“I believe in the profession of journalism.”
That’s the first line of the Journalist’s Creed written by Missouri School of Journalism Dean Walter Williams more than a century ago. These seven words are built upon trust, not just in the profession, but also in all actions involved.
That trust is a two-way street. It’s a mutual agreement between reporters, their sources and the public.
The creed further reads: “I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.”
Last month, I wrote an article for Springfield Business Journal’s Feb. 20 law edition on noncompete agreements in the workplace. I sought to shed light on the often-misunderstood documents and reached out to a handful of area companies known to use them. But I encountered a roadblock.
“We don’t comment on personnel matters.”
Though I thoroughly explained to this Springfield-based bank I didn’t want to talk personnel specifics, the representatives again declined. That happens more often than you would think. Not everybody wants to talk to the newspaper, and companies often cite “personnel matters.”
However, that’s a load of crap.
The hypocrisy struck me the following week while reading our Newsmakers section. For those not familiar, the weekly section is a categorized listing of company announcements – hirings, promotions, awards, appointments, etc. – all submitted by the companies themselves. In short, this section is 100 percent “personnel matters.”
And there staring me in the face on page 4 was a hiring announcement from the very same bank that declined to speak to me.
It made me angry. In fact, I’m pretty sure I exclaimed a long string of choice words to my fellow reporters.
Then I thought of the creed. “Acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.” My explanatory article on noncompete agreements was in service to the public.
As reporters, we hear this same tired statement when it comes to anything that could be perceived as “bad news.” Few people want to talk about firing someone. I get it, but I’m obligated to report on the bad right along with the good.
Citing a policy only when it fits company needs is a betrayal of our mutual trust and does a disservice to the public.
This is but one blip on the radar of a larger issue: You can’t cherry-pick what is newsworthy. That’s for the public to decide and it’s my job, my duty, to present the complete picture.
Recent events nationwide have brought this to light more than ever before. Public figures decry reports they don’t like as “fake news,” instead citing often-biased sources who support them.
I’ve pondered the creed much in recent days as the integrity of the news and the journalists who report it come under fire. I proudly work in a profession protected by our Constitution. The framers believed in a free press so much, it’s in the very first line of our Bill of Rights.
As biased internet websites continue to tarnish the profession but are held up by our highest officials as legitimate news sources, it is more important than ever to strengthen the mutual trust shared between real reporters, their sources and the public.
In honor of that trust, I welcome any and all Newsmakers submissions, but in return, I simply ask you remember the street runs two ways.
Respect, once lost, is hard to regain.
Features Editor Emily Letterman can be reached at eletterman@sbj.net.
