What Public Radio Meant to Say About Guns
Jim Ascendio, the news director, sent me this e-mail in response to my criticism of WAMU’s story:
We tried presenting the story in two parts with pro gun control voices in one and anti gun control voices in the other as a different way of presenting the subject.
Unfortunately …it was not made clear that we were doing that.
We also followed those reports with another about how Capitol Hill lawmakers are reluctant to tackle the gun control issue which they have labelled “one of the third rails of politics” and ” like kryptonite”.
Your points, however, are very well taken and are well appreciated.
We do need to be mindful of presenting all sides in each report.
BTW: The Chris Buckley interview was fun but I filled in at the last minute for Kojo and would have appreciated more time to prepare to be the straight man to his funny one.
Thanks for listening and pardon the delay in getting back to you. There were quite a lot of emails.
Jim Asendio
News Director
WAMU 88 5
I appreciated that Jim took the time to respond and that WAMU’s intent was not to present only one side of the issue. However, I do think that this episode points out the dangers of “objective” journalism in getting to the truth. Are both sides in this instance equivalent? Is it enough just to report that one side says this and the other says that? Isn’t it the journalist’s job to determine which claims are based on evidence and which aren’t? Doesn’t presenting both sides in this way by definition suggest that they deserve equal weight? I believe in the non-Fox version of “fair and balanced.” But “balance” doesn’t mean that both - or many - sides of an issue all weigh the same. The reporter’s job is to make his or her best effort to determine the truth.