 | 4 Oct 07 |
Murder She Writes is pleased to have Patricia Sargeant guest blog today! (applause, applause.) Patricia writes romantic suspense for Kensington. Romantic Times said of her September release ON FIRE “Sargeant does an admirable job of dotting her romantic whodunit with unexpected events that jolt the reader and force her to pay close attention to the story. Her prose draws readers into the action, and her well-crafted characters become increasingly real as the story goes on.” Yeah! You can visit her regularly at the Pink Ladies Blog, another group author community of wonderful writers.
Without further ado, Patricia!!!
The heroine of my current romantic suspense, ON FIRE, is a newspaper reporter. One of the background issues she and her fellow reporters discuss is the responsibility of the press. The responsibility to present the facts – and only the facts – so readers could form their own opinions. (Their discussion does have a purpose within the plot. It’s not just me posing on a soapbox.)
When I studied news editorial journalism at The Ohio State University countless moons ago, my professors stressed that responsibility. We had to explain why an issue is important to the community before we covered the story. We were required to interview at least three named sources. And we were not supposed to write commentary.
Today, I scratch my head at what sometimes passes for the news. I stare bemusedly at anonymous sources attributed to innocuous statements. And I wince when reporters add what so obviously are their own opinions to otherwise straight news stories.
Now, I realize people have different interests. That’s what makes the world go ’round. But when I witness a barrage of All-Paris-Hilton-All-The-Time coverage while I find out on a reader blog that yet another college student has disappeared during spring break, I can’t help but wonder about the state of the news industry.
I also realize sometimes it’s necessary to grant sources anonymity. If we didn’t occasionally acquiesce to anonymity, we wouldn’t have uncovered Watergate. However, the overuse of anonymous sources calls not only their value but also their contributions into question. For example, the New York Daily News covered the allegations of cheating by the New England Patriots football team. The Daily News quoted an anonymous source who stated the New York Jets’s head coach told the Jets organization about the Patriots’s methods of cheating. Let’s take a moment to think about this. Do we really need to grant this source anonymity? It’s football; not national security.
A free and responsible press is the cornerstone of a strong democracy. We need accurate and complete information to make informed decisions. I’ve often contacted journalists when I thought their coverage was biased or incomplete. Sometimes it makes a difference; sometimes it doesn’t. But I believe we owe it to ourselves and our communities to hold the media responsible.
I’m Patricia Sargeant. Good night and good luck.
© 2007 – 2009, Allison Brennan. All rights reserved.
Allison Brennan is the New York Times and USA Today bestselling and award winning author of seventeen romantic thrillers and several short stories. She lives near Sacramento, California with her husband and five children. Recently, RT Book Reviews called Allison "A master of suspense." And Lee Child said of her Kincaid series launch, "A world-class nail-biter ... Brennan is in the groove with this one." For fun Allison enjoys wine tasting, swimming, kids sports, playing video games, and "of course" reading. Her most recent release is IF I SHOULD DIE, book three in the Lucy Kincaid series. Watch for SILENCED coming on 4.24.12.
Subscribe to Posts 
This is an important topic, and I couldn’t agree with you more. When the FCC allowed a few media companies to own so much of the market, the objectivity of the reporters became even more suspect. There are corporate and political agendas that are strongly enforced, to the point that a reporter will lose his/her job for reporting the facts vs. the company line. I think this is a very disturbing trend.
by Marcia James October 4th, 2007 at 5:08 am– Marcia James
http://www.MarciaJames.net
Thank you, Patricia! What a great commentary. I couldn’t agree with you more (and with Marcia). I remember reading somewhere a while back that argumentative news, the kind where we have those folks trying to shout each other down, typically on a particular network, is the kind of news that people tend to pay more attention to. That thought horrifies me, and yet the implication was that whoever shouted the most and the loudest was the one who was believed, especially if that person was appearing in a pulpit designed and skewed toward one side of the political spectrum. I wish I could remember where I read that. Obviously, it applies to radio as well, especially when one person controls what is said on a show.
As for print, well, it’d be nice if more critical thinking were taught in schools. Kids ought to grow up knowing what logical fallacies are and how to spot them in written arguments. I’d never even heard of logical fallacies until I was a freshman in college.
Perhaps some of these journalists who write skewed news never heard of them either. Now that’s a frightening thought….
by Lynn Raye Harris October 4th, 2007 at 6:50 amAllison, thank you so much for letting me visit with you and your friends at Murder She Writes. This is quite a thrill for me. Thank you.
Hey, Marcia! Thanks for stopping by. The collapsing of so many media independents into conglomerates is a very disturbing trend. There is a lot of news that isn’t reaching us because the guardians at the gate aren’t letting those messages through. More and more, it seems we need to rely on bloggers to find out what’s really going on. But, frankly, I’m not completely comfortable with their news, either, because I’m sure they also have an agenda.
Hi, Lynn Raye. It’s a pleasure to meet you. Thank you very much for your kind words regarding the commentary. You raise an excellent point about adding critical thinking to our schools’ curriculum. I agree with you that kids should grow up knowing about logical fallacies. Excellent point.
by Patricia Sargeant October 4th, 2007 at 7:25 amHi, Patricia, thanks for stopping by today. Good post. One could only hope that integrity was job one with those charged with giving the people the unbiased truth. Or at the very least the truth with a footnote * as far as we know it at this point, but we will update you with more facts as they come in.
Call me naive but I always assumed journalists and news reporters told the truth. Until my husband came home one night and there on the eleven ‘o clock news was a reporter in the town where he was a cop making his city’s PD out to be the criminal. “That’s b%$%##t!” he said. “I was there and it didn’t go down like that at all.” The same twisted version was in the morning newspaper. Go figure. Hey, the truth is boring.
by Karin October 4th, 2007 at 7:41 amSo I take it all with a grain of salt. It’s funny actually to watch the news try to sensationalize something that has no biz even taking up air time.
So very on point, thank you Patricia. Growing up I always wondered why everyone on our block read the Times instead of the Hearld…except my parents. The answer was always, well it’s a left paper. As a kid this made no sense to me. As a reporter it still makes no sense to me, but I understand. It seems reporters are hired for their dirt fereting abilities these days, but hasn’t that always been true? Except the dirt has now become more important than the real news. A sad commentary on the American interest cycle.
I spent a goodly portion of last month training a new DJ. Part of his job is to read the news at 5 and 6. His style included a huge no no… he editorialized through the entire newscast… that is when he wasn’t reading it so fast because he had better things to do. Editorializing outside of a commentary broadcast is a huge no no and yet we through our support behind a broadcast media to do it by the slant of their verbiage, buy our newspapers by the slant of their verbiage. There is so much media out there they feret for the next dirty tidbit to keep their spot in the headlights or lose their job. And Americans bitch while eating it up. We have to change our standards before the media will follow suit, and that will never happen.
Soapbox anyone?
by Cele October 4th, 2007 at 7:47 amGreat post, Patricia!
Story: Rupert Murdoch buys the Wall Street Journal. Thus shrinking our fragile information bubble even more.
Story: The plane carrying John Mark Karr (alleged killer of Jonbenet Ramsey ten years ago) comes in for a landing at the Boulder airport.
Which merits all-day coverage? Many-day coverage? The plane carrying John Mark Karr. I saw more continual shots of his plane than I saw of the Space Shuttle.
Things aren’t going very well right now, by any measure. Maybe people want escape. I was hoping they would choose to escape by reading fiction. But cable news is faster—they have the capability to go from one bright shiny object to another, constantly keeping the viewer off-balance, excited, and stirred up. We have real, serious problems. Do the plights of the Elians and the Mary Schiavos (no matter how poignant their stories) really deserve to become watersheds for our culture?
I guess the old bromide is true: The O.J. in the bush is better than two new Supreme Court justices in the hand.
Another thing that drives me batty is the whole “point, counterpoint” thing. The news channels have two opposing viewpoints, and bend over backwards to make sure they are fair and balanced.
Spokesman for the National Academy of Sciences: “The world is round. It’s been mapped, this has been known and understood for centuries. And here’s the scientific data.”
Sherri Shepherd, from The View: “The world is flat. But I don’t think about it too much because…Ooh, look! My Press-on Nail is peeling.”
Reporter: “Thank you both for your insights into this increasingly controversial subject.”
Yeah, thanks.
by J. Carson Black October 4th, 2007 at 8:14 amHi Patricia, thanks so much for blogging with MurderSheWrites today! Sadly, I agree with you 100%. I could rant on here, but I think you and the commenters covered it perfectly.
by Jen October 4th, 2007 at 8:26 amHi Patricia . . . wonderful post and a sad commentary on our human nature, at times. I can’t blame the cable news or really any news program for reporting on Paris Hilton because, gasp, people want to hear (what people? Really? Not me.) But in some ways it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy and until someone cries uncle, nothing it going to change. Gone are the old Lincoln-Douglas style debates where voters sat for HOURS listening to dialog between two candidates for president–people are busy, they want sound bites, thirty-second “deep” explanations for complex problems. They want solutions now, they don’t want to think. And, I don’t always blame the public, either–I mean we’re busy people. We work, we go to school, we raise kids, we volunteer, whatever. But because we’ve demanded quick, easy news — we’ve been given it. And it’s not all good
I do think the Internet, when used wisely, is the holy grail. Because when something DOES matter to us, individually, and we choose to seek more information, it’s there. But it’s who do we trust for the truth?
Thanks for visiting, Patricia!
by Allison October 4th, 2007 at 9:59 amHi, Karin. I’m very happy to be here today, and thank you for the compliment on the post. Thank you also for sharing that anecdote about your husband’s reaction to the report on the arrest. I can only imagine how angry he was.
Cele, are you a reporter? I appreciate your stopping by to share you take on the situation. I agree that the public does need to hold the media to a higher standard. That’s a very worthy soapbox, and one that I’m happy to share with you. It’s only through our collective voices that we’ll be able to get the media to change course. At the end of the day, what matters more? Brittany’s underwear – or lack thereof, or health insurance? K-Fed or the strength of the dollar? Ana Nicole’s baby or our educational system?
Hi, J. Carson. Oh, Rupert Murdoch! I thought my head would explode. I had so hoped the Journal would hold out. The money was too green, I guess. I love your quote about the O.J. in the bush and the Supreme Court justices. If I never hear about O.J. again, I’ll consider it a victory.
Jen, thank you very much for the welcome. I’m so happy to be here and very much enjoying the discussion.
by Patricia Sargeant October 4th, 2007 at 10:41 amWhat an important topic. I believe that tabloid journalism is like watching a train wreck. You want to look away but … well, it’s easier said than done. That’s why I try to turn the channel and skip the page. If I can avoid watching in the beginning it’s easier to avoid getting sucked into the vortex of sensationalism!
Thanks for your insightful post!
by Wendy Roberts October 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amGreat post, Patricia. Couldn’t agree more. This is why I don’t watch much news any more. My husband still likes to flip through the row of news channels from time to time, and yesterday he noted that everything is ‘breaking news’ now. It’s hard to pick up actual news from yet another OJ story or Paris story or X-celebrity story listed as ‘breaking news’. When something important actually happens we have to scan through countless channels to get any information, biased though it may be.
I don’t know what they’re teaching at journalism school any more. Heck, even the tiny newspaper here is slanted. Feh.
by B.E. Sanderson October 4th, 2007 at 12:53 pmAllison, I agree with you. The media coverage does become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Audience demand and response to stories that are easiest to understand and “sexy” increases coverage of easiest to understand, sexy stories. But I also think the media has a responsibility to give us the harder to understand, “sexless” stories. Because the latter are the stories that impact our daily lives. Thanks so much for letting me visit, Allison. I’ve enjoyed this discussion very much.
Wendy, thank *you* for your kind words. The sensationalism is appealing. I’d like to know why Leo and Gisele broke up, too. But then I hear about the weakening dollar and realize the few minutes I have are better spent finding out about the state of our economy. Hopefully, I can hear about Leo and Gisele on one of the late night talk shows.
by Patricia Sargeant October 4th, 2007 at 12:59 pm