Dave, your thoughts on ethics are always helpful, and your ideas on the Trump indictment are no exception. I'm struggling, though, with the notion that journalists shouldn't report statements by public figures unless they make themselves available to be questioned.
Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Donald Trump and I have real misgivings about the role of social media in society. I would always prefer that the powerful be held accountable by subjecting themselves to questions. But officials have often made important news by issuing statements and then staying insulated from direct questioning. Are news consumers better served not knowing, at least until there is a media availability? Does your advice apply to social media, but not traditional forms of statements on official "letterhead"? Or does it apply only to "bombastic" speech, and if so, how do we determine what constitutes "bombast"?
I am not saying there's no such thing as a remark too outrageous or dangerous to pass along without context. Trump's "death and destruction" comment is troubling, but shouldn't people know he's saying those things -- even people who don't follow him on social media?
In this case, I think a reporter doing nothing more than scraping Twitter for comments, particularly when they all seem to come from the same party-issued talking points, does a disservice to readers/viewers, particularly in the case of two Republican US Senators who voted to acquit Trump during the impeachment trials and now criticize the criminal indictment without having to answer for their previous votes.
Clearly, there are appropriate times for written statements, as I addressed in my column.
When I was a reporter, I even hated covering candidates who just wanted us to show up with our cameras, report what they said during a canned speech, then ducked out with no questions. That doesn't feel like journalism to me. It feels like CSPAN, and we should be more than an open pipeline between politicians and citizens. We should challenge those in power, try as best we can to hold them accountable.
As news director, I banned our crews from showing sound bites of officials reading prepared statements. It's boring television, and lets officials get away with the APPEARANCE of being open when in fact they're not. Yes, I'm a little hard core on the subject! :)
I full well realize I'm painting an idealistic picture. There are times when every reporter takes what he or she can get, and you run with it. it's just gotten out of control. Reporters are super busy these days and it's gotten too easy for them to grab a Twitter sentence or two and think they've gotten a particular viewpoint covered in their story.
Thanks Dave. Journalists failed to draw distinction between many who supported Trump. Cong Bacon, R- Omaha, indicated he wants to read the indictment, which may be unsealed on Tuesday. He also stated he trusts our legal system. Also, Hutchinson's and Pences' statements did not use racist or anti Semitic tropes. These R's did not endorse violence or protests, either.
Excellent points, Ralph. Not all Trump supporters have gone as far over the line as Trump does, seemingly every day. And we ALL, me included, should wait to see what the exact charges are.
There are lazy efforts everywhere. Elected state, local and county officials without term limits ensures distance from those who are neither politically connected directly nor working for a high-profile organization.
Thoughtful, sensible column. Our democracy is not designed to deal with a malignant narcissist so our nation’s various institutions are being stretched beyond anyone’s imagination. That makes restraint challenging.
Another excellent article Dave. I like your points. It should be remembered that a Grand Jury indited Trump based upon the evidence that was presented and considered by those citizens. The DA made a case and that case was accepted.
John, thanks for your comment. What, in your view, constitutes a blatantly political act? We all should wait to see the details of the indictment, of course. But based on what we think we know, is it your view that a candidate’s large payment to an adult film star in the month before the election is just something everyone should look the other way on? Is it blatantly political anytime a prosecutor from one party enforces the law against anyone from the other party?
Not trying to be argumentative. Just want to understand a little more of your thinking behind the comment.
It's blatantly political in the sense that Bragg reportedly campaigned on a promise to indict Trump.
It's blatantly political in the sense that other prosecutors declined to charge Trump in connection with this alleged offense. (We don't yet know what the actual charge or charges are.)
It's blatantly political in the sense that Trump is a declared candidate for president in the year before an election.
Your column certainly resonated with me. THANK YOU. It peripherally appears some of our press persons are overly burdened and may have to take the easiest way using prepared releases or quotes from twitter. Real press interaction has diminished. It is not too late for it to be demanded and thus returned. Please keep calling for accountability from our elected officials as well as the media.
Thank you for your words of wisdom. Once again, showing awareness and balance. I had not considered some of your points.
Wise and thoughtful comments
Excellent! Thank you!
Dave, your thoughts on ethics are always helpful, and your ideas on the Trump indictment are no exception. I'm struggling, though, with the notion that journalists shouldn't report statements by public figures unless they make themselves available to be questioned.
Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Donald Trump and I have real misgivings about the role of social media in society. I would always prefer that the powerful be held accountable by subjecting themselves to questions. But officials have often made important news by issuing statements and then staying insulated from direct questioning. Are news consumers better served not knowing, at least until there is a media availability? Does your advice apply to social media, but not traditional forms of statements on official "letterhead"? Or does it apply only to "bombastic" speech, and if so, how do we determine what constitutes "bombast"?
I am not saying there's no such thing as a remark too outrageous or dangerous to pass along without context. Trump's "death and destruction" comment is troubling, but shouldn't people know he's saying those things -- even people who don't follow him on social media?
Scott, thanks for your comments. I don't think it's an absolute. I've never liked written statements. I wrote a column about it last year: https://davebusiek.substack.com/p/the-scourge-of-the-written-statement
In this case, I think a reporter doing nothing more than scraping Twitter for comments, particularly when they all seem to come from the same party-issued talking points, does a disservice to readers/viewers, particularly in the case of two Republican US Senators who voted to acquit Trump during the impeachment trials and now criticize the criminal indictment without having to answer for their previous votes.
Clearly, there are appropriate times for written statements, as I addressed in my column.
When I was a reporter, I even hated covering candidates who just wanted us to show up with our cameras, report what they said during a canned speech, then ducked out with no questions. That doesn't feel like journalism to me. It feels like CSPAN, and we should be more than an open pipeline between politicians and citizens. We should challenge those in power, try as best we can to hold them accountable.
As news director, I banned our crews from showing sound bites of officials reading prepared statements. It's boring television, and lets officials get away with the APPEARANCE of being open when in fact they're not. Yes, I'm a little hard core on the subject! :)
I full well realize I'm painting an idealistic picture. There are times when every reporter takes what he or she can get, and you run with it. it's just gotten out of control. Reporters are super busy these days and it's gotten too easy for them to grab a Twitter sentence or two and think they've gotten a particular viewpoint covered in their story.
More than you wanted to know, probably....
Thanks Dave. Journalists failed to draw distinction between many who supported Trump. Cong Bacon, R- Omaha, indicated he wants to read the indictment, which may be unsealed on Tuesday. He also stated he trusts our legal system. Also, Hutchinson's and Pences' statements did not use racist or anti Semitic tropes. These R's did not endorse violence or protests, either.
Excellent points, Ralph. Not all Trump supporters have gone as far over the line as Trump does, seemingly every day. And we ALL, me included, should wait to see what the exact charges are.
There are lazy efforts everywhere. Elected state, local and county officials without term limits ensures distance from those who are neither politically connected directly nor working for a high-profile organization.
Thoughtful, sensible column. Our democracy is not designed to deal with a malignant narcissist so our nation’s various institutions are being stretched beyond anyone’s imagination. That makes restraint challenging.
It sure does, Rod.
Another excellent article Dave. I like your points. It should be remembered that a Grand Jury indited Trump based upon the evidence that was presented and considered by those citizens. The DA made a case and that case was accepted.
I think you implicitly give too much credence to Bragg. His indictment of Trump is a blatantly political act.
John, thanks for your comment. What, in your view, constitutes a blatantly political act? We all should wait to see the details of the indictment, of course. But based on what we think we know, is it your view that a candidate’s large payment to an adult film star in the month before the election is just something everyone should look the other way on? Is it blatantly political anytime a prosecutor from one party enforces the law against anyone from the other party?
Not trying to be argumentative. Just want to understand a little more of your thinking behind the comment.
Thanks.
It's blatantly political in the sense that Bragg reportedly campaigned on a promise to indict Trump.
It's blatantly political in the sense that other prosecutors declined to charge Trump in connection with this alleged offense. (We don't yet know what the actual charge or charges are.)
It's blatantly political in the sense that Trump is a declared candidate for president in the year before an election.
Ok. We’ll know more tomorrow.
My editor at the Fort Dodge paper taught me a valuable lesson: never, ever assume.
Great article, I learned a lot from it!
Dave,
Your column certainly resonated with me. THANK YOU. It peripherally appears some of our press persons are overly burdened and may have to take the easiest way using prepared releases or quotes from twitter. Real press interaction has diminished. It is not too late for it to be demanded and thus returned. Please keep calling for accountability from our elected officials as well as the media.
Mary Weaver