tfp19

"THE FINE PRINT"

The musings of Michael Schrader

WHO NEEDS COURTS WHEN WE HAVE TRIAL BY COLUMNIST
(Written in January 1995; never published. Posted in toto with Preface 3 September 2001)

PREFACE -- This was the last column I wrote for the Farmington Press-Leader. It was also my parting shot at Jeff Mills, who decided to publicly insult me in his column. Alas, as I had moved on to Arkansas, and Jeff had not, I was persona non grata and the column was never published.

       I recently received some e-mail from a lawyer in California concerning etiquette on the 'Net (Internet, the information superhighway). He wrote to me that he frequently read the engineering newsgroups, and noticed that on several topics, writers had resorted to personal attacks and name-calling, and that this type of conduct is not allowed on the lawyer newsgroups. He asked me if engineers were exempt from the 'Net rules of conduct.
       It was ironic that I would receive, out-of-the-blue, e-mail concerning correspondence etiquette, or lack of, as that very same week, I was talking to several co-workers about the lack of etiquette on the radio, and how when I was a radio broadcaster, the type of name-calling and character-bashing that permeates talk radio today was strictly forbidden and resulted in removal from the airwaves.
       I also commented that this type of behavior is not acceptable in the print media. Thus, I was extremely disappointed when I saw my name being mentioned unfavorably in someone else's column.
       Up until recently, name-calling and character-bashing of one fellow columnist by another was strictly taboo, as the editorialist practiced his or her profession like a lawyer at a trial: just the facts, maam.   Each editorialist (lawyer) presented to the readers (jury) his interpretation of the facts, in the hopes that the reader (jurist) would agree with his point-of-view. Opinion (conjecture) was not allowed by the editor (judge). Name-calling and character-bashing resulted in a strict reprimand (being held in contempt) by the editor (judge).
       Lately, however, editorial trials have been held without a judge in the courtroom. Editorialists have taken on the attitude that the best way to prove a point is to attack not the opposition's point of view, but the opposition's character.
       Is it no wonder, then, that journalists are viewed with such contempt?
       After all, even boxing, which is considered by many to be the most inhumane of all sports, has rules to be followed and disqualification for not following them. Why not, then, rules and disqualifications for editorialists?
       Believe it or not, everything I have ever expressed as a journalist is based on either: a) personal experience; b) facts. And technically speaking, personal experiences are facts, as these experiences happened. So, technically, everything I write is based on facts.
       This may be the result of my days as a radio newswriter-announcer-producer. News is fact. There should be no opinions expressed when presenting the news. (Unfortunately, the way it should be and the way it is are not always one and the same.)
        Possibly, this obsession with facts is a result of the time I spent producing a television show (and a talk one, at that). The station had one very simple rule:    we (the station) are not liable for libel. Being one who could not afford a libel and slander suit, I did a lot of research to make sure that what I was saying on television was true and correct and could not be considered libelous.
        It is time, then, for the end to unsupervised trials by editorialists. It is time for a return of professionalism of the type shown by lawyers in a court of law to journalism. It is not too late to restore public confidence in the media.
        It will require great sacrifice by those in the media, as we will have to refrain from "spewing venom from the lip." For those who "shoot from the lip", this is not an easy prospect, as it will require the willpower and self-control not currently exhibited.
        And remember, fellow editorialists: we are being watched. Our credibility is on the line. We, like the engineers on the 'Net, are not exempt from the rules of professional conduct.