Doshii_Jun A matter of ethics Journalists tend to follow two different ideas on how to reports. Either you report the facts, and let the people decide--or, you find the truth behind the facts and display them for the people to do with as they will. In a story I'm trying to write, the sides are not clear. Accusations are tossed about, rebuttals are made, and everyone is doing their best to keep the dirt from staining their supposedly white robes and bright halos. I'm disatisfied with just reporting the facts, when working a story like this. There is social justice at stake here; if a precedent is set, I have a reason to dig harder to find a pattern of racism and misogynist feelings within a department. Yet . . . yet yet yet. Journalism doesn't always let me have the time I want. Tomorrow, I must go to press with the article. It sets a precedent, and nothing is inaccurate factually. But I'm left wondering . . . is that enough? Will I, at the end of the day, sleep better knowing I wrote that piece? I dunno . . . I suppose I'm trying to pose the question to you folks. Is it enough to report the facts? Or is the truth behind them what is really important for a journalist to do? Thanks for listening . . . I appreciate everything you have to say. Good night. *click* Lain Iwakura Reporting anything more than the facts no longer makes you an objective reporter. Reporters give facts, and the world decides what to do with these facts. The problem with modern media is that they either interpret the facts for their audience, or they hide certain facts. In such cases, the audience is forced to see their side of the story, and subsequently make judgments based on partial evidence. Lain Iwakura This is neither fair nor just, since in some cases, it is a person's life at stake. By judging based on half-truths and partial information, one will be judged unfairly. Some people can be executed when they themselves were innocent. Akagi Ritsuko I would like to second Ms. Iwakura's opinion. I find it a bit troubling that you say: "Is it enough to report the facts? Or is the truth behind them what is really important for a journalist to do?" The "truth" is the facts. Anything else, is opinion, and that has its own section. While it has become passe for opinion to be interjected into news reporting, good journalism attempts to tell the whole story, from all points of view, if possible. The "fact" that someone has an opinion, is a fact. So, it is fair to interview someone with a strong opinion, and quote them for your story. But it is unfair to only report the opinion from one side, or to use language in the story that shows a bias for one side or the other. Leave that for your reader to determine for themselves. This is not to disparage commentary in any way. But, it is best done in its proper context and by the author being up front about their piece addressing their opinion. If it means that much to you, to tell your opinion about what you were reporting on, talk to your editor and see if you can write a companion feature for the opinion page, or a guest editorial. Obviously, it is more work for you, but you do a disservice to your readers if you confuse fact with opinion and merge what really should be two articles. Doshii_Jun . . Hm. I understand what you say. I guess . . . I didn't make myself clear. Damn . . . you don't have to respond, but I'd like to try again. The "truth" behind the facts. It's not meant to be an opinion--it isn't. If you recall the case of Richard Jewell--the supposed Olympic Park bomber--he was almost proclaimed guilty by the mass media within the span of about two days after the bombing. The media (mostly the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) reported the straight out facts--the police were considering him as a possible suspect, he was the focus of an investigation, and he'd had history that had led police to believe he fit the profile of a "lone bomber" desiring to set off a bomb and become a hero by saving lives before the bomb went off (something that Jewell did indeed do). The truth, in actuality, is that Jewell wasn't the bomber at all. The time it would have taken for him to set the bomb, then run to make the 911 call, was not possible. Audio recordings of the call later proved him innocent as well. It is this second truth, the real truth, that the media could not find. Essentially, what I meant by "the truth" is what was really going on. It is finding out that Jewell couldn't have planted the bomb. It is reporting through facts that yes, indeed there is a pattern of high turnover at the department of "faculty of color", and showing the university that there is a true problem within that department. It is not an opinion, in the end--right now, I have no idea what's really going on in the department, only a vague feeling. Writing a commentary or an op/ed would thrash my crediblity to nothing, so I refrain from doing that. In the end, I slept well enough. Both sides were balanced. Mud thrown onto all, in light of what occurred. Iwakura-san was very right . . . "This is neither fair nor just, since in some cases, it is a person's life at stake." I wonder, at times, if it is fair to try and bring such a case to life, like the one I know of now. She fears for her safety, because of the racism in the department. I fear what reporting about it may do, if I find real evidence of it. The mass media all want a Bill O'Reiley, because people will listen to an avatar they trust. All I desire is, like the muckrakers of long ago, expose injustice in this world, and maybe help make it right again, in some small way. I guess, it isn't the truth behind the facts, per say . . . it's just finding the facts that really show what the truth is. Thank you, Ritsuko-san, Iwakura-san. Your words were helpful, and put me at ease. *bow*