Media types like to avoid public self-criticism.
That’s why it’s nice to read Newsweek editor Jon Meacham’s discussion of the struggle his (and other media) writers face as they decide which spin to put on the evidence of the Iraq War:
The flow of better news out of the war zone since the summer has put
much of the press in something of a bind. On the one hand, however
temporary the improvements are, the improvements … are nonetheless real. On the other, many journalists regret not
pressing hard enough in the run-up to the war and are thus very
reluctant to appear to be passing along the Bush administration’s
version of events. Fair enough, but the dilemma, while understandable,
raises a question: at what point does healthy skepticism become willful
cynicism? It is a question many of us grapple with on a variety of
topics, and there is no single, absolutely clear answer. The best we
can do, probably, is judge the facts of the moment in the fullest
context possible, avoid cheerleading and resist the temptation to
mistake reflexive negativity for journalistic rigor. An essay from
Charles Peters, an old friend and mentor to many of us, explores some
of these issues this week. Charlie has long urged the country to judge
things empirically rather than ideologically, a point we can never hear
too often.
Here are some other strategies Newsweek writers could use to convey the most accurate information to readers: report news, attribute all opinions to sources, and avoid editorializing.
