"Aggravatingly blunt" might be a good descriptive for my bio, Bill. I probably came off that way because I always thought there was more evasiveness than honesty in politics and public service. Nuance rarely creates good policy, and leadership requires more declarative sentences. I fell into the career because I had a low tolerance for BS and felt politicians needed to answer questions to the people who paid their salaries and put them in office. Although I try to look back with gratefulness, I experience the occasional regret about not doing something else with my professional life.
As for Ann, she was too often convinced, and mistakenly, I was out to get her. I was not. I just wanted straight answers. I thought her interactions with those of us in the media were frequently more performative rather than productive. She could seem like she was trying to prove she could "handle" us. But I admired her greatly. The arc of her life was quite amazing. Most of us owe something to strong women and she gave far more than most to her family and her state, and her relationship with my daughter was a kind of unexpected grace that has helped to inform the woman she has become. She will never stop thinking about Ann.
As for those old editors in the green eye shades, I had a few I liked, but most had the disposition of someone who wished they'd ended up doing something else. There was often more than a touch of bitterness in their profiles. But I am the first guy to agree that everyone needs a good editor. A healthy back and forth between the editors and the reporter should shape almost every story.
You are right, of course, that objective reporting is not possible and David
Brinkley’s observation that “News is what we say it is”fairly sums up the news business. Most news is or was a listing of facts, an obituary of some past event encapsulated in a 100 words: a motorcyclist killed, a man shot in a barroom fight, the re-playing of a baseball game, hit, foul and strike. That is 90 percent of reporting and by its very nature, objective. In the best newsrooms, however, there were editors (oh, the editors!) looking over a reporter’s shoulder asking questions, checking facts. On “big” stories, they always wanted more and more proof, more sources, more facts, less supposition. Their mantra was “are you sure? “ “Who else did you talk to?” “Did you check this against the public record?” “Talk to his/her classmates/friends/neighbors/girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse.” As a reporter, I was many times saved by such editors, much to my chagrin and often to my astonishment. Oh yes, they made mistakes, too, often tragic mistakes, especially when chasing competitive stories. Or pressuring reporters into the braying chase that was pack journalism. But we will miss those men and women in green eyeshades whose knowledge of the world—and of brash reporters—curated the daily flow of information reaching the masses, who by necessity have little knowledge of the larger world around them. Objective journalism —like probity and virtue— should always be a bright goal, even if seldom achieved and like all virtues, its meaning must be endlessly debated in and out of the inner sanctums of our once proud profession. I too think we are rushing to that moment of reckoning when we realize how wrongheaded we have become. But I can’t help thinking that those old, crabby editors are sitting hunched over their soft black pencils and glue pots in some hell where a just god has sent them, yelling across that ethereal newsroom, “Did you check his expense account? Did you actually look at the tax records or are you taking her word for it?” And the one that once stopped me in mid-sentence, “That body on the tracks, Bill, was it a man or a woman?”
Jim, you were a good reporter, if often aggravatingly blunt in the phrasing of your questions. You were as the old pol recounted, unfair to everybody. A very good description of what great political reporter should be.
He's kind of the case study in failed journalism.
Thanks, Dee, for taking the time with it. Appreciate your support.
Were you expecting some inspirational New Year's Day missive?
"Aggravatingly blunt" might be a good descriptive for my bio, Bill. I probably came off that way because I always thought there was more evasiveness than honesty in politics and public service. Nuance rarely creates good policy, and leadership requires more declarative sentences. I fell into the career because I had a low tolerance for BS and felt politicians needed to answer questions to the people who paid their salaries and put them in office. Although I try to look back with gratefulness, I experience the occasional regret about not doing something else with my professional life.
As for Ann, she was too often convinced, and mistakenly, I was out to get her. I was not. I just wanted straight answers. I thought her interactions with those of us in the media were frequently more performative rather than productive. She could seem like she was trying to prove she could "handle" us. But I admired her greatly. The arc of her life was quite amazing. Most of us owe something to strong women and she gave far more than most to her family and her state, and her relationship with my daughter was a kind of unexpected grace that has helped to inform the woman she has become. She will never stop thinking about Ann.
As for those old editors in the green eye shades, I had a few I liked, but most had the disposition of someone who wished they'd ended up doing something else. There was often more than a touch of bitterness in their profiles. But I am the first guy to agree that everyone needs a good editor. A healthy back and forth between the editors and the reporter should shape almost every story.
And thanks again for writing.
You are right, of course, that objective reporting is not possible and David
Brinkley’s observation that “News is what we say it is”fairly sums up the news business. Most news is or was a listing of facts, an obituary of some past event encapsulated in a 100 words: a motorcyclist killed, a man shot in a barroom fight, the re-playing of a baseball game, hit, foul and strike. That is 90 percent of reporting and by its very nature, objective. In the best newsrooms, however, there were editors (oh, the editors!) looking over a reporter’s shoulder asking questions, checking facts. On “big” stories, they always wanted more and more proof, more sources, more facts, less supposition. Their mantra was “are you sure? “ “Who else did you talk to?” “Did you check this against the public record?” “Talk to his/her classmates/friends/neighbors/girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse.” As a reporter, I was many times saved by such editors, much to my chagrin and often to my astonishment. Oh yes, they made mistakes, too, often tragic mistakes, especially when chasing competitive stories. Or pressuring reporters into the braying chase that was pack journalism. But we will miss those men and women in green eyeshades whose knowledge of the world—and of brash reporters—curated the daily flow of information reaching the masses, who by necessity have little knowledge of the larger world around them. Objective journalism —like probity and virtue— should always be a bright goal, even if seldom achieved and like all virtues, its meaning must be endlessly debated in and out of the inner sanctums of our once proud profession. I too think we are rushing to that moment of reckoning when we realize how wrongheaded we have become. But I can’t help thinking that those old, crabby editors are sitting hunched over their soft black pencils and glue pots in some hell where a just god has sent them, yelling across that ethereal newsroom, “Did you check his expense account? Did you actually look at the tax records or are you taking her word for it?” And the one that once stopped me in mid-sentence, “That body on the tracks, Bill, was it a man or a woman?”
Jim, you were a good reporter, if often aggravatingly blunt in the phrasing of your questions. You were as the old pol recounted, unfair to everybody. A very good description of what great political reporter should be.
Santos could have used some unfair reporting before he got elected.
Happy New Year, Jim Bob.
Thank you Jim
...in other words, cliff jumpers, Happy New Year.