A Tale of Two Stories - Part III

Accuracy of Reporting
Doesn't Equate to Fairness

Sunday we examined Jeremy Cox's front page piece on Salisbury mayoral candidate (and SBYNews publisher) Joe Albero.  Yesterday we looked at its companion piece on incumbent mayor Jim Ireton and his penchant for control.  As we noted in Part I, Cox's Albero piece was accurate but lacked fairness.  We admit that fairness is, at best, a highly subjective concept.  We also admit that IF a reader looks at both articles (Albero HERE, Ireton HERE) IN THEIR ENTIRETY he or she would not believe that the Daily Times had hacked Albero to ribbons while publishing a puff piece on Ireton.  However, it is the middle ground, where you examine tone and what was left out that is a subject for concern.  We also live in the real world and know that not all readers examine an article in its entirety or read critically.

Mirror Images

Look at the titles of the two articles:

ALBERO: Candidate haunted by past blog posts

vs.

Ireton: Incumbent says he speaks for city

Look at the leads for both articles:

From birther conspiracies to local blurbs attributed to the likes of “men in trench coat-like jackets,” Salisbury News has distinguished itself as a safe haven for mainstream-eschewing news and viewpoints.

vs.

Serving as the unofficial spokesman and public face of the municipality is one of the most important, if unwritten, functions of the mayor in any city. Think Rudy Giuliani in New York City or Cory Booker in Newark, N.J.

What's YOUR impression?  My view is that it appears you are about to be reading something negative about Albero and the Ireton article is positive.  In reality, both pieces are negative.  They just happen to be mirror images.  The Albero article starts off with a negative tone while the Ireton piece starts off positively.

Just as I argued that there are a few suspect facts and a glaring omission in the Albero piece, there are even more glaring omissions in the Ireton piece.  Nowhere is there any mention of Ireton's repeated attempts to influence media coverage (remember the DT sending reporter Sarah Lake to take part in a private political strategy session) and his refusing to allow the city council access to staff is barely glossed over.  Let's not forget that the reason the council changed the charter to put the city attorney under the council was because Ireton prohibited the city attorney from meeting with the council.

Less Than Perfect Reporting OR Excessive Editorial Influence?

You don't need to lie or even misreport facts to be biased.  The two previous posts provide ample evidence that tone and choosing what facts to OMIT can change an objectively neutral article into one that is PERCEIVED as positive or negative.

I know that Cox did a fair amount of research for these two articles.  Therefore I have to ask - were these omissions, and the tone of each article deliberate on the part of Mr. Cox or was it the result of heavy handed work by his editor(s)?   Four years ago, a DT reporter took the unusual step of demanding that their byline be removed if editors continued to change the tone of certain articles written during the last mayoral election.  While all of the editors involved no longer work for either Gannett or the Daily Times, we know that the precedent does exist.

We can only hope that coverage of city politics and government will improve during this election.  Mr. Cox is doing a far better job than his two immediate predecessors.  Yet, I think the voters of Salisbury deserve more over the coming weeks.

Part I

Part II

G. A. Harrison is a former editor of Salisbury News and a guest contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.