The Benefits and Problems of News Reporting

News reporting is the human effort made to inform the public regarding important events. These events might be important to a locality or community, a group of communities, a nation, a group of nations or the world at large. Our concern and therefore emphasis at this web site ministry is with a select set of news called world news and in particular a subset where the events reported have world wide significance upon the evolution or development of the world society - the so-called global community. This is not a secular effort but we make selective use of news from several secular sources.

The expression of a news accounts (intelligence conveyed in the presentation) by various reporters and news agencies should be factual and objectively determined and not "newsy" propaganda advancing private agendas. We try to filter out "newsy" reporting especially if it has the character of "generating news" because such "news" can often lead to a misunderstanding and false expectations on the part of the public of what is actually happening. For example, if President Bush speaks certain words which he has carefully chosen to avoid confusion and keep focus directed in a specific manner, but the news media attaches a "spin" (their own particular idea of what is going on or should be going on) then we have "newsy" propaganda. Again, if for example, a news reporter puts words in the mouth of the person whose words they are reporting then we have blatant falsification present as news which is very misleading to the public. Reporters like anyone else are allowed to voice their options as human beings but under no circumstances are such reporters mandated to substitute these opinions as a reporting of the news.

Extrapolating and interpolating of what someone said is not factual news reporting. And it is just that which transpired at the Azores conference. What was actually said was captured on film but the reporting that occurred immediately thereafter did not represent what was captured on film. In fact it resembled in no way the audio track on the filming. Rather it represented the opinions of reporters, especially in the case of the BBC which strives for objective reporting. It became painfully and repetitively clear during this presentation that this BBC reporter harbored anti Bush feelings as reflected in his presentation and connotations spread throughout his presentation. If a news reporter is authorized by the agency he works for to indulge in speculation and commentary then it should be done in a way that does not confuse those viewing or reading that presentation such that they think the reported statements correctly represent the statements and intent of those being reported on. It is irrelevant whether this reporting opportunity that took place was used by the particular reporter as an opportunity to express his opinion or whether that reporter only heard what he wanted and so misrepresented the news on that basis. There is just too much of this selective listening going on by reporters as they try to get information that is not being handed out. Even the way some of them ask their questions does not reflect the purpose and intent of the news conference as these reporters drag along the baggage of their own reporting concerns.

In addition, I listened to the news reporting from both the BBC and CNN regarding this meeting of the USA, UK, Spain, and Portugal at a military base in the Azores islands in the eastern Atlantic directly east a fair distance from Portugal. There was a significant difference in what was reported regarding the intent and the objectives of that meeting and neither account gave enough weight to the "actual wording" and repetitive efforts at "clarification", but rather spent most of their news presentation indulging in assumptions, speculation, and possible outcomes for these assumptions and speculations. The reporter that figures his or her insights and grasp of the world situation goes well beyond the information given out at the interview sessions must be careful not to confuse that subjective posturing with objective news reporting. The place to express this insight or grasp is in the editorial mode not the objective reporting mode. To merge the two together approaches slander and a falsification of intent.

The average person tends to remember the last few statements of any news reporting. When those statements are made by indulging in an editorial type analysis without so declaring a change in mode then the objective news has been misrepresented. The BBC should not have to be told this. They know better as a corporate news reporting agency. If these agencies insist on generating more information than that given out then they should clearly identify that they are indulging in an editorial style analysis, commentary, and speculation. In such cases they should accurately and thoroughly present what was said and in the face of that set a point where they are demarcating into an entirely different form of news presentation that may not be factual or even a correct assessment. But in the case of the BBC we are starting to see an increased tendency to mix objective reporting with editorial analysis, commentary, and speculation which is "newsy" reporting about which they should be ashamed in the face of the great news reporting tradition that they have established world wide.

The following is a cut from a VOA news article:

"President Bush is to meet with the prime ministers of Britain and Spain Sunday to discuss what U.S. officials call "all final diplomatic options" regarding Iraq. A spokesman says the one-day meeting in the Azores islands in the eastern Atlantic will focus on how to make it "unequivocally clear" that Saddam Hussein will face serious consequences if he fails to disarm. The White House says Mr. Bush will present British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spain's Jose Maria Aznar with his assessment of Saddam Hussein's threat to peace. The three nations are struggling to win U.N. Security Council approval for a draft resolution to set a deadline for Iraq to disarm or face military action. Russia, China and France, all with veto power on the 15-member Council, oppose the measure.

The above is factual and objective and makes no effort at editorial analysis, commentary, or speculation. The above does not confuse the two processes. It may indeed be helpful to have editorial style analysis, commentary, speculation and opinion. But is is not helpful in the least to have these two distinctively different types of reporting merged because the very merger misrepresents the known facts. It is an act of cowardice on the part of certain reporters that merge these two presentation styles into one so as to purposely influence the public to think a certain way.