The job of a journalist, most of the time, is to write about other people’s lives. Their jobs and families, their mistakes and successes, their ideas and insights, their triumphs, darker moments and all the ambiguity in between.
But of course, we’re not you, so it’s all but impossible to take all considerations into account when presenting our portrait. Some key element often falls through the cracks. As if that weren’t bad enough, like our subjects, we’re human. We make mistakes. We’ll get a “fact” wrong, level an unfounded accusation, fail to talk to the right source, misspell a name, forget to use the comment of an expert that might have helped make our case.
Even more common than a clear error is an unfavorable portrayal. It’s our job, for example, to report on policy decisions that fail to deliver and businesses whose actions prompt lawsuits. Those types of stories often end up irking one side or the other.
All of which explains why one of the best-known descriptions of journalism is a deeply unfavorable one. “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on,” eagle-eyed reporter Janet Malcolm wrote of her work a few decades ago, “knows that what he does is morally indefensible.”
Of course, no serious journalist would continue to do his or her job if they agreed wholeheartedly with this statement – and yet it captures an undeniable truth.
Malcolm was referring to the journalist’s practice of watching, recording, and then using all his collected material – bits of real people’s actual lives – to craft the best story he can. Put simply, we turn your stories into our own. We steal and remake.
Our aim is to do so for the greater good. Ideally, our sharing of local stories informs area residents to the point that they’re able to vote for the most fitting candidates and choose the wisest routes to growth, security, and prosperity.
Still, given our penchant for thievery, negativity and mistakes, it would be somewhat surprising if readers never got upset with their local newspaper. As Malcolm’s comment suggests, the default position of a news consumer should be a healthy skepticism.
And that’s completely understandable. I expect our readers to trust their instincts and respond to our work as they see fit. I’d never tell a reader that their reaction to one of our stories is wrong. I may try to broaden their understanding a bit. But their reaction is their reaction – by definition it cannot be wrong.
If you feel we’ve wronged you or misportrayed the reality, I get it. Some might say we’re in the business of wronging people. But as the editor of this newspaper, I do have one request: a bit of understanding.
As I mentioned in my first Opinion article, back in April, I’m new here and looking to learn. After nine months I have a better understanding, and I thank the many residents, as well as city, county, and state officials, who’ve kindly taken the time to clarify and provide a bit of guidance.
But still I feel I know barely a sliver of the county’s culture, traditions, and expectations of public life. So I’ll keep plugging away, learning as much as I can and applying it in my work.
Meanwhile, we have hired two full-time reporters in recent months, as you’re likely aware, building out our editorial staff.
We’ve also identified a handful of issues our readers find most compelling and plan to do our best to cover them closely, hopefully uncovering new elements and clarifying key aspects. As we walk this path, I hope Monitor readers continue to give us the benefit of the doubt, trusting that, however worrying, or flawed, our work may sometimes be, we always do our utmost to deliver the full truth and to lift all boats.
The alternatives might be even more problematic. Would Boulder and Jefferson County be better off without a newspaper? Would it be better if the state government published a few pages every month informing residents of new laws and recent decisions?
And then there’s social media: might JeffCo life improve if the news residents consumed were mainly made up of locals’ thoughts and opinions as posted on X, TikTok, and Facebook? This reminds me of what Winston Churchill said some decades ago: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms.”
Journalism is probably the worst way to keep people informed – except for all the others. So, we’ll keep doing our best to put out a fantastic paper every week and cover this community with the integrity and attention to detail it deserves.
Whether or not you find fault with The Monitor, that’s up to you. Either way, I won’t blame you. And I’ll be more than willing to listen – including at our upcoming public meeting, Jan. 20 at the Boulder library (see details on page 10).
Until then, all of us here at The Monitor thank you for the opportunity to deliver the news and hopefully help guide Jefferson County to a brighter future.
Contact Lepeska at david@boulder-monitor.com.
