Jay Rosen's "He Said/she said"

I'd like to take a look at our Week 4 required reading, "He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User," written by Jay Rosen. The tagline prompts,

"Any good blogger, competing journalist or alert press critic can spot and publicize false balance and the lame acceptance of fact-free spin. Do users really want to be left helpless in sorting out who's faking it more? The he said, she said form says they do, but I say decline has set in."

A decline should seem to be setting in, since the "means for assessment do exist," (Rosen 2009, 1) a notable one being the internet, but I feel there will always remain stories that contain he said/she said reporting.

In the article, Ryan Chittum, a columnist for the Columbia Journalism Review is quoted, "I understand the instinct to just report the news, but readers deserve better context."

Rosen contemplates based on statements such as these that press criticism lives, thanks to Twitter, though quite facetiously.

The ability for bloggers to fully respond, communicate, and even critique the published stories they're presented with seems to influence authors to more aggressively pursue their reporting in a more analytical way, however I feel that these stories will still rely on the reader to decide what is truth. Their stories may provide better background context for each arguing side, but I doubt they will directly come out and say which side is lying.

Before I continued to read the article, I hypothesized that the reason why he said/she said reporting still exists is because reporters either don't know who's at fault or don't want to risk stepping on anyone's toes by pointing the finger.

Rosen argues that the tactic is useful for meeting deadlines, and that it's a low cost (economically, and politically, I would assume) way of going beyond the report itself.

He states, "journalists [erroneously] associate the middle with truth" (that is, taking neither side, acting neutral) because it's the safest spot to seek refuge from attack or blame.

Paul Taylor describes the journalistic middle as "the halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone."

I agree that he said/she said journalism is like ""taking a pass" on the tougher calls (like who's blowing more smoke)" and "is economical," (Rosen 2009, 4) and risk reducing.

I also agree with the statement that "the halfway point is a miserable guideline but it can still sound pretty good when you are trying to advertise to all that you have no skin in the game." (Rosen 2009, 4) It basically eliminates any responsibility for the publishers, that they can't be held accountable for reporting it because they merely cited what others said. But it leaves readers to make their own conclusions.

Rosen has a lot of good points in his article, and this is just one of many:

The candidate makes a statement. You write it down, then you call the other side for a response. It’s one of journalism’s fundamentals. Tell us what he said, tell us what she said, and you’re covered, right?
Well, no. Given the amount of spin this election year, the old rules don’t apply any more. Campaign Desk herewith proposes a new ground rule: “He said/she said/we said.”

Isn't that how it should be? News makers instead of just reporting the story should react to it and deduct some kind of truth; sniff out the finger-pointing and reveal who they know is lying. But of course this doesn't nearly happen often enough, for fear of backlash and credibility.

"Call it like they see it is, in fact, a successor principle but this means that AP reporters are now involved in acts of political judgment that can easily go awry." (Rosen 2009, 5) (hence, backlash)

As Rosen concludes, "with a variety of Internet research tools readily at hand, it has never been easier for reporters to draw an independent assessment on any given day of who is right, who is wrong, and in what way." I argue it's the fear of being held accountable for those assertions, however, that holds them (the reporters) back.