ADVERTISEMENT

Ellison's Must Read of the Day

Ellison must read
October 1, 2014

My must read of the day is "All the Facts Fit to Delete," by Charles C. W. Cooke, in National Review Online:

Yesterday afternoon, the "offending" section read: The female officer posted inside the front door appeared to be delayed in learning that the intruder, Omar Gonzalez, was about to burst through.

Today, both online and in the print edition, it reads: The officer posted inside the front door appeared to be delayed in learning that the intruder, Omar Gonzalez, was about to burst through. […]

Oddly, the [Washington] Post has offered no explanation of the excision. Nor, indeed, has it so much as acknowledged that the page has been changed. Were this a minor stylistic alteration, that would, of course, not matter. But it isn’t. Rather, it is a correction — or, perhaps, an amendment — of a factual claim. If the initial report was wrong, one would expect to see it noted, would one not? And if it was right . . . well, then one wouldn’t expect to see the word removed. […]

The more self-important of our journalists like to quote E. K. Hornbeck’s character in Inherit the Wind, insisting smugly that "it is the duty of a newspaper to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Pleasing as the axiom is to the ear, the injunction has always rubbed me the wrong way. In truth, the purpose of a free press is neither to irritate a particular group nor to side with another, but to tell the truth — whatever the truth may be.

If the word "female" was in the original Washington Post piece and then subsequently removed, this is one of the oddest stories I’ve read in a while.

Why on earth take out the line that it was female officer? It would be one thing if it was never in there, but it apparently was and it’s something that is relevant in painting a picture of what exactly happened.

Any male or female officer, young or old, who was overpowered and unable to stop an intruder would face question about their physical fitness. To remove the description now is actually obnoxious, because it seems to suggest that some editor didn’t think a woman was able to take those kinds of criticisms—a secret service agent is badass, so I think she could handle it.

The Hornbeck character is wrong, and as much as it pains me to admit it, Charles is right. Journalism is about telling the truth. That’s it.

One of my favorite quotes on the walls of the Newseum is from Lord Northcliffe. "News," he reportedly said, "is what somebody, somewhere, wants to suppress."

Self-censoring relevant facts—no matter how small they may seem—is suppressing information for them. When a newspaper does that it’s a slippery slope to professional negligence and they do a great disservice to their readers.

Published under: Washington Post