“To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe,” Carl Sagan says.
OK, so Carl is more articulate than I, but whenever I hear complaints that a newspaper story used a quotation (or other element) “out of context,” I like to remind critics that for anything to be used “in context,” we would have to start each story with the big bang, then include all of history up to the time of the events in the story.
So it’s common for us to be accused of writing “out of context” stories because, yes, perfect context is impractical. Still, when we hear that criticism, we are quick to defend ourselves.
Here, let’s drop back and drop our defenses. Let’s give “out of context” a fair hearing.
I fielded a call from an irate reader who opened by insisting we run a retraction. (Memo to irate readers: Demanding a retraction is an almost certain to provoke editor defensiveness. Better, dear readers, to start with, “I wish to talk to you about a story that I found misleading.” Now back to this particular irate reader.)
Because I had edited the story she was calling about, the hair stood up on the back of my neck.
Her point, delivered in full screech, was that a specific detail was missing from the story.
I froze.
When I edited the story, I had added some detail. As the woman was castigating me, I realized that I had left out something that would have given a fuller account of a situation.
So, I was in the position of defending the story – none of which was incorrect – while at the same time realizing I could have done better.
I acknowledged to the woman that the left-out detail would have been valuable, but I pointed out that a retraction, or even a correction, would have been overkill and could have the opposite effect from what she desired, that is, it could have confused readers into thinking that the story was incorrect rather than lacking in full detail.
But the incident stuck with me. It made me relearn something I never should have forgotten: When an editor tries to improve a story, he or she should not rely on only easily remembered background details.
I actually thought I had been diligent. In the course of my editing, I went back to previous stories for specific dates and actions. But I had forgotten that one detail, and I didn’t notice it in any of the stories I researched.
Probably that detail was in at least one of the previous stories. But sometimes, in both newsrooms and in the lives we lead outside work, we see only what we choose to see. That, I think, is what happened to me.
In the crush of the many stories we publish, avoiding such situations is difficult, but here are a few thoughts that might help:
First, the story I’m talking about had been one that kept developing for at least a year. Yes, I had edited most of those stories, which is the reason I thought I had enough knowledge to add some material. But really, reporters need to be the first line of defense in such situations. I should have pre-coached the reporter: “Please make sure you give a clear, comprehensive wrap-up of the history behind this story.”
Second, I also should have consulted with the reporter after I added the material. She was extremely close to the story, and I think if I had said, “I added X, Y and Z,” she would have said, “OK, but if you’re going to do that, be sure to … (whatever).”
Third, no editor or reporter should rely solely on memory to add detail. I know of countless times in which I’ve been 100 percent certain of a fact, and yet I was proven wrong.
Fourth, treat each reader criticism as an opportunity to look inside what we do and how we do it. Even a loud critic demanding something we’re not going to do has an interest in our newspapers, and that’s something we should not dismiss lightly.
I was defensive with the irate caller for the very reason we almost always become defensive: The gap in the story was my fault, and I didn’t want to admit it. That her criticism triggered my introspection made her call worthwhile.
THE FINAL WORD: A sign of worldwide uncertainty is that the verb “to roil” is being used a lot more than ever before.
It is an extremely useful verb, meaning to stir up, to rile. You can see how it fits today, with the turmoil over Britain’s Brexit vote, the continuing, perplexing conflict with ISIS, and the difficulties facing the Republican Party in light of Donald Trump’s ascendance.
I just hope “roil” doesn’t lose its effectiveness through overuse, the way “to share” has become an unnecessary but extremely popular synonym for “to tell a story.”
Both encouraging and discouraging results from First Amendment survey
Gene Policinski, inside the First Amendment
Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org.
Follow him on Twitter:
@genefac
This year’s State of the First Amendment national survey (SOFA), conducted in partnership with USA TODAY, does more than just sample our attitudes about those five core freedoms – it also might show just how those freedoms can work.
Overall, the survey’s specific findings tilt to the positive on the First Amendment. But there also are a few signs that we and our fellow citizens can do a better job of supporting freedom, or even knowing its components.
A whopping 86 percent reject the notion that free speech ought to give way to protecting people from things that might offend them. When it comes to college campuses – where the impact of negative speech on social media really hits home – support even for speech that offends still stands at 57 percent. Only when it comes to high school students does free speech come up short of a majority: Just 35 percent say it’s OK for those students to offend others.
The survey, conducted by the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center since 1997, still finds strong support for a free press as a “watchdog on government,” though 74 percent doubt that the “news media attempt to report the news without bias.” But perhaps the latter is not as much of an indictment in a time when some liberal and conservative news operations tout their points of view.
Eight of 10 are concerned about individual privacy in the Digital Age, but more than six of 10 would permit the government “to be able to force companies to unlock the data saved on the smartphones of customers who are accused of terrorist acts.”
So let’s turn to an interesting change in attitudes after the tragic mass shooting in Orlando June 12. The horrifying attack, in which 49 people were killed by an assailant, was followed by a burst of anti-Islamic rhetoric after the killer’s declaration of allegiance to ISIS.
In turn, all of that was followed by social and political pushback in the other direction. Muslim leaders decried the use of their faith to justify hatred of the United States or homophobic terrorism. Opposition was vocal to calls to increase surveillance of Muslims in America, or presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s continued suggestion of a ban for an indeterminate period on Muslims entering the United States.
The First Amendment Center went into the field in late May with its annual, national survey of adults – days before the deaths in Orlando. But given the intense national debate involving religious liberty after the attack, a second round of sampling was commissioned and completed June 27.
The second survey found support for First Amendment protection for what respondents might consider fringe or extreme faiths actually increased, despite anti-Muslim rhetoric and reports of an ISIS connection that followed the worst mass shooting in U.S history: The number of people who said such protection does not extend to such faiths dropped from 29 percent to 22 percent.
In both surveys, a little more than 1,000 adults were sampled by telephone, and the margin of error in the surveys was plus/minus 3.2 percent.
The First Amendment is predicated on the notion that citizens able to freely debate – without government censorship or direction – will exchange views, sometimes strongly and on controversial subjects, and find common ground.
In this case, that exchange of views seemingly produced increased support for protecting views many people would find offensive, even in the face of violence. In at least this survey’s findings, the nation spoke – in favor of freedom.
There’s one more result from this year’s State of the First Amendment that’s worth noting – nearly four in 10 of those questioned could not name a single freedom in the First Amendment unaided. For the record, they are religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.
Perhaps not identifying any one of the five as part of the First Amendment is not the same as not knowing you have those core freedoms. But neither does it build confidence that as a nation, we have a deep understanding of the core elements of what distinguishes our nation among others, or is so fundamental to the unique American experience of self-governance.
So in the spirit of the recent July 4th holiday and of the First Amendment year-round: Join in the fireworks – the ones you watch or the ones around important issues. And repeat after me: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.