As a journalist I can wholeheartedly agree that the core mission is to present an accurate view of events. However, I do not think that anyone, even elected officials, owes us an interview or even answers to our questions. Freedom of speech, to which even politicians have the right, includes the freedom to say nothing.
And the freedom of the press gives us the right to report the news, but not any right to have our questions answered or for a source, no matter how much we want to talk to her or him, to be available to us.
I also think it's a mistake to assume that the only way a story can fairly and accurately inform readers is by including quotes by politicians on both sides of an issue or the party divide. There are many informed observers of public policy who are well-informed and not in politics who can help to give the needed context to readers.
Besides, a politician's proposal or idea, or response to a proposal or idea, speaks for itself if it is written down in any way, shape, or form. If the politician wants to say more, she or he had the chance when she or he created that summary or social media post or press release or whatever.
Not every issue, by the way, has "two sides." I'm fond of saying that if one person tells you it's raining and another says it's sunny, the journalist's job is to look out the window and figure out what's really happening. It's not to repeat and spread those opinions or perceptions.
IMO, as a third-party voter, the translation is: Three Colorado newsrooms say they are Democratic supporters. And, the reality is that neither half of the "duopoly" is all that democratic, especially in their dealings with third parties.
As a journalist I can wholeheartedly agree that the core mission is to present an accurate view of events. However, I do not think that anyone, even elected officials, owes us an interview or even answers to our questions. Freedom of speech, to which even politicians have the right, includes the freedom to say nothing.
And the freedom of the press gives us the right to report the news, but not any right to have our questions answered or for a source, no matter how much we want to talk to her or him, to be available to us.
I also think it's a mistake to assume that the only way a story can fairly and accurately inform readers is by including quotes by politicians on both sides of an issue or the party divide. There are many informed observers of public policy who are well-informed and not in politics who can help to give the needed context to readers.
Besides, a politician's proposal or idea, or response to a proposal or idea, speaks for itself if it is written down in any way, shape, or form. If the politician wants to say more, she or he had the chance when she or he created that summary or social media post or press release or whatever.
Not every issue, by the way, has "two sides." I'm fond of saying that if one person tells you it's raining and another says it's sunny, the journalist's job is to look out the window and figure out what's really happening. It's not to repeat and spread those opinions or perceptions.
Per your last point, I wonder what you think of the Gazette’s Boebert headline.
IMO, as a third-party voter, the translation is: Three Colorado newsrooms say they are Democratic supporters. And, the reality is that neither half of the "duopoly" is all that democratic, especially in their dealings with third parties.