Fake news? Not in my opinion!

As you might expect — as I have been a newsman for more than half a century — I don’t agree with President Trump when he uses the term, “Fake News,” to describe the written, voiced and televised reports on political and topical happenings in the United States of America.

I’ll attempt to explain why.

Long, long ago — in the late 1950s and early 1960s — I studied journalism at Kansas State College in Pittsburg, Kansas. It was there that I was introduced to the “Bible” of the newspaper profession: the Associated Press Stylebook.

The “rule” over-arching all reports prepared for publication in newspapers and for broadcast on radio and television was the concept of objectivity.

This “rule” required that we journalists present both sides of disputable topics. The purpose of this was to be fair to readers, viewers and listeners, with our attempts at balanced reporting allowing consumers of our reports to draw their own conclusions as to what position they favored and/or supported.

There was a good reason for the AP’s policy of objective reporting. At its peak, the Associated Press served more than 10,000 newspapers, radio stations and television outlets in the United States, and many, many more media members throughout the world.

The AP was obligated to be objective because the media members it served ranged widely in their social, cultural and political convictions, with some espousing conservative beliefs and others advocating liberal and independent positions.

For many, many years, the AP’s policy of objectivity ruled news reporting, with newspapers, radio stations and television outlets restricting their opinion articles to clearly defined special pages and programs featuring commentary. This system was standard operating procedure until the latter part of the 20th Century and the early years of the 21st Century.

The change started taking place with the advent of cable television and the 24-hour news cycle. In order to keep viewers interested enough to watch news programs throughout daytime and nighttime hours, TV news channels determined it was necessary to provide “analysis.”

So, instead of having just one announcer to tell the news, the cable channels started presenting telecasts in which the announcer, usually positioned in the middle, was joined by two, three or more commentators, some of whom expressed liberal viewpoints; others who espoused conservative opinions; and still others who were considered, by the TV producers, to be “experts” on the topic being discussed.

That’s when the problem of so-called “fake news” surfaced. As human beings, especially American human beings, many of us are very rigid in our convictions. In fact, some go so far as to say those with views different than theirs are misguided. And, fearing that the presentation of an alternative view will threaten the exclusive acceptance of their positions, they become outraged, and to express their displeasure, they adopted the term “fake news” to detract from the possibility that their fellow Americans could be enticed to change their opinions.

That bothers me. For journalistic “lifers” like me, AP’s principle of objectivity is still a rule that is observed in straight news reporting, which is the kind of full, fact-filled written word accounts we endeavor to do when alerting readers, listeners and viewers about traffic accidents, city council meetings, criminal activities, court proceedings, funerals, weddings, floods, tornadoes, fires and many, many other human and environmental happenings.

I’m going to the trouble of telling you all of this because I want to assure you that members of the American press — including radio, television and newspaper journalistic specialists — can be trusted to provide you with truthful straight news accounts.

However — and this is an important difference — the opinion pages of the newspapers, including the Gazette’s editorial page, and the commentaries presented on radio and television stations, are — as the titles suggest - opinionated, and, in some cases, outrageously so, especially when you find that the viewpoints conflict with your point of view.

As a result of all this analysis, I am rising up today to tell all who will listen that “fake news” is a false and farcical description for straight news.

That conclusion — in no way — is meant to take away our obligation, as readers, to react with disgusted opposition, or devoted approval, to the opinions expressed in the editorials, opposite page editorial viewpoints and the commentaries expressed in newspapers, radio stations and television channels.

That’s the American way — and has been since the nation was founded as a free and open society in 1776.

Fake? No way! Free? You damned right. We were free to express our thoughts back in the 18th Century when this great, new nation declared its independence. And, during the first score of years in the 21st Century, we still possess the freedom to express ourselves fully and openly.

For sure, freedom is not always an orderly experience. But — thank God — it’s the most promising method of governance that has ever existed on this eternally orbiting  place we call Planet Earth.