Fairness in the print media

Akira Korusawa’s classic oeuvre Rashomon tells the story of a woman who is raped and her husband killed. The film, set in Japanese antiquity, gives viewers four viewpoints of the same incident—as reported by four witnesses—each from their own perspective and each one relating a slightly different version of what actually happened. The film essentially asks viewers which version is the real truth about the heinous crime. Kurosawa’s philosophical take on this ancient tale came to mind after this paper received accusations of unfairness in its coverage of some issues. That our paper is innately biased in its coverage and that we give more publicity to one side than the other when it comes to certain issues. What has become apparent, however, from all this is that “fairness” has taken on relative meanings, with differing interpretations depending on whom you are talking to. People have appropriated the meaning of the term “fairness” for themselves, giving it a pliability that conveys the sense that “good” publicity is fair, while “bad’ publicity is not. More often than not, when we come out with a story that expresses the viewpoint of one side, the other side takes umbrage, points an accusing finger at us, and cry, “Unfair, unfair!” When we then come out with their side of the story, the other side takes up the hue and cry, and thunders: “Unfair, unfair!” When we have both sides on the same story, they count each line of the story and the one with the lesser number of lines whine about the paper being “unfair.” It’s a world gone mad, I know, but you can never satisfy anyone.

The thing is, fairness or unfairness in the media is not just about one story or two. In an ideal world and all things being equal, a story is fair when it presents both sides of an issue within one story, with no particular slant that biases a story for or against anybody. It merely presents the unembellished facts and quotes, leaving everything up to the reader to interpret the data presented. That is the ideal that every newsroom aspires to on a daily basis. However, reality has a way of messing up that ideal. For instance, when one side of an issue does something newsworthy, the Saipan Tribune does try to obtain the side of the other party but, more often than not, is met with: “We can’t comment yet.” With a daily deadline to meet, we go to press without a rebuttal from the other side. When the other side does come out with a statement, we then issue a story of that statement. It is in this light that one may only judge the fairness of a newspaper in its coverage of an issue over a period of time and not just based on one story. The Los Angeles Times said as much when leveled the same accusations. Other factors are also taken into consideration. Tautological arguments that have already seen print will not land you on the front page. Reiterating something that one has already said in previous stories is equivalent to bludgeoning readers in an effort to raise a point that has already been made. It’s not only useless but a waste of ink and decimated forests.

That is not to say that the Saipan Tribune never makes mistakes. This paper tries to be as fair and impartial as possible with the limited resources available to it and, if we do fall short from time to time, we try to rectify this as soon as possible. At the same time, if anyone has any complaints about how the Saipan Tribune handles a story or an issue, the proper forum to vent is the Letters to the Editors section. Calling my boss is not only inappropriate but jejune and a risible attempt at controlling editorial policy. The Saipan Tribune makes its Opinion section available to all and makes it a point to print even those letters critical of the paper. We admit that we sometimes make mistakes and the Letters to the Editor section helps us keep to the straight and narrow path. (We must point out, though, that the Tribune has adopted a policy of not printing anonymous letters, particularly those that are critical of persons. If you want to raise an accusing finger, then you should be brave enough to stand by your accusations. At the same time, the paper will not allow itself to be exposed to possible charges of libel, hence any letter with libelous content will never make it to Page 11.)

The Saipan Tribune has the utmost faith and trust in the intelligence of its readers and I am sure that they can tell when the treatment of a story is biased or not. After all, it is quite easy to bring down a newspaper—you simply stop reading it—and we certainly don’t want that to happen. In the ultimate analysis, it will be our readers who will be the judge of how we treat our stories and it will be their comments and actions that will empower us as we strive daily to meet our journalistic ideals.

(The views expressed are strictly that of the author. Vallejera is the editor of the Saipan Tribune.)