|
Matthew Miller:
|
is a senior writer at
U.S. News &
World Report
and a nationally syndicated columnist.
|
At the major outlets
that shape public discussion - The New
York Times, The Washington Post, and the big three network news shows, say
- the interesting issue may not be "objectivity," but the
simple fact that picking which stories to lead with or put
on page 1 is an exercise of enormous and unaccountable
power. It may not feel this way to the editors and producers
who make these judgments, since they're simply "putting out
the paper" or "putting on the show." Still, it's hard to
imagine a set of daily decisions that have more influence on
the quality and content of public life.
The question is how to make the
exercise of this power more accountable or responsible. One
answer might be for editors and producers to explain to
audiences at regular intervals what went into their news
judgment. Imagine if the Times or
the Post assigned a reporter to "cover" their
internal page one meetings, and then produce a piece for
Sunday that detailed the considerations that went into the
make-up of page one that week - along with any doubts,
second thoughts, conflicts, etc. A note from the editor or
similar report would also suffice, so long as the effect was
the same: to 'fess up to what every reader already knows -
that the press is not just reporting the news, but choosing
what is news. By demystifying this process, such an effort
would take the press off one of its high horses and treat
citizens as adults. I'd also bet it would be a hit with
readers. And it would set an example. If a few top outlets
made something like this a regular practice, does anyone
doubt it would have a ripple effect? Conversely, if none
were willing routinely to explain and defend their news
judgments, it would suggest how little difference there is
between the way media heavies and top political officials
prefer to exercise power - in secret.
|
