This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline in this blog arose because of a quote in the Wall Street Journal under its “notable and quotable” section.

This:

“Increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.”

The quote came from Leonard Downie, an American journalist who was executive editor of The Washington Post from 1991 to 2008 and who worked in the Post newsroom for 44 years. 

It raises a question that has come up for writers and editors in the days since Donald Trump rose to power in this country.  And, it exists for me, a former daily newspaper reporter, though that stint was a long time ago.

And, as Downie put it below, it is a question that also deals with a variety of cultural trends in this country.

Here’s how I put the question:  Does journalistic objectivity make sense when you deal with a person (or allies of that person) who lie and make up stuff as a matter of course?  Do those who write about this stuff have an obligation to write the truth or, by contrast, continue to engage in what has been labeled ‘bothsideism.’?

Downie added this:

“Amid all the profound challenges and changes roiling the American news media today, newsrooms are debating whether traditional objectivity should still be the standard for news reporting.  Objectivity is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings, or prejudice.

“But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.  They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world.

“They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘bothsidesism’ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change, and many other subjects.

“And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

To this, I would emphasize the difficulty of covering political figures – Trump is the best example – who lie as a matter of course.  So, as a reporter, do you cover the lies as if they are true?  I say no.

The risk, of course, is that, if journalists don’t try to practice objectivity, they become like gods – yes, that’s an overstatement – but they presume to decide what is truth and what is not.

So, based on my early days as a reporter, as well as on the rest of my career where I devoured newspapers intentionally:

• I have a history of believing that it is critical to cover both sides – or all sides – in writing a story for a newspaper.  How else to be fair to all sides in what could be a spirited dispute?  By taking a side, I did not want to presume to know how to resolve a pending dispute.
• At the same time, I was hesitant to include comments from one side when what that side said was lying or over-the-top rhetoric.  There is a difference between outlining your point of view and yelling or screaming. 
• In the Trump example above, it would be enough for me for a reporter to describe comments from someone like Trump as lies by citing the truth, not the Trump-fiction.

Don’t forget, I am a former lobbyist, so I don’t have to fall down on one side or the other of such contentious debates. 

I try to find what I call the smart middle.

Here, the smart middle is this: 

1. General assignment reporters should continue to try to cover both or all sides of contentious issues.  Report the issue, including having the courage to call out lies.
2. Editors and opinion writers should fall down on the side of what they believe to be the truth and assure that their opinions are labeled as such as they advocate for beliefs.

Sound good?

I think so.

And, it’s why I continue to read both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.  Both practice what I preach above.