By Mark Trahant
What is the face of news? And will that face resemble Truth? What stories do we choose to tell about us, our woes, and our conflict? These are questions of great importance because they test the principles of journalism in this new century.
Our ideals, perhaps, are easily centered in times of peace. We know to look for answers in corners away from the fray. We know to ask questions, even when uncomfortable, from our leaders. We know what our job is and how that fits into the democratic experience.
| "On Sept. 11 the rules of journalistic engagement changed. Instead of talking about dissent and discourse, many journalists debate the ethics of wearing a U.S. flag or red, white and blue ribbons." |
Undefined Boundaries
Then on September 11 the rules of journalistic engagement changed. Instead of talking about dissent and discourse, many journalists debate the ethics of wearing a U.S. flag or red, white and blue ribbons. While others wonder which news stories have moved beyond our normal boundaries, stories that should not be written or broadcast.
But our commitment to fairness ought to remain in our copy and in our hearts. Not long after World War II a group of scholars proposed a test for a responsible press. One element of that test was “projecting the opinions and attitudes of the groups in the society to one another.” In other words: We ought to be able to understand the variety of opinion and thought that make up this diverse country. Of course this test is even more important now than a half century ago because our country is so much more diverse.
Yet this is a time when we face inconceivable divides because we fail to understand the attitudes of so many groups - racial, cultural, and religious - that make up our nation.
Hutchins Commission
In 1947 the Hutchins Commission - named after its chair Robert Maynard Hutchins from the University of Chicago - said that the press should do a better job introducing the various parts of America to each other.
“The country has many groups which are partially insulated from one another and which need to be interpreted to one another,” said the commission. “Factually correct but substantially untrue accounts of the behaviors of members of one of these social islands can intensify the antagonisms of others toward them. A single incident will be accepted as a sample group action unless the press has given a flow of information and interpretation concerning the relations between two racial groups such as to enable the reader to set a single event in its proper perspective. If allowed to pass as a sample of such action, the requirement that the press present an accurate account of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning has not been met.”
And we are better at this test than we were a generation ago. Our news media, as well as our leadership, defends the larger Islamic community in nearly every statement that wars against terrorism.
Where Does Context Begin
But is there more to the story? Where does context begin? How do we really understand what’s going on, better? The story might start with history or a global view, but it could even be a smaller addition, just the sound of more voices. For example, the range of Islamic debate within this country ought to be heard, from those who see Osama bin Laden’s point (while often disagreeing with his methods) to those who see him defiling their faith.
A recent story about an African American community is a good example. The story said “Black Muslims in the United States, who number about 3 million, are not cheering the air strikes against Afghanistan, nor are they applauding President Bush’s efforts to get Osama bin Laden ‘dead or alive.’” The newspaper that printed this story is not important - the point is the limited range of viewpoints. Black Muslims, according to this piece, were of only two minds, those supporting bin Laden’s goals and those who disagreed with the air strikes. That is not the full range of discourse, even within that one community.
Voices of Dissent
We have a huge advantage in this country: We are a multicultural democracy. That means we can hear the voices of dissent within our own homeland (the same voices whose shouts might turn violent in Pakistan or Indonesia) or in any one community. We have an opportunity to listen like no other nation.
But to do that, we need to be sure there is no face called news. Instead every story and broadcast needs the voices of complexity, that rich variety from the many, many peoples who make up America.
| Further Reading |
to top of page