Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

Newspapers are dying. They are being replaced by the Internet. The story goes on and on.

But why? Newsprint is easier to read for many of us. I always found the big page format clumsy to hold and fold and keep straight, but it was print and I could take it anywhere.

But why? Newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post served the public. Their size and financial resources allowed them to put reporters in cities around the globe to let us know what was happening – to know the news.

But why? I trace their failure to bad writing. News stories should report the factual, objective news. Editorials give opinion.

In Freshman English those many years ago, the professor stressed the difference between fact and opinion, objective and subjective, news and editorial, observation and judgment.

Let’s take a newspaper story from today. This one is from the Washington Post about the man nominated to be the Secretary of the Treasury – Timothy F. Geithner. Let’s read the first clause of the first sentence of the report:

Timothy F. Geithner, the man tapped to lead the nation out of the greatest economic crisis in decades

Note the opinion: “the greatest economic crisis in decades…” Why is our current situation a “crisis” (a short-term terrible event fraught with peril)?  Why is our current situation “the greatest?” How does this reporter measure the economy? The opinion sets the tone for the report.

Go to the first sentence of the second paragraph:

As Treasury Secretary, Geithner would be tasked with directing a mammoth rescue of the nation’s economy.

Note the opinion: “a mammoth rescue.” How does the reporter conclude that the economy needs a “rescue” let alone a “mammoth” one. Would it suffice to say that the Treasury Secretary would manage and direct the Department of the Treasure? Perhaps such is not as interesting to this reporter.

But that is the point: Report the news, not what is interesting to the reporter.

This is only one story from one newspaper selected on one day. I could have picked any other story from any other newspaper on any other day.

The greatest harm I see in all this confusion of fact and opinion is the spread of such into daily conversation. Opinion creeps into conversation and comes across as judgment. We all loved to be judged daily, don’t we. NOT!

See Esther Derby’s post here. Note in the second half of her post how she illustrates the simple yet profound difference between judgment (“you were pounding the table” (you idiot)) and observation (“I saw your closed hand rise in the air and come down on the table. Did you observe that?”).

I cringe when I hear judgment in conversation instead of observation. I am not surprised at the reactions to such judgment. It hurts people and the tasks they try to accomplish. But why shouldn’t our conversations be full of judgment? The media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television) are full of such. People have adopted what they see and hear.

A terrible shame – in my opinion.