As a new college professor, I’m lucky to have control of my material. So, in addition to teaching them everything they’ve been promised, I can add things like my journalism and broadcasting pet peeves.
Class number one is behind me and everyone survived so all is well. Here we are on the 25th anniversary of the biggest North American story I experienced in my radio career. And the industry is still debating how to use attribution in its coverage.
When it comes to mistakes and omissions in journalism, attribution is one of the biggest ones. Inexperienced journalists (and some who should know better) often present information as if it’s fact they personally know. Really, it’s a fact of the moment contributed by someone else; an expert, a spokesperson, or someone else with authority and knowledge.
During live 9-11 news coverage back in 2001, dozens if not hundreds of bits of information rolled in that later turned out to be false. This is to be expected as events unfold, especially events without a precedent. We were reporting minute by minute as tidbits arrived from trusted sources. But it was imperative that we say, “New York City Police tell us…” or “a statement from the Pentagon says…” The information needed to go under the responsibility of whomever was sharing it. When it came time for an update, “the Pentagon now says…”, makes it clear that the reporter or newscaster isn’t the authority. They’re the conduit.
I mean, really, how could I in Toronto, Ontario be the one to determine what was happening in New York or Washington? Which brings to mind, how can someone going on YouTube from their home know more than reporters working for legitimate news organizations? But I digress.
If It’s Done Right, You Hardly Notice
This is the reason why you hear from reporters, “Donald Trump says,” or “according to the Prime Minister.” Just because someone in authority says something doesn’t automatically make it true. (Boy oh boy do we know that in today’s political climate!) And if it later turns out not to be true, it’s on them, not us. If we didn’t attribute a fact or claim to the person who’s offering it, no one would be able to trust us. There’d be a lot of time spent backtracking and retracting statements. But attributing everything to an expert or spokesperson can also go too far.
CBC News became a target a week back when part of an internal memo about attribution was leaked and right-wing media went bananas. The network was in the midst of planning extensive coverage for the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The leak made it appear that CBC was attempting to minimize the horror of the attacks. That’s not what was happening at all. The partial, deliberately edited criticism said that CBC was refusing to acknowledge that those who attacked on that day were “terrorists.”
The memo was more nuanced and nuance matters in journalism. CBC had actually reminded reporters to use attribution to describe the attackers as terrorists and the attack as terrorism. In other words, they would mention who or what entity was describing the attacks as “terror attacks” instead of just labelling them as such.
It’s been CBC’s policy for decades to not label attacks as terrorism without also saying who describes them that way. It’s also the policy of Reuters, the BBC, and other major journalistic outlets. However, in the wake of the outcry they’ve dropped the rule for their 9/11 coverage. Today, the attacks will be called “terrorist attacks” instead of just “attacks.”
Did They Go Too Far?
Critics piled on the CBC for being soft and refusing to acknowledge agreed-upon facts about the events of 9/11. People inside and outside of media were quick to react. Yes, assigning attribution to “terrorist attacks” is pretty rigid. Especially now, with 25 years of hindsight, it’s clear that it was terrorism. When I was on 680 News, we followed no such rule. Experts determined that terrorists trained, planned, and launched the deadly attacks in the hope of killling as many Americans as possible, and terrifying the rest. That was good enough for us and most other media.
But we still always relied on experts to make those determinations. The job is to find the right people with the knowledge and expertise who can make those calls. So I get where CBC was coming from. But in this case, I’m in full support of them just saying what we all already know: terrorists launched terrorist attacks on 9/11. And, believe it or not, it was 25 years ago.