Where Does Our News Come From?

Could greater transparency inspire greater trust in the media?

Would our confidence in journalism grow if we knew a bit more about where our news was coming from? That is if we could go beyond the immediate source – New York Times, CNN or Axios– to why they deemed a particular event worthy of reporting on.

There’s no need for that in many cases –when the President activates troops, Congress enacts a law or hurricanes devastate communities – but often the predicate for a story isn’t obvious. Why is a national news organization taking the trouble to report on a small town in Oregon where citizens are trying to ban high-efficiency washing machines (a plausible hypothetical).

Fellow blogger Richard Tofel who’s deservedly highly respected, reminds us of the aphorism that news is what interests the editor. Would it be helpful if we knew more about how the editor became interested?

I’m thinking tentatively about something akin to the biographical notes attached to many newspaper stories telling us whether the reporter is old or new, speaks a foreign language or graduated from Harvard or Howard. For me, such notes can provide useful context.

I’d find it interesting to learn the providence of some reports I encounter Did the washing machine story become about because a regional reporter saw it in one of the local media they monitor, or was is provoked by a chat between a public relations person for a firm lagging in the high-efficiency market with an editor or reporter.

Neither of these options invalidate the story that ultimately appears, but they might help me determine how seriously to take it.

It would also be helpful to follow-up on some of these pr-inspired stories starting with White House claims about economic health. Some weeks ago a White House initiative to counter stories about higher gas prices featured a string of Freedom Fuel outlets where gas was only $3.47 in honor of our 47th President. This inspired extensive courage featuring happy buyers. But I’ve seen no subsequent acknowledgement of how these stations raised their prices by more than 10% in subsequent days.

Perhaps I should bring this to the attention of the reporters who initially presented that story. Would that this were possible.

There was a time in another millenia where ordinary civilians were able to reach reporters directly to make recommendations about courage, adding a democratic element to the editorial process, but that day has passed. The time when you could call and at least leave a message for a reporter, if not actually chat with them, has long passed. The best option now is sending an email, assuming you can find an address.

Perhaps paradoxically, this increasing isolation from the audience has been married with an increasing willingness to share internal disputes. Stories about contested editorial decisions at the NYTimes or CBS are not a strategy for restoring public confidence.

And there was a time, for those of us who remember and revere David Broder of the Washington Post, where political reporters spent a lot of time talking with voters and ward committeemen in their effort to judge the electoral pulse rather than relying on polls, often sponsored by parties of interest, or political consultants, a new professional designation that oddly arrived more or less simultaneously with terrorism experts, who inevitably have interests than not only transcend the truth, but often go far beyond their clients’ priorities.

It may be that trust in the media is beyond repair unless and until institutions generally make a surprising– and long overdue– comeback. But it is also possible that my modest selection could impede the current slide in confidence.