Public debate more open now – messier, too
“News is what the editor says it is.”
That’s the way it used to be, anyway.
That quote is almost 20 years old. The speaker was Benjamin Bradlee, then executive editor of the Washington Post.
Until well into the last half of the 20th century, if a newspaper editor chose not to print something, chances are people didn’t know about it. The newspaper was nearly everyone’s news provider.
But that was before around-the-clock television news, before communications satellites, before computers and the Internet, before cell phones and mobile devices.
Those changes in technology opened a new world for news consumers. In effect, it made everyone an “editor” of information from limitless sources.
News became whatever the consumer wanted it to be.
TECHNOLOGY ALSO made everyone a publisher.
With a Web page or e-mail list, for example, you can disseminate whatever information you choose.
There are lots of ways to get the message out.
No longer do politicians have to go through a media “filter.” No longer do only reporters and editors sort through the mass of information to determine what people read and hear.
No longer does a troubled politician have to answer tough questions from a probing journalist. Instead, he can swat softballs on “Larry King Live” or find a friendly cable TV pundit to help tell his side of the story, free from embarrassing context.
And that’s all fine. The more information, the better. Even if some of it is bogus.
Discerning citizens can figure out who’s telling the truth, and who isn’t.
If they try.
THIS NEWSPAPER also provides outlets for the grievances of public officials.
We publish their letters to the editor, even those critical of this newspaper.
But for those who fear that even their letters are wrongly filtered by us editors, we also provide an unfiltered forum: our online edition.
Although we sometimes have to pull down comments that violate our stated terms of service, the story remarks posted to our Web site are more in the mode of “anything goes.”
And, because of a recent change in policy, people now have to use their real names with their posted comments. That has helped the discussion to become more civil – or, at least, less impolite.
That’s how we know some public officials are using our forum to engage in public debate with their fellow citizens.
In fact, a couple of them used our Web site just this week.
AFTER WE REPORTED public criticism of the Polo Police Department, Mayor Mark Scholl went to our online forum to respond.
He didn’t like our report about citizens who showed up at this week’s city council meeting to question the police effort to curb a recent crime wave. So he posted this comment with the story:
“In all fairness, this article should have noted that the chief read a statement saying the recent burglaries have been officially tied back to the three suspects identified in earlier Sauk Valley local news columns. That was important news.
“However, it would have mitigated the sensationalism created by the writer. Many that attended the meeting have told me that they were very disappointed in this article.”
“Officially tied back” can have many meanings. But apparently it doesn’t mean “enough evidence to bring formal charges.”
As of Friday, no criminal charges had been filed.
ANOTHER ELECTED official went online to criticize not only this newspaper, but a local citizen who wrote a letter to this editor about the Dixon Park Board.
Board member Ron Pritchard posted several of the more than two dozen comments about that letter.
Mr. Pritchard was obviously frustrated, perhaps even angry, when he wrote:
“Isn’t free speech a wonderful thing? Without it, people wouldn’t be able to make numerous assumptions based on ignorance, and publicly portray them as fact! Mr. Hardin [the letter writer], the people on the Dixon Park Board, the people you portend to dislike Dixon, the high school, and the Petunia Festival, have worked tirelessly with all of these organizations for many years. These board members have devoted a large part of their time in the service of the community. What have you done?
“I’ll put our public service accomplishments up against yours anytime! I take your inane comments as a slap in the face, Mr. Hardin! The Park Board has valid, well thought out reasons for the decisions it makes, and if you would bother to attend a meeting you would find – as others have – what the real facts are. I guess it’s easier to read inaccurate newspaper articles and uninformed letters than it is to responsibly find the facts. In the meantime, I think letters such as yours are an embarrassment!”
We recommend that readers check out the online discussion that followed Mr. Pritchard’s comment. That’s what public debate is all about.
And in case you didn’t know, public debate can get a little messy.
PERHAPS THE MOST interesting post in the string came from Stephanie McLean, who wrote:
“If the Park District feels justified in its actions for the public good, why so defensive and hostile in your responses? Just curious.”
That’s a good question, Stephanie.
Part of the problem is that there are too many thin-skinned people in government (in the media, too, if you want to know the truth).
Public officials (like elected park board members) and public figures (even editors) too often are unable to handle the criticism that is a part of the job.
For some reason, they think that “valid, well thought out reasons” always produce the best answer – or, worse, the only right answer. Such unquestioned certainty gives the appearance of arrogance.
While it is sometimes difficult not to sound defensive when you feel forced to defend your actions, there are ways to do it.
Here is what we recommend for people before they respond publicly to criticism:
1. DON’T ASSUME you’re right.
At the very least, don’t pretend as if your solution is the only right answer.
People who have no doubt about their positions or decisions are living in a bubble. And the air in there gets unhealthy pretty fast.
2. CONSIDER THAT others’ misinformation might be your fault.
Even if you think you have done everything possible to explain yourself, understand that you haven’t. Be a little humble, even if it hurts.
Few other people are living this issue as you are. Continue to communicate.
3. BE PATIENT.
Realize that you’re much too close to the matter to be objective about it. And know that few people have the same facts and background that you have.
Don’t underestimate the importance of taking a deep breath and explaining it one more time – with feeling.
4. DON’T INSULT or demean your critics.
Unfortunately, that’s a part of public debate. But you don’t have to resort to such an intellectually dishonest tactic.
That only feeds the perception of arrogance.
Argue the argument; leave the personal assault out of it.
5. DON’T TAKE IT personally.
Yeah, that’s probably the hardest part.
But criticism of your actions and ideas is not a condemnation of your worth as a human being.
Keep the focus on the message, not the messenger.
Even if your critics don’t.
