Sunday, April 1, 2007 | 7:35 a.m.
Which traditions should not die?
We are constantly being challenged in the news business with new ideas about what the proper role of journalism should be in a community. Most of the new ideas are not actually new, just different takes on old ideas used to get around journalistic traditions.
I can honestly say that almost everything I learned about being a good newspaperman I learned from my father. Hank Greenspun was often referred to by those who lived, ate and slept the news business as an editor's editor and a man who was fearless when it came to expressing a point of view and letting the whole world know about it.
Others, especially those who felt the brunt of his typewriter as he pounded out the words that let his readers know "where he stood" at all times, would say that Hank may have had ulterior motives when he took them apart in a column. I worked next to my father for almost 20 years and had the privilege of listening to him for 20 years before that. I know why he wrote what he did.
He had a deep and abiding belief in the basic goodness of people as well as a keen understanding of the larcenous nature of man. When good was pitted against evil and the odds were stacked against the little guy - who was most often right - Hank was there to defend.
It was as simple as that. What was also simple to understand was my father's belief in being fair. He had certain rules about how he ran his newspaper. If he took a person apart for misusing public funds, betraying a public trust or otherwise just being some kind of scoundrel, there was always space in his newspaper for the aggrieved to rebut.
He didn't believe a columnist needed to be objective - if you can't express your opinion, why be a columnist? - nor did he believe that everyone had a right to say whatever they wanted, without regard to the truth.
And, most importantly, Hank had a simple rule about elections. Unless there was egregious conduct that needed to be reported during the last few days of an election, it was unfair to allow his newspaper to be used to spread rumors, innuendo and half-truths so close to an election because the other side had little or no time to respond.
That is a tradition that I have always believed to be essential to good journalism.
I thought of what I learned and why I learned that lesson from my father as I listened, as I often do, to "Face to Face With Jon Ralston" last Thursday. That would be the Thursday just five days before the upcoming election in the city of Las Vegas. I also saw a report of that "Face to Face" show the following morning in the Las Vegas Sun. And what I thought was, "What happened to that concept of basic fairness?"
Now I understand that the journalism world has changed dramatically in the last few years. Actually, it changes every few minutes now that we have 24-hour coverage on cable television, the Internet and the blogosphere, which somehow lives deep in the virtual reality of a life that has overtaken us. The information comes so fast that learning how to respond to it and creat ing rules for living with it has been quite challenging.
But I also understand that whether news is delivered by the Internet, in print or via the pony express, there are still certain rules of the road that need to be applied if we are to maintain credibility as a source of responsible journalistic endeavor.
And one of those has to do with last-minute news reports - or, at least, what passes itself off as news - and how we go about sharing that information with the public. It is still about fairness and it is still about an election process that the numbers in this election alone have proved is being ignored by far too many voters.
Had the "Face to Face" program been aired three weeks earlier, I would not be questioning the timing because the response would have been in the public realm sufficiently to convince most people that there was no story there at all.
I know Lois Tarkanian, who is running for re election as a council person in the city of Las Vegas. I also know one of her opponents, Laurie Bisch. I believe both of them to be honorable human beings. I do not know Shawn Spanier, the third person running for that seat but, after listening to Jon's show, I was impressed by his willingness and desire to face some unsettling charges and meet them head on.
I am not here to promote any of those candidacies. But I am here to question why it is necessary to give credence to reports - whether it be Lois' huge campaign contributions, Spanier's child-support issues or Laurie Bisch's inheritance of a home that causes perception problems for conspiracy theorists - so close to an election.
Am I really that far out of touch to believe that the voters want to know more about what the candidates plan to do to better the lives of the people in their ward than they do about half-truths and innuendoes? Aren't people more interested in the safety of their neighborhoods, the traffic counts on their roads and the quality of their children's public schools than they are about the latest political "gotcha?"
We used to call the last-minute smear tactics, well, last-minute smear tactics. They rear their ugly heads in the waning days of a campaign and are given credence by people like Jon and other media outlets who pick up on them and attempt to make news out of them. Even though Jon would say that he gave everyone an opportunity to respond, it is the airing of the charges - most of them baseless or easily answered - that remains unfair.
I know negative campaigning works - that's the voters' fault because we allow ourselves to fall prey to the worst instincts of man - but there has always been a tradition of journalists to stay away from that stuff at the last minute. It not only smears people inappropriately but it also unnecessarily challenges the credibility of the election process itself.
For example, anyone who spent more than five minutes on the street where she lives would know that Laurie Bisch's relationship with a man who died and left her his home was all aboveboard and in the greatest tradition of one human being rewarded for continuing and selfless acts of kindness. To suggest otherwise, in light of the facts, does a disservice to the candidate and the process. Just asking the question leaves some doubt in some voters' minds that needn't have been created.
As for Lois Tarkanian and her campaign contributions, that's the way the system works. There is nothing wrong with taking campaign contributions from people who want to help. It is fair to question who gives such support but it is unfair to suggest that there is something wrong with collecting money in order to run an effective campaign. The question alone leaves some doubt in people's minds that there has been a quid pro quo when there is no reason to believe it.
As for Mr. Spanier's court problems, he answered the questions directly and, at least as far as I could tell, laid to rest any reason why the issue should have been raised in such a public way so close to the election in the first place.
I am not blaming Ralston or any of the others who think it appropriate to raise issues at the eleventh hour before an election. There are times when information is so compelling that it must be brought to the public's attention regardless of the timing. But I am questioning why an age-old tradition of editing - that's deciding what is important, what is credible and what is necessary to inform the electorate - is so easily cast aside.
In "Fiddler on the Roof," Tevye, the father, allowed one tradition after another to fall by the wayside for two reasons. He loved his daughters and he realized that some traditions did not deserve to be continued because they brought only heartache and caused problems for no good reason.
I do not have the wisdom of Tevye, so someone will have to persuade me that the journalistic tradition of fairness - especially so close to an election - must be cast upon some dust heap of yesterday's news just so the new breed can do its job.
I learned from a man who believed deeply in the public's right to know. He also believed deeply in his own responsibility to exercise that right in a way that brought honor and credit to his profession. I am content to believe the same thing and respect those journalists of like mind.
I leave it to the others to question their own contribution to good journalism.
archive
