Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 3, 1990 TAG: 9007030371
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Despite the frequent mistakes, omissions, prejudices, weak English usage and "orders from the publisher," I value the uniquely American way of getting out the news. For balance, read more than one newspaper - the latter preferably from another region.
Reviewing the news by "committee" for accuracy (and presumably to keep us properly - as in exaggerated responsibility - informed) would not only be logistically impossible but also democratically defeating. Students of our Constitution would have a field day with this.
My guess is that within seconds of their first convening, such committees would flounder over what constitutes news. Censorship we do not need, and censorship it would be, via prompt ruling at any level, within the judicial system.
I respect Watson for submitting his idea. But it is not clear in his letter whether he suggests review by committee only for news resulting from the proposed federal crime legislation, or whether he refers to all news. This is hardly a point to ignore, and it was this that prompted my reply.
In the words of a very elderly and hardened editor for whom I labored as a kid reporter under fear of ridicule, yet grew to admire: "Objectivity has its limits. You design a news story, and to make it worth reading there is usually a `slant' based on the assembled facts of the moment. Do your work fairly and humanly, and bias will seldom bite you." WILLIAM H. PYNCHON CROCKETT
by CNB