Let’s start this week’s column with a quiz.
“A telecommunications bill that almost certainly will mean higher phone rates for Floridians was pushed by lobbyists bankrolled by rich telephone companies. It sailed through the GOP-controlled Legislature during the regular session that ended last month while other important bills languished.”
Was that news or opinion?
To Harry Gruber, it was opinion. It seemed like an editorial, not news. It was the second paragraph in a news story on last Sunday’s front page that focused on lobbyist battles over medical malpractice reform.
“I didn’t even want to go any further in the article when faced with such blatant unjournalistic work,” Gruber wrote. Will the telephone technology be better for Floridians using the new taxes? Was the bill debated and public testimony obtained before the votes?”
To Deputy Metro Editor Marilyn Young, the paragraph by staff writer Rich Tucker was not opinion, but a statement of fact.
“The telecommunications bill is an example of how a bill where only one side has powerful lobbyists made it through. The paragraph about telecommunications contains factual statements that have been reported before. There was no analysis involved.”
My comments: The paragraph is missing two fundamental elements of journalism.
The first was attribution. Who says the telecommunications bill will produce higher phone rates? Since no source was mentioned, the readers are left to assume the conclusions are the reporter’s. The second was balance. There were no comments from the supporters of the telecommunications bill. For instance, an AT&T executive said in a May 20 letter to the editor that the bill would produce more competition, lower prices, better service and more innovation. I don’t know which prediction is true, but as a reporter I don’t have to make that decision; simply give both sides and let the readers decide.
Without attribution and balance, the paragraph qualifies as opinion, not news. In addition, the reference to “rich” phone companies is a loaded term that was unnecessary and hints at the reporter’s opinion. I also question the reference to the “GOP-controlled Legislature,” as if lobbyists weren’t influential when the Legislature was controlled by Democrats.
Gruber concluded that an editor’s pencil was needed. I see three acceptable alternatives: Attribution and balance could have been inserted, the paragraph could have been deleted or an “analysis” label added.
Blunt headline offends
“St. Vincent’s dumps 55 positions” was the headline on a June 13 Business section story. It showed a lack of sensitivity to the employees who are being relocated, some of whom will be losing their jobs. Five readers, all St. Vincent’s employees, protested. One said the headline was “tacky and crude.”
Business Editor Dale Hokrein responded, “While the headline may have been accurate, we could have used a less emotional word to get the point across.”
My comments: St. Vincent’s “cuts” 55 positions summarizes the story without the insensitivity. While we’re on the subject, reporters don’t write their own headlines. Copy editors do. How come? Logistics: The paper usually is being produced when reporters are not present. Also, writing good headlines that are catchy, accurate and will fit in small spaces is an art.
