While journalists pride themselves on their independence, most would readily acknowledge they have a symbiotic relationship with their sources. Journalists depend on the very people they cover for information. And most news makers, be they law enforcement, politicians, school officials or others, depend on the news media to get their messages to the public.
And the public? They depend on the news media to separate what they need to know to make informed decisions from what sources, including politicians and businesses, want publicized solely to influence opinion.
Because of this symbiotic relationship, there is a lot of give and take between the news media and their sources. This is especially true between law enforcement and the news media as we have seen most recently in the sniper shootings in the Washington, D.C., area, and earlier this year in the case involving the murder of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.
But sometimes, when there are competing interests, friction develops between those in control of information and journalists. In the sniper shootings, Police Chief Charles Moose of Montgomery County, Md., had both praise and criticism for the news media. While chastising the media for releasing confirmed information that was leaked by others in law enforcement, he also thanked journalists for carrying messages to the shooter. On more than one occasion, he addressed those responsible for the sniper attacks through the news media.
It’s the old story. Journalists are loved by sources when the information released is to their advantage and criticized when the information published puts those same people in an uncomfortable position or is information they don’t want to share with the public.
Journalists don’t have to be cynics to know that sources use them when it is to their advantage, that some want to control when and what information is given to the public. Journalists believe it is their duty to bring news to the public, no matter whom it makes uncomfortable. However, journalists have been known to respect the wishes of law enforcement in not releasing information that might put someone in jeopardy.
Much has been said and written about the news coverage of the sniper shootings. Television, in particular, has been criticized for speculating. Some were angry with the news media because they felt the sniper was reacting to what was being said and written. And some criticized the media for feeding fear.
In San Diego, we have distance from what was taking place in the District of Columbia area. For most of us, it was a news story, but even at this distance, even if you did not know a soul in the area, it was frightening. It was something that could happen anywhere. We read the stories, listened to news reports and were dismayed when television broke into programs with more news of the sniper. Were the media feeding fear about the sniper or reporting what people needed to know?
Of course, I did not see all the reports about the sniper, but I know the news media, even with their excesses, did not manufacture the fear. Fear was the work of the sniper.
Did the sniper feed off the media reports? Were there more killings because of the reports in the media? The sniper probably listened to and read some of what was said about him, but to blame the media for his actions is killing the messenger. The news media did not create the sniper.
Criticism of what some people consider excesses of the media remind me of what the late Alan Barth, a Washington Post editorial writer, said in a 1977 speech about what the public must tolerate in exchange for the media’s role as a watchdog and what would happen if the beast were tethered and silenced.
“If you want a watchdog to warn you of intruders, you must put up with a certain amount of mistaken barking,” Barth said. “Now and then, he will sound off because a stray dog seems to be invading his territory or because he sees a cat or a squirrel or is outraged by the postman. And that kind of barking can, of course, be a nuisance. But if you muzzle him and leash him and teach him to be decorous, you will find that he doesn’t do the job for which you got him in the first place. Some extraneous barking is the price you must pay for his service as a watchdog. A free press is the watchdog of society.”
Gina Lubrano’s column commenting on the media appears Mondays. It is the policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune to correct all errors. To discuss accuracy or fairness in the news, please write to Gina Lubrano, readers representative, Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or telephone (619) 293-1525. Send e-mail to:
readers.rep@uniontrib.com.
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
——————————————————————————–
