Learning who we can trust

The coverage of Wednesday's Tax Day Tea Parties tells us a lot about who in the media we can trust to be objective and who has become the American version of Pravda.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ignored the event to the extent that their main front page art was an AP photo of a painting being rescued from the earthquake rubble in Italy. Other dominant p-1 art was a 2-column AP photo of the French Navy seizing a pirate skiff and a 3-column local photo of a pile of drawers (no humans in sight) accompanying an absolutely riveting story about the Pulaski County coroner wanting his own morgue. The closest thing to demonstration coverage they gave readers on p-1 was a tiny picture at the top of the page teasing a story about Afghan women rallying against marital rape.

I'm proud to say the Jonesboro Sun had an accurate account of the local tea party with a 3-column headline and photo placed above the fold on page 1.

I'm also pleased to notice that my former paper, The Indianapolis Star, gave the Indianapolis event prominent coverage on page 1. Ditto, the Lafayette (Ind.) Journal & Courier.

Readers of the Chicago Sun Times and Tribune and the New York Times weren't so well served. No page 1 coverage of tea parties.

And then there's the quality of the coverage. Here again, Michael Wilkey of the Sun got it right. His story is an unbiased, concise account of what happened.

Any journalist worthy of the title understands that when you cover an emotionally charged public event like this, your credibility is on the line. The people who are there will read or view your efforts and compare your report with what they saw and heard. If you spin it to suit your own views, or even if you just miss the point, they will know and they will never trust you again.

That's what happened with CNN's Susan Roesgen at a Chicago Tea Party in what is the most egregious example of journalistic malpractice I've seen in a long, long time. Her biography on the CNN web site claims she graduated from the University of Montana with highest honors. The university apparently doesn't teach journalistic ethics and objectivity.

How hard is it to just stick a microphone in front of a protester and let him state his point of view? What kind of loon thinks it's a reporter's job to lecture the person being interviewed? What kind of news organization would tolerate this kind of unprofessional behavior?

In a rational world, Susan Roesgen would return to her office and find herself fired with all of the stuff from her desk in a cardboard box.

But then maybe CNN really stands for Crazy News Network.

Check out Jon Stewart's thoughts on Roesgen's and CNN's work covering the flood in Fargo, N.D.

 

Who would think the day would come when Comedy Central has better news judgment than CNN?