FACT CHECKING BEFORE THE FACT

In this day of political speech being fact checked in print and on air and over the internet, the time might be right to advocate for a new kind of newspaper. A newspaper dedicated to just the facts, the truth as it can be discovered.

Sure, most newspapers claim they already do that. Readers know that is not true. News people are wont to declare that objectivity is impossible. Is all news gathering and reporting subjective? Need it be?

Back in the 1950s when your humble writer first entered the news business, it was generally accepted that the people who reported the news were not to take sides; that was for the editorial writers and columnists. We might have our private partisan thoughts and opinions – and indeed, we did – but we were to keep those out of our reporting. That’s why the phrases “he said” and “she said” appeared ad nauseam.

New reporters at the old United Press were instructed in company policy to write down the middle because client papers had different political slants. Fair and balanced was not mentioned, but that was the policy. That was carried out pretty well. Reporters back then, even those of many newspapers, found they could talk with and interview Democrats and Republicans without being labeled friendly or unfriendly. One could even interview a Communist and write a straight story.

Still, some readers and some politicians were ready to label newspapers. In Wisconsin, Republicans attending party functions would, on occasion, tell Milwaukee Journal reporters that they worked for Pravda or Izvestia or Tass. On the editorial pages, the Journal was Democratic but not on the news side. In Madison, the Capital Times tended to slant its news-side toward that party and its editorial positions were clearly Progressive, even though that party founded by Robert “Fighting Bob” or “Old Bob” La Follette Sr. had folded before the death of “Young Bob.” In other parts of the country, such feelings probably still prevail. Similar feelings might be heard in the D.C. region regarding the Washington Post and the Washington Times or Examiner.

Newspapers are failing or cutting back, because of diminishing advertising. Their on-line operations are not producing as much ad revenue as needed to maintain healthy operations. Some are cutting back from daily publishing, such as the parent company of the Times­-Picayune in New Orleans. Their papers are printed three days a week, following tests in other markets where the firm operates.

Even the country’s national newspapers are having financial problems. The New York Times has been selling off most of the papers it owns to right the listing flagship. The Washington Post has folded its business section into section A, folded some Sunday sections and squeezed daily sections.

Could revamping newspapers’ news-holes to recognize how readers have either switched to TV news entirely or how they use television improve the financial outlook for print journalism? That might be worth a try.

How?

More exposition and less opinion would help. Exposition means explanation. A writer, it seems, could explain without opining. Government news now means reporting the bloviating of politicians more than explaining the substance of government. The news bite broadcast news developed because of time restraints was quickly adapted by savvy politicians. Print reporters were ever awaiting colorful language for quotation, so it cannot be blamed solely on television. Nonetheless, television’s demands have intensified the public’s taste for confrontation between pols, even in newspapers. Theodore White’s “The Making of a President,” the trend-setting book on the behind-the-scenes 1960 presidential election, was full of incidental scene descriptions –details of clothes John Kennedy was wearing when he did such and such – spurred political reporters to write more colorfully. An example of what could happen at the time of transition: A political reporter for the Milwaukee Journal wrote about the scotch a gubernatorial candidate poured while being interviewed in a hotel room; the candidate was not happy. A detail such as that would be commonplace now, with no complaints.

What if the space needed to write about such trivia (albeit, such detail could be revelatory sometimes) were devoted to factual reporting of the issue at hand? That should be of more value to citizens as voters than whether the president sneaks a smoke when no one is around to take a photo.

What if breaking news was left to TV, radio and the internet? Daily newspaper editors know that is way things are, so why don’t they just edit their papers with that reality in mind and forget about the old days of street sales and deadlines every minute? In the thirties, the Indianapolis Star would put out extras during the 500 race at the Speedway, especially had there been a fatal crash. (The last extra the writer remembers is the one he ordered at a now-defunct small town paper when Robert Kennedy was shot.)  Extras are of the past, but newspapering has not fully adapted to the 21^st century.

When papers of record, such as the old Milwaukee Journal and other dailies in Wisconsin, would have reporters covering every minute the two houses of the legislature were in session and nearly all of the public hearings on bills (where, incidentally, any person registering could get a few minutes to present his or her opinion). Pertinent detail would be reported without spin. Reporters knew not every subscriber was reading their stuff, but they did know that opinion leaders around the state were. Those who cared to know what was happening in Madison could find out. And that coverage included such meetings of boards and commissions that handled welfare, insurance, building, conservation, and the university regents. And the state supreme court, of course. That reportage (to use a contemporary term) was pretty inclusive and pretty unbiased. Reporters then called themselves newsmen and not journalists. Unfortunately, there were only a few women covering general news, but there were some, who could be tough.

Reporters asking questions did not give speeches. They tried to keep questions short and pointed. They sought information. Gotcha queries were few, though they did exist. For the most part they followed the spirit of the disclaimer Lawrence E. Spivak used at the beginning of the old radio Meet the Press --- the views of the reporter are not necessarily reflected by their questions.

Reporters considered themselves as journeymen craftsmen who were surrogates for the readers who could not be there. They placed themselves in the place of interested parties who wanted to know what happened and how and why. The old three W’s ---what, where and when -- plus how and why were the questions to be answered as fully and as tersely as possible. They were not supposed to care about the fallout of their reporting as long as they could back it up. Corrections were frowned upon, but printed if necessary. (There was one blemish on corrections in the old days of newspapers: they were buried in short, little stories and were called row-backs. Now, thankfully, corrections are clearly labeled and put in one place.)

Today, journalists are considered professionals and treated as elitists. And they are paid well. That is well and good, but their product is not held in high esteem. It may not have been held high in the old days either, but somehow it seemed to be more respected than today.

So, perhaps newspaper could gain some respect and more readers if they delivered a product that provided news that was of more value to those who need it, and, more important, a product that could be acquired nowhere else? That could be the case if at the core of that product was news and information readers came to believe in as true and unbiased. News that provided detail from original sources rather than parroting opinion from those who could benefit at the polling places. News that tried more to be pertinent than merely timely. There are enough people who need such news to support the high costs of gathering that news, or it seems there should be. Those people can be found in all walks of life, in business, education, professions from health to science and engineering, entertainment. People in commerce and industry and professions need to know what is happening. They need to know current events in detail, not in fleeting bursts.

Newspaper publishers and editors always have thought they were providing essential information, but the state of the industry shows otherwise. A new approach is needed.

Advertisers need such audiences and surely would reward those publishers providing such readers.

And, of course, there would still be printed entertainments broadcasters and cablecasters cannot provide, such as comics, crossword puzzles, and, naturally, the real skinny on sports.

Professionals could be found to report and write without bias if that was demanded and enforced by well- meaning publishers. Pros in the news business would be happy to supply a product that really fulfills a need.

The yellow press of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries faded away, just as today’s version of daily newspapering is on the brink of slipping into oblivion. The old days of newspapering were not perfect. There was, however, a sense that the news pages and the editorial page were discrete.

Why not a newspaper, or many newspapers, that live by and thrive on that division? Editors would not need a staff of Clark Kents to put out the Daily Verity. Only some upright people who wished to practice high standards.

Fact checkers would do their work before the fact of publishing.