The two-sides-to-every-argument argument is wearing thin, at least for me.
As journalists are often reminded – and rightly so – there are indeed two sides to every story. Usually more. And it is our job to present the various sides in as accurate a way as possible, within the limitations of time, space, opportunity and legalities.
That’s why, to my mind, if you have yet to make up yours on any given controversial topic, the best news articles are the ones that leave you perplexed, wondering who’s right and who’s wrong. And by how much?
Of course, those news consumers certainly aren’t the loudest. My frustration is more to do with those readers and viewers and listeners who have already made up their minds – who know unequivocally who’s inarguably right and utterly wrong – based solely on the issue at hand or the players involved.
Whether it’s trees being cut down by this city or that city, our prime minister wearing colourful garb on a visit to a far-off land or the leader of a world superpower convinced he’d be brave enough while unarmed to confront a homegrown terrorist, the ones we typically hear from are those who entered the argument with opinions pre-decided.
And we do get it from all sides.
When one person says something newsworthy – and we report it, usually because of a combination of the view expressed and the person’s standing in the community to effect change – we often hear from that person’s critics that we are taking sides by providing a platform.
Then we hear criticisms from the speaker, saying we’re drawing attention to only a small part of what they meant to say.
When confronted, we can only respond that what we reported was considered news. What wasn’t reported, less so.
After all, when a politician says he or she is proud of his or her constituency, it’s not really news, is it? When a politician says his/her opponents are wrong and his/her brethren right, again, is this worth a headline?
However, when a politician says something out of the ordinary or unexpected – perhaps even outlandish – that’s when it becomes news.
This isn’t dissimilar to the crimes, fires and traffic crashes we too often report, as opposed to the non-crimes, non-fires and non-crashes that, as a news medium, we tend to ignore.
And, trust me, civic leaders, No shootings this week isn’t a headline that would do anyone any good.
I will admit, though, as confident as I’ve become with my own news judgment, I don’t mind being contradicted. Fact is, deciding what news goes on what page of this newspaper is one I’m always second-guessing prior to our press deadline, occasionally turning to coworkers for opinions if, for me, it’s a toss-up.
In the end, hearing from critics who pick apart our decisions is the only way we’ll get better.
However, whether those commenters truly approach their chosen issue with objectivity, or show signs of confirmation bias with minds already made up, I’ll leave it to those with thicker skin to judge.
Lance Peverley is the editor of Peace Arch News.
