When I was fresh out of high school, I enrolled in a college program called Radio and Television Arts. In the news portion of the course, one of the tenets of reporting - not journalism, broadcast journalism or even acting as 'a correspondent' - was, "Do not colour the news!" Like Joe Friday of Dragnet fame used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am."
Back in those days, young reporters could have all the opinions they wanted, but, as editors or news directors always reminded them, they were to be kept to oneself. "You are paid to collect facts, not interpret them."
With very few exceptions, only editors got to editorialize. Hey, I wonder why they called them that?
As the years went by, reporters morphed nto other things. They started calling them "senior" reporters, bureau chiefs (when there wasn't actually a bureau), or my fave, "senior bureau chief". What happened to the Indians? Other creative titles like "head/supervising political correspondent" and "assistant editor" came along. Many newspaper and television reporters were given those monikers. Bestowed, I suspect, to make them feel important or give them an ego boost - or something flattering, instead of a raise. But these made up titles really diminished the position of editor.
In days of yore, there was only one editor! They were appointed because of their superior ability to edit grammar and spelling. They knew how to change wording to eliminate biased reporting or more correctly describe a story. Most worked with the staff to develop their skills and/or assign reporters to the areas that best suited them.
There have been a few bad apples over the years, but getting that job carried with it a big responsibility that was not lost on the incumbent.
The news world has changed, and not for the good.
Back in those days, young reporters could have all the opinions they wanted, but, as editors or news directors always reminded them, they were to be kept to oneself. "You are paid to collect facts, not interpret them."
With very few exceptions, only editors got to editorialize. Hey, I wonder why they called them that?
As the years went by, reporters morphed nto other things. They started calling them "senior" reporters, bureau chiefs (when there wasn't actually a bureau), or my fave, "senior bureau chief". What happened to the Indians? Other creative titles like "head/supervising political correspondent" and "assistant editor" came along. Many newspaper and television reporters were given those monikers. Bestowed, I suspect, to make them feel important or give them an ego boost - or something flattering, instead of a raise. But these made up titles really diminished the position of editor.
In days of yore, there was only one editor! They were appointed because of their superior ability to edit grammar and spelling. They knew how to change wording to eliminate biased reporting or more correctly describe a story. Most worked with the staff to develop their skills and/or assign reporters to the areas that best suited them.
There have been a few bad apples over the years, but getting that job carried with it a big responsibility that was not lost on the incumbent.
The news world has changed, and not for the good.
