The word queasy has appeared six times in the Union-Tribune in recent days in connection with San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy and the Naval Training Center. The last time was Friday, with a Letter to the Editor from Murphy saying he was incorrectly quoted.
There’s no question the term was used in the Union-Tribune to describe his feelings; neither is there any question it did not originate with a direct quotation. The first reference appeared in a July 18 article that said: “The San Diego City Council approved several changes yesterday to its plan to convert the former Naval Training Center into a waterfront village, but Mayor Dick Murphy said the whole thing leaves him queasy.”
There were no quotation marks around the statement or the word in the original story because it was not verbatim; it was, instead, the reporter’s summary of statements made by the mayor during the five-hour hearing.
Reporters often paraphrase what speakers say. In this case, the reporter said he could have used any number of words to convey the mayor’s dilemma. During the hearing and in his letter Friday, the mayor acknowledged he had misgivings but said he had to vote for the project because of legal and financial implications.
Nowhere in the original story is Murphy directly quoted as saying he was queasy. Even so, the word was later used four more times, twice with quotation marks around it.
On July 19, a columnist wrote: “If Mayor Murphy indeed feels `queasy’ about this (Corky) McMillin deal (referring to the NTC project), he will be scrutinizing its progress.”
Then, two days later, a letter writer chastised the mayor for voting for the project even though he felt “queasy.” The word was enclosed in quotation marks. “Queasiness,” the letter writer continued, “does not translate as leadership.”
Accompanying the Letters to the Editor was a cartoon showing the mayor signing his approval of the NTC village plan changes. The balloon over the mayor’s head said: “The whole thing leaves me queasy.” In the background people are shown saying: `You’re not alone, your honor!” This time there were no quotation marks around queasy.
Also, there was a reference to queasy in a short item on the project in the Bulldog edition of the Sunday paper published July 21. There were no quotation marks around it.
In his letter, the mayor said he could not remember the last time he chose queasy in any context. The reporter didn’t indicate that it was a direct quotation, and it should not have been used that way in later references. The problem here is that people thought queasy was a direct quote from the mayor.
* * *
She remembers exactly when she started feeling like an adult, a colleague told me the other day. It was when she was 18 and decided to leave home. Once at her destination, she sat in the bus station to plot her next step. And that’s when she decided to do “what adults do.” That, to her, meant buying a cup of coffee and a newspaper. To this day, she remembers the delicious feeling of freedom she had while sipping coffee and reading the latest news.
But, Nancy Wyld, who holds a degree in fine arts and has 25 years experience in printing of newspapers, said it was only when she came into the Union-Tribune newsroom as senior editor for operations that she learned just how passionate journalists are about their work. It makes her appreciate more than ever the importance of a press that is not government-controlled, she said.
Her story made me think about a survey conducted by the Washington News Council that said that 69 percent of people in the state who responded agreed that “the government should require the news media to give equal coverage to all sides of a controversial issue.” It was not the first time a survey made that finding. Four years ago, when the Center for Media and Public Affairs asked the same question, 84 percent agreed.
Such findings make journalists acutely uncomfortable. What are people thinking, they want to know. Giving all sides to a story is already a basic tenet of journalism; it is part of the news-gathering process. Moreover, doesn’t the public realize what jeopardy it would place on their own freedom of access to information if the government controlled any facet of the press?
