Is it possible to put a price on the truth? Or more importantly, should we? Last Saturday, September 28 was World News Day. Generally speaking, news is not expensive. That’s one of the things that makes the news industry so great – it’s accessible to all. In publications such as the Times, news is distributed for free, funded by local advertising dollars. Even publications that charge readers, such as the Ottawa Citizen, are generally affordable for almost anyone. The news business can certainly be profitable in the case of some larger news agencies, but quality news focuses on integrity and truth, rather than on profits and wealth.
Why then, is there a distinctive lack of truth in some “news” that is shared, particularly when it’s shared on social media? The reason is money. Truth is solid and unchangeable, and so sometimes, it’s destined to be “boring”. Fiction, on the other hand, can be as interesting and outlandish as the writer’s imagination allows. People crave this type of “hyped” content much more when they are also told it’s true. Think of how excited we get when a feature length movie begins with the words “based on true events”. There is something exclusive and “raw” about news in the sense that it’s real, and so the prospect of combining the best of both truthful news and “hyped” stories makes scam artists see dollar signs.
How can dishonest reporting translate into money? Many internet users are undoubtedly familiar with so-called “clickbait”, which uses misleading headlines or photos to encourage people to click on an article only to be inundated with ads or pop-ups. But we can’t only blame the internet. Tabloid magazines and papers have been around probably as long as news publications themselves. That said, journalistic integrity has never been a more complex topic than it is today.
It may be wrong to lay partial blame on one specific person, but I dare to be so bold: Donald Trump has caused a lot of undue mistrust in trustworthy news sources. In the days of Trump’s 2016 campaign for the US presidency, he was obsessed with labelling any negative coverage of himself as “fake news”. In much the same way as Trump shows immaturity by openly mocking and insulting people, and by being brazenly self-absorbed, he also has shown himself incapable of understanding the difference between “fake news” and “I don’t like it”. His followers (and there are far too many of them) eat this up.
We have come to progressively worsening points of division over the years when it comes to trusting news. Many Canadian conservative voters take everything published by the CBC as false. Most American democratic voters won’t trust Fox News. There is some reason for this skepticism on both sides. The CBC is undoubtedly liberal leaning, and Fox News is certainly the opposite. A critical difference exists, however, between biased reporting and “fake news”. We are all human, including those of us who have the privilege of working in the news industry. We all have our own opinions, and topics that facilitate dialogue and critical thought may not always be “neutral”, but they are far from “fake” as Trump would have us believe. Opinion must simply always be labelled as such. Fox News certainly has a reputation for being unreliable or biased, but truly “fake news” is better described as the nonsense spewed by publications such as Druthers. Those who wish to help truth prevail should immediately recycle such trash.
With great power comes great responsibility. Reliable news agencies welcome feedback and scrutiny. I frequently proofread and format opinion articles that I don’t agree with in order to get them ready for publication. We don’t censor at the Times. The only op-eds we refuse to print are those that are overtly insulting or inappropriate, or those that make unprovable accusations or provably false claims. Note that news agencies, in the interest of facilitating important conversations, will always publish opinion pieces that are properly labelled as such. An opinion that does not correlate with our own is not “fake news”.
Have you ever noticed how, following a newsworthy occurrence, several news organizations will present almost the exact same details? This is because news is about integrity, and sometimes there are only a limited number of facts available, with no room for embellishment or speculation when it comes to the truth.
The reality is that most of us in the news business – whether it be large agencies or small publications – adhere to the principles of journalistic integrity. You can stop being paranoid that you are reading “fake news” in the Globe and Mail or hearing “fake news” in a CTV broadcast. I’m proud to say that the Times adheres to the same standards. Above all, we must stick to the rule that the truth is not a commodity to be bought or sold. The truth – the real, unadulterated truth – is priceless, not worthless. To a scammer looking to make a quick buck, “priceless” means “worthless”. To those of us who wish to do a service by keeping our neighbours informed, “priceless” means “not to be trifled with”.
In the wake of this year’s World News Day, we at the Times encourage you to think critically and to engage in meaningful dialogue about the news you consume. No reputable news agency would ever ask you to do otherwise. Long live truth.
