me into your inbox. If you have any tips, or thoughts about the newsletter, please drop me a line.
The Police, “Truth Hits Everybody”
Some interesting links:
Cellphone videos of black people dying should be viewed with as much gravity as lynching photographs (Nieman Lab)
These companies are publicly embracing Black Lives Matter. Will they continue to bankroll Tom Cotton? (Popular Information)
COVID-19 can last for several months (The Atlantic)
Ad industry staffing appears to stabilize (Ad Age)
How Ramy Youssef reinvented TV (Adweek)
Maven Staff Calls for Shutdown of Sports Illustrated Publisher’s ‘Blue Lives Matter’ Site (Daily Beast)