Posted on: Sunday, September 23, 2001

After Deadline
Newspapers do their best to report fairly

By Saundra Keyes
Advertiser Editor

Reporting on the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath has been a humbling reminder of a newspaper's role in a democracy.

Those words seem melodramatic as I type them, but they swirl constantly in my thoughts as our newsroom works toward journalism's long-standing goals: to accurately and fairly report the facts as events unfold; to provide context and analysis; to anticipate consequences; to give voice to our readers' opinions and feelings.

Those feelings blend outrage, grief, uncertainty and resolve. And given the intensity of the emotions, it's no surprise that we're hearing from you more often than in less traumatic times.

Some examples:

The afternoon of Sept. 11, anticipating that one outcome of the terrorist attacks would be suspicion of or discrimination against Muslims, we assigned a story on the subject. When the story appeared, an anonymous caller accused us of trying to stir up local anti-Muslim sentiment. That was the opposite of our intention, but we understood her fear.

I still think that story and others highlight the risk of stressful times inducing people to turn on those who appear to fit a profile.

That risk resonates powerfully in our state, where many families were affected by the World War II internment of Japanese Americans. It was therefore unsurprising that we reported on supportive messages left by Japanese Americans on the Manoa mosque's answering machine. But our highlighting that empathy in a headline ("Japanese Americans relay support to local Muslims") prompted messages from readers who felt we were suggesting Japanese American sympathy for terrorists. We didn't see it that way, but we understood the tensions that prompted the objections.

Other callers complained of a front-page photo of President Bush and Laura Bush, former President George Bush and Barbara Bush, and former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton together at the National Cathedral prayer service. The angle from which the photo was taken combined with Clinton's height to make him loom largest in the row. Some readers accused us of choosing that picture to diminish President Bush's role as commander in chief.

We had selected it as a moving depiction of bipartisan unity in grief. But we understood the feelings that prompted the objections.

They grew in part, I think, from the need all Americans feel to rally around their leaders. And they grew in part, I know, from lingering feelings that the "liberal media" want to tear down rather than support their country.

That's never been the mission of the journalists I know.

I'm sure ours isn't the only media organization whose employees are contributing generously to national relief efforts. By Friday, our staff had given $15,000 to relief efforts, matched by our owner, the Gannett Co., for a total of $30,000.

I'm sure ours isn't the only newsroom where American flags are taped on walls and windows. Those flags, which were printed in Monday's Advertiser, aren't displayed by company directive. They're up because individuals wanted them to be.

A big debate shaping up on journalism Web sites is whether such displays compromise journalistic objectivity. My answer is a resounding no.

I wouldn't want to work in a profession where a CNN reporter can't cry as she interviews victims' families, where Dan Rather can't break down as he attempts to recite a stanza from "America the Beautiful," where journalists can't wear red, white and blue ribbons if they want to.

I see all this as compatible with our traditional watchdog role. I also know that exercising the watchdog role will draw criticism from those who see it at as a lack of patriotism.

In these early days of a long endeavor, it's fairly easy for Americans to unify in outrage and grief. Unity will be more elusive as our country tries to draw the line between homeland defense and civil liberties, between national security and xenophobia, between short-term bailouts and long-term economic policy.

As we explore those complexities in both our news and opinion pages, we know some readers will see us as too critical of government while others will see us as uncritically supportive.

We'll continue pursuing journalism's longstanding goals: to fairly report the facts as events unfold; to provide context and analysis; to anticipate consequences; to give voice to our readers' views and feelings.

And whether those views are expressed as quiet compliments for our coverage or shouted accusations about our motives, I'll remind myself of a fact that seems increasingly precious these days. Both the thank yous and the shouts will be the sound of democracy.