Ethical journalism is not an oxymoron
Ignoring reporters does not mean the story goes away.
In a free society, a free press has an important role in providing information people need. It may not always be what they want to hear, but it is essential information they need to know. Many business and political leaders feel that if they don't respond to reporters' questions, that means the press can't print the story.
Not true.
Usually, that only leads to a brief sentence in the report noting that there was no response to phone calls or emails or direct, personal questions requesting comment. Readers can then speculate as to why there was no response.
Meanwhile, reporters keep digging for more detail, especially on why the business executive or politician refuses to answer questions posed on behalf of the general public.
In short, reporters have as much right to important information as any other citizen. It is only that journalists ask on behalf of the public.
Moreover, when it comes to how well they do their jobs, they answer to their editors and readers, not to politicians or corporate executives. If they did, that would mean control of the press by the politicians, government and big business.
Not that politicians don't try. So do candidates, who also believe that by refusing to answer or by attacking the messenger, the issue goes away.
In the current electoral campaign, one candidate gives long, rambling answers that ignore the premise of the question, or criticizes the reporter for daring to ask a penetrating question.
Another candidate avoids taking questions from the press at all, and rarely holds a news conference.
One wonders why.
Could it be that both are unsure of their ability to control the message and respond coherently, or that at some deeper level they both want to control the news media?
That's not public relations, but propaganda.
No comments:
Post a Comment