Here at GetReligion, we make no secret of our bias. That bias: our deep affection for good, old-fashioned journalism.
In two recent posts, I highlighted stories at opposite extremes of that ideal. I discuss those posts with host Todd Wilken on this week's episode of "Crossroads," the GetReligion podcast.
In my "When religious liberty clashes with gay rights" post, I praised a Wall Street Journal story on lawsuits over wedding professionals — such as bakers and photographers — refusing to serve same-sex couples. I noted that the Journal quoted sources on both sides of the issue and fairly framed each side's broad arguments.
That post prompted some interesting discussion from readers (some of it actually related to journalism). Reader cvg commented, in part:
This seemed like a good article. I wouldn't say the quotes were really well balanced. The SSM quotes reflected personal trauma, while those on the liberty side didn't. Perhaps it is the language each side naturally uses: one naturally in tune with successful PR, and one naturally out of tune? I suspect there would be stronger balance if quotes reflected how disturbing it can be for a person of faith to be forced to act against deep seated convictions. However, is it the journalist's job to dig for balance, if those reflected each side don't naturally portray such balance? Probably not. However, if you're really after portraying balance, a decent follow up wouldn't hurt. Too much leading?
My reply:
cvg,
You definitely make some interesting points concerning the balance on the quotes.
One issue at play: Attorneys are being quoted (instead of plaintiffs themselves) in most of these cases, and attorneys speak legalese.
Another issue: the relatively short word count on the story, which doesn't allow for any source to elaborate a whole lot.
Still, I was pleased that the Journal made an attempt to let each source make its best case, albeit in a short amount of space.
Meanwhile, in my "Mormons softening opposition to homosexuality ... or not" post, I raised a number of questions about what I characterized as an Associated Press "puff piece" on Mormons challenging the church's stance on homosexuality.
Reader Darren Blair commented, in part:
(T)he lack of details raises more questions than answers, with some of these questions raising doubts about the actual credibility of the allegations themselves.
My reply:
I couldn't agree more. As a reporter, facts are your friends. Report them as fully and fairly as possible. Ignoring them and telling only one side of the story just makes the news org look bad and even incompetent.
Todd and I spend some time discussing why journalists should embrace, not run from, factual reporting.
Click here to listen to the podcast. As always, the Oklahoma accent is free.