Never Lie to a Journalist

Newspaper people don’t like to get lied to.  Among the many elements that are the bread and butter of their profession is access to people and obtaining accurate information from them.  It’s the lifeblood of their profession – including, of course, advertisements and paid circulation.

A basic aversion of journalists, and one they will stone you for, is a lie – especially a big one.  The reason is not that they are necessarily pure of heart.  As the saying goes, every day each one puts on his or her pants just like the rest of us.

Their motive for not wanting to be lied to is a very mundane and human one. When a reporter writes a story or a columnist calls a source for information, both rely upon the honesty of the person they have contacted for data, background information, or for attributable comments.

Once a story gets set in print, the writer’s credibility, if not his or her reputation goes along with it.  And therein lies the rub.  A story or column that carries false or misleading information makes that journalist look bad or, sometimes, simply like a jerk who should have known better.

I’m not talking here about journalists making honest mistakes or engaging in sloppy writing.

 

What I’m highlighting is a story or a column that would otherwise be a good piece of writing, except that it contains a big bad lie provided by a source which, for one reason or another, intends to materially mislead by egregiously twisting the truth.

That’s when you get stoned.

 

When I was on the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education, times were difficult.  However, I had a good relationship with the managing editor of a newspaper, as well as with a young, aggressive reporter who covered me like wallpaper.  Both were tough, thorough, and fair-minded journalists – very good at what they did.

One day, during a conversation with that editor, she advised me that I needed to make sure that I was telling her the truth.  Translation:  don’t lie to me, or everyone will know about it in print.

 

This caught me off-guard at first, but not for long.

 

In a flash, it became clear what was going on.  Somebody or some group of people had been feeding her information that must have been completely counter to what we had been discussing.

I never asked who was providing her with conflicting information.  Had I done so, she would not have told me, because all journalists have to protect their sources.  Essentially, they have to figure out for themselves who they can trust and who they can’t.

This paraphrase encapsulates my response to her advice:  “You’ve nothing to worry about.  I’ve always leveled with you and your reporters and I always will.”

There is another basic characteristic about that editor and that reporter.  They were seeking the facts.  They were not on a biased witch hunt to find fault with an elected official in an effort to destroy him.

There is a monumental difference between those two approaches to journalism.  One merely sells newspapers.  So does the other, but it is inclusive of responsibility and truthfulness.  Upon that difference rests the integrity of the journalistic profession. 

Thanks for reading.  Watch out for that ice Wednesday morning on your way out.