×

EDITOR’S NOTEBOOK: Reasoned responses

On a couple of occasions, I have shared with you some of the responsibilities that newspapers and their editorial staffs bear – those over and above anything that have to do with being a private sector business and intrinsic mandates.

Chief among those I have discussed is the responsibility of being the watchdog for the public’s interest, the guardian of the trust between the public sector and the private that elevates it.

That alone is a heavy responsibility and one every editor and every editorial board take seriously.

But it isn’t the only one. Furthermore, that list of what I think of as sacred responsibilities gets longer and more complicated all the time, particularly in an era when technology has such an impact on everyday life and when people both protest and strangely prefer “fake news.”

This week, we faced just one of those situations when it came to a story that would eventually appear in the Friday edition of Minot Daily News.

Here’s the backstory.

Several of us in the newsroom had noticed in social media a number of people in the community posting that, based on the weather we have endured so far this winter, we were looking at another potential flood like that in 2011. It was all the rage online for a few days.

This is hardly a new issue for us. We talk about the weather impact as a staff frequently. Most of my staff members were here for, and covered, the 2011 flood. Fortunately, we have staff members who also have strong relationships with experts on weather and on water management. As a result, we have definitely been watching developments that could have an impact like that in 2011.

Early last week, staff writer Kim Fundingsland – perhaps noting the many perspectives being batted around – suggested writing a story addressing all of the many factors that influence conditions for a potential flood. Some people, he said, were only looking at one or two factors which, while important, were not enough to predict an event like that of 2011. There are numerous factors that contribute to conditions such as those, and all had to be aligned just right – or rather, wrong – to produce a flood of that magnitude.

Kim’s eventual story appeared Friday and if you have not read it, I suggest you do. For the uninitiated, it is a great primer on the many factors that lead to flooding.

In this case, I saw our responsibility as providing information and insight to try to prevent serious concern from reaching the point where people made serious decisions based on faulty logic, or even just hit the panic button. In our best estimation, based on available information and the expertise of my staff, there was no solid reason for people to worry extensively. Thus, Kim’s fine article.

Easy, right? We decided to stomp out fear before it became panic. Just another day of it – like reporting on a gunman or serial burglar when he is caught.

Only it’s not. For one reason. What if factors do eventually line up and there is a massive flood? What if in January, we suggested there is no reason for fear and then in June, we find the situation is dangerous? Would we have abdicated our responsibility?

In the end, I decided that: 1. panic at this time is pointless and uncalled for based on available information, 2. I have every reason to trust Kim’s and my other staff member’s analyses, and 3. should conditions change, we will most certainly bring it to the public’s attention.

Journalism is never, ever as easy as it seems.

Personally, after learning what I did in this process, all of which we have shared with readers, my sense is that while we need to be prudent, the snowfall to date doesn’t mean much when it comes to the eventual melt. Too many factors are still undefined.

Look, I know media gets knocked for trying to shock people into tuning in – and buying newspapers. And, believe me, I know media outlets around the country that would jump on any opportunity to scare people to sell some product. It isn’t responsible, but it happens and it’s one of the things that gives media a bad reputation. Most outlets, however, have enough of a sense of decency not to do that.

Most, really, have some sense of this responsibility. It’s just one of the responsibilities journalists have when they want to do things right.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today