In deference to the West Marin Citizen, which has published numerous articles and essays by this writer, we print the following item. However, we take no sides in the issues that remain between the West Marin Citizen and the Point Reyes Light. This space is provided as a community service.
Most Sleep Deprived readers are likely unaware that the Point Reyes Light printed a reader-contributed opinion piece in November 2009 with the contributor critical equally of The West Marin Citizen editor’s agenda and table manners. Citing their “Take the high road” editorial policy, The Citizen has not responded.
Privately, Citizen editor Jim Kravets has explained, “It’s the very definition of ‘losing proposition’ for us to use our pages to address commentaries published elsewhere that would not meet our standards for publication had they been submitted to our newspaper.”
Is it a parry? A reproach? A dodge? Asked by Sleep Deprived to elaborate on his comment, Kravets offered the following:
Common ground in journalism
This may not come as news to our readers, but The Citizen will neither be bullied into trepidation nor into action by those who have discovered the strategy of casting legitimate criticism as personal attack.
Beyond that, the commentary published in the PRL represents a scenario that fits conveniently within our writing on responsible editorial practices.
The West Marin Citizen has recently printed the fourth in our wildly popular series of editorials about responsible news reporting. I can write “wildly popular” and not provide any supporting evidence because what you’re reading right now is a type of commentary – like an editorial, an op-ed, or a guest column – and not hard news reporting.
While the standards for commentaries vary from newspaper to newspaper, the standards for news reporting do not. You can think of it like state laws and federal laws, with each newspaper being its own city-state. Same-sex marriage can be illegal in California and legal in Maine, but employment discrimination based on race is unlawful nationwide. Similarly, a published commentary could support its thesis citing court records in one newspaper and only offer, “because I said so,” in another. But news reporting in both papers should follow comparable protocols and avoid identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
The analogy only goes so far, because in truth, there is no universally accepted code of journalism ethics, even for news reporting. The Society for Professional Journalists, The Poynter Institute, The International Federation of Journalists – they and countless others all have established codes of ethics. But to call themselves journalists and do news reporting nobody takes any oath, needs any credential, license or permit.
Still, the playing field for news writing is relatively level, and readers and journalists can safely do cross-platform (inter-newspaper) comparisons. Judging a commentary in one publication using the standards of another is largely futile and in some instances can be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The latter scenario is what I’m faced with in addressing commentaries published in another newspaper. Whereas I and other journalists could reasonably critique news articles in The West Marin Citizen, The Nation. The Chicago Tribune, The Point Reyes Light or even in the Inverness Yacht Club Pilot (if they wrote news articles), the playing field is anything but level when it comes to opinion pieces.
If contributors submit a commentary for consideration in The West Marin Citizen, their piece must meet our newspaper’s guidelines for opinion pieces. When their commentary appears in another newspaper – in this case the PRL – readers are only asked to accept that the piece has met that newspaper editor’s standards for accuracy, integrity and intellectual honesty for contributed pieces.
If someone has what they believe to be legitimate concerns with news articles or commentaries or anything else about the West Marin Citizen, they are invited to share them with me, and I’ll print them and/or address them as appropriate, and then other readers are encouraged to comment on that, and so on. In this transparent and consistent manner the newspaper and the community together move toward a deeper understanding of the issues involved.
But it’s the very definition of “losing proposition” for us to use our pages to address commentaries published elsewhere that would not meet our standards for publication had they been submitted to our newspaper. We guarantee West Marin Citizen readers an upright publication based on consistent standards, and it’s a disservice to them to provide a backdoor entrance which bypasses our editorial policies.
This demur will no doubt be called a copout by the author of the aforementioned piece and perhaps others. Note that I’m not refusing to address criticism. To ensure a steadily rising level of discourse, it is incumbent upon every community member to resist the temptation to address statements when they’re scratched on bathroom walls, shouted from dark alleys, or published in any form not recognized for rigorous standards. And – with all due respect for both organizations – this applies whether the source is a member of the N.A.S. or P.L.O.
The Citizen has a forum where those who participate – even those with disparate views – are secure that they are united in common purpose with those who demonstrate a respectful pursuit of that purpose. I encourage all to participate.
The Citizen’s principles have earned the paper a reputation as “neighborly” – a description used to equal effect by both our critics and our supporters. By the same token, some have identified our predilection for printing smiling photos on Page 1 as an invitation for thuggery. But if you mistake “neighborly” for “vegetative,” and try to strong-arm your way past our code of ethics, you’ll be disappointed.
In distributing tools to identify responsible journalism – as we’ve been doing with our series of editorials – I’m warned that we run the risk of more critical readers. I’ll take that risk and, by extension, the corresponding risk of better newspapers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment