This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE --This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.
Illinois School Board Journal
May/June 2005
Ask the staff: 'Fair' may be 'good,' 'equal' impractical
Question: Our district always seems to be on the short end of the stick when it comes to stories in the newspaper and on the local television and radio stations. How can our school district get a fair share of coverage from the local media?
Answer: Having spent 26 years as a newspaper editor, I sustained my share of allegations over adequate and inadequate amounts of coverage. Some claims were justified; some probably were not.
I still believe that most news media attempt to provide balanced and fair coverage of schools, school board members and school-related elections. But I think too many people confuse "fair" news coverage with "equal" news coverage.
They want and demand "fair" news coverage. But what they often mean is "equal" news coverage. The problem is that "equal" isn't practical, desirable or even possible. "Fair," however, is.
It's difficult to achieve and even harder to convince people — especially newsmakers — that their level of coverage falls within an acceptable range of balanced and fair coverage. Because what we are really talking about here are perceptions — or misperceptions. While many newsmakers (and those who follow them via the news) measure the news by quantity, I believe they should gauge their news attention by qualitative standards.
Getting people to understand and accept that difference is difficult. The measure in print media is column inches and frequency; the measure in broadcast media is time and frequency. Yet neither takes into account daily editorial decisions about how, where or when the news is presented.
These subjective questions are universal in the news business. Popular opinion may insist that news coverage must be "objective" and that news gatherers must be principled, disciplined and, above all, unattached. And to some extent, that's true. But from the moment a news story is born as an idea to the time it is published or aired, it is subjected to a thorough scrutiny that requires news to be judged for its fitness and suitability.
Or in other words, fairness.
Long before the story is ever written, reporters, editors, producers and others in the news pipeline debate the merits of what will be covered, how it will be covered, and later, where and how it will be presented.
Typical questions that arise over many stories:
While these conversations are taking place, other issues ultimately affect the story's outcome: deadlines, length (space or time slots), artwork (print or video; live or file), sources (quotes and attributions; credibility), accuracy, grammar and style, to name just a few.
Where in this lengthy process does the word "equal" come into play? It doesn't and it can't. Yet the word "fair" is implicit in nearly every question that was asked above.
"Fair" can't be measured by a stopwatch or ruler. It has no automatic or obvious definition, no tool, and no rule of thumb that the reporter, editor or producer uses. Instead they rely on their training, their background, experience and instincts, and, most of all, each other's scrutiny, to make multiple judgments throughout the entire news gathering and editing process to create a story that they deem "fair."
More often than not, readers or listeners will accept this judgment and trust that the news coverage was "fair." They won't know it or even think about it, as though it was (and is) obvious to everyone.
Of course, the ultimate judge of any news story or program is the reader/listener. As consumers, they scan the dial, surf the channels, or thumb through a newspaper until they find the story or information that they want. They pass their own judgment on thousands of words without reading or hearing any of them until they come to the spot in the show or the newspaper where a story grabs and keeps their attention. Whether they spend a few seconds or several minutes with it, they will be compelled to stay with it only long enough to satisfy their interests or needs.
When the news media does its job right, it is usually rewarded with healthy subscriber or newsstand sales, lofty listener or viewer ratings, higher advertising rates, and occasionally, awards from their peers in the news business.
But most of the stories they produce will go unread, unheard or unseen. A few will be taped or clipped for scrapbooks. And a handful of those will be measured, with rulers or stopwatches, and taken into the station or newspaper, where producers or editors will be implored to explain why the coverage wasn't fair, "because the other person or organization got the longer story and a larger photo!"
It's not really a fair comparison at all, is it?
I urge school board members and other school officials to acknowledge this fundamental difference between "equal" and "fair" news coverage. While you should hold your media to high standards, I hope you also recognize that as newsmakers, you can help shape what is deemed as "fair" by understanding the news gathering process and the value judgments inherent in it.
As you exercise your knowledge of the process, you can become better at influencing different steps along the process and, ultimately, the outcome of the news and your coverage.