(English version below)
Je viens de lire La Presse de ce matin avec ses 9 PAGES sur la tragédie de Blacksburgh. Tout les éléments sont la: les faits brutes. la chronologie, l'analyse, les chroniques, les éditoriaux. Bravo. Sauf que voila. On ouvre le journal, avec un texte de l'ancienne éditorialiste Agnes Gruda. C'est strictement factuel, mais bon. C'a reste que c'est une analyste avant-tout. En page 3, la chronique de Marie-Claude Lortie. Intéressant. Puis en page 5, les chroniques de Michèle Ouimet et Pierre Foglia. Rien a redire, c'est de la bonne analyse. tout comme l'excellent éditorial de Mario Roy.
Alors qu'est-ce qui me dérange? Eh bien, pour la forme journalistique proprement dite, (le who, what, when, where, il faut attendre à la page 6.
Me semble que c'a devrait être le contraire, si je me fie à ce que j'ai appris dans mes cours de journalisme. On raconte. On explique, et ENSUITE on commente. Je constate que beaucoup, beaucoup de gens ne savent pas faire la différence entre un reportage des faits, puis la chronique et l'éditorial. Nous, on prend ça pour une évidence. Mais pas tout le monde. Est-ce qu'on peut ensuite blâmer les gens qui nous accusent de mélanger les opinions et les faits? C'est certain, on leur sert ce paté-chinois confus tout les matins. Normal que les gens se méfient de nous.
Les chroniques, les éditoriaux devraient être clairement séparé des pages de nouvelles. La photo n'est pas suffisante pour identifier une chronique. Il faut aller plus loin. Utiliser une police différente, et même une phrase de mise en garde: ceci est un COMMENTAIRE, et pas une nouvelle. Tant qu'on ne prendra pas cette habitude, on va continuer à mélanger les choses. C'est peut-être sans conséquence quand on parle d'une tragédie loin de chez nous. Mais la confusion prend une toute autre signification quand on parle politique.
In a nutshell, I just pointed out that in today's La Presse , the coverage of the Blacksburgh tragedy is excellent. The paper, however, devoted 6 columns, op-ed pieces and editorials on the subject. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that four of these columns were printed AHEAD of the normal news articles.
What it does is that it further confuses readers who don't know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article. Well-educated people don't see the difference, so imagine the 40 per-cent of barely litterates in this country. How can we blame people who accuse us of being partial and biased, if we stick opinion pieces between hard-news stories, which are normally free of slant?
La Presse is not an exception, most large-sheet papers do the same, in English. I think editors should be more explicit and clearly identify opinions, either by using a different font AND by warning readers that these are opinions, and not hard facts. I also think opinions should be kept to the back pages, just so people can get their facts FIRST, and THEN seek analysis later.
Believe me I love columns and opinions. Otherewise I wouldn't even buy newspapers. I just think they generally lead to confusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The National Post did the same.
Mind you, I would argue that most news stories are not free of bias -- but of course, I speak with a bit of bias of my own.
That said, you're right that some might be confused, but I credit most people who bother to pick up a newspaper with understanding that if there is a little picture of a person or a name, it's probably opinion (some exceptions of course) and if it's simply a news agency name, it's (supposedly) unbiased news.
That,s just it! You wouldn't know the number of people I come across, who don't know the difference! And they're educated! How often have I heard complaints that André Pratte is biased in favor of Federalism! Well, duh! That's his job. But yet the same person will look for bias in a straight news story. Like the time early in my career, where I did a write-up about a local fundraising by the Canadian Cancer Society.
Would you believe I received a letter of complaint signed by several animalists who called me bias because I didn't specify in my story that the CCS was using donation money to find research done on animals?
I mean, what do I tell these people. Reporters deal with this EVERY DAY.!
How often was I approached on the street with people telling me I'm biased because I refuse to expose the fact that 9/11 was really a Mossad-sponsored conspiracy!
Post a Comment