Commentary—

Filling The Truth Gap:

How Journalism Can Survive

By Jason Salzman

You had to admire how the US news media stepped up to the plate and stated, as a fact, that Republican presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s claim to have rejected the “Bridge to Nowhere” was factually inaccurate.

Rather than just pit Palin’s views against those of her detractors, journalists stood on the side of truth, and stated, categorically, that Palin actually accepted the bridge-to-nowhere earmark, and only started saying no thanks to it when it became politically expedient. Even then, she wanted the money for use in Alaska, her home state.

If journalism as we know it, as a collection of professionals trying to sort out what’s fair and accurate, is going to survive, reporters need to start doing more truth-telling and less she-said-he-said recounting.

There’s no better time to begin doing this than now, with the election ending. From cable to blogs, you’ve got dubious fact checking and debate over facts occurring from the instant statements are made until the exact moment when a new news event fills the 24/7 news cycle.

Serious journalists, the ones who aren’t paid to insult each other or give their opinions, need to play the role of interpreter and fact checker more often. They can’t sit on the sidelines and describe events, like a presidential debate or a vice presidential speech, without interpreting it.

If they do, they will slip quicker and quicker into irrelevancy, in part because the shelf life of description-based journalism is becoming shorter and shorter as information is spread more quickly. News consumers can pick up descriptions of an event from a variety of sources easily, but it’s harder to find trustworthy interpretations of events, including analyses of the role that facts play.

Newspapers and other serious practitioners of journalism need to take advantage of the credibility of their brands by becoming the most trusted sources for truth.

In a sea of information, not to mention advertising, consumers of news crave sources that tell them what to believe and why.

That’s what will set journalism apart from all the half-baked blogs, screaming cable shows, nasty talk radio outlets, and fluffy TV programs. Serious journalism can fill the truth gap.

To do this, newspapers and other outlets have to resist the temptation to out-entertain the infotainment industry. They need to offer news and analysis that recognizes the needs of news consumers in the changing information marketplace, but does not abandon the truth-telling core of journalism.

In Colorado, for example, the Rocky Mountain News has developed a regular feature called the “Truth Patrol.” It selects political statements amid the frenzy of dubious information floating out there, and tells its readers whether the statement is “Rock Solid,” “Shaky,” or “Just Wrong.”

 The concise information is accompanied by a crisp graphic, such as you might find in “USA Today.”

It’s a relief to read in the midst of modern information confusion. It’s filling the truth gap one crack at a time.

And yes, the Truth Patrol reported that Gov Sarah Palin’s assertion about the bridge to nowhere was, indeed, false.

(Jason Salzman is the author of Making the News: A Guide for Nonprofits and Activists, and board chair of Rocky Mountain Media Watch, a Denver-based media watchdog organization. )