The Fine Line Between Reporting and Commentary in Ferguson

Sean Neidig
sn033012@ohio.edu

Photo by Wiley Price / St. Louis American

The crisis in Ferguson, Missouri was something that dominated the summer news cycle, not just because of what transpired but also because how the media covered it and in many ways the media became a story itself.   Reporters from all over the country flocked to Ferguson to get a first hand account of the events following the death of Michael Brown, and there has been much discussion about the role the media played in the advancement of the story.

One of the main points of contention was whether journalists were doing their jobs and only reporting the facts or if they were placing their own personal beliefs into their coverage as well.  As a journalist, I think that when we are supposed to cover news that it should be strictly that, just the facts.  When we inject our personal opinion into stories, even just a word, we aren’t doing our jobs as journalists.

However, I think that there is certainly a place for commentary on issues as large as this, just so long as there is clear separation of facts and opinions.  When journalists blur the two, they break one of the core codes of journalism, which is reporting the facts independently without bias. 

The media site mediabistro.com, a blog style site for journalists, gave reporters’ coverage as a whole a grade of C or C-, mostly because of the bias that a lot of major reporters showed while covering the event.  It is certainly understandable for people to be emotional about something like this but as a reporter you have to put yourself above that while reporting the news.

One of the most impactful pieces I remember reading was by Rembert Browne, a writer for Grantland.com.  His piece, “TheFront Lines of Ferguson,” was published online on August 15, but is about the two days after the shooting.  In the piece, Browne describes the events he experienced while in Ferguson but definitely not in a news fashion and I think this kind of writing goes a long way towards helping people understand what it was like to actually be there.  In the piece though, Browne explicitly states that he ceased to be journalist while he was there as a way to present more of his feelings.

One of the most important jobs of a reporter is to minimize harm and when a reporter used language that clearly designates one side as the “bad guys,” they are certainly not living up to that ideal.  Reporters are not robots, so it is ok for them to have opinions on controversial issues, but I wish more would take the route Browne did by making it clear that what he was writing was not a true news story.  When reporters abuse the influence they have as trusted, public voices, they not only hurt the parties directly involved, but they influence the public at large.  This makes it that much more difficult for people to get only the facts of an event that was so important like the events in Ferguson.