Let me preface this column by borrowing a line from Columnist David Broder:

"It is difficult to write about 'journalistic ethics' without sounding like a jerk."

With that out of the way, let me begin. Small-town politics can be tricky to navigate, especially when your job is to report the news.

Oftentimes, the news is neither positive nor favorable. Sometimes, those with a vested interest in the story want details concealed. At other times, the news directly affects people you know, people you work alongside, share handshakes and conversations with... people you genuinely like.

But if a community is to trust in your medium to inform them of the facts, untouched, unslanted, and without sugar coating, you still report that news without hesitation.

And when you do, some are sure to take offense to you doing your job. Some don't always seem to understand the role of a free press. They believe in "managing information" and at times they expect you to manage the news the way they see fit.

Everybody wants control, and in a small town, if you’re on a first-name basis they think they have pull. But in the world of honest journalism, there’s no such thing.

I had a local elected official, one I happen to admire and respect, tell me this past week, "it's not good for a community to air its dirty laundry in public."

To which I replied: "that makes no sense if the laundry is so foul you can smell it from across the street. The only thing you're protecting is the source of the stench."

I was also told that I didn't care about this community. Actually, I care enough about it to be honest with it. You see, I don't believe it's up to us to decide how reporting facts affects a handful of people; our job is simply to report those facts. And we don't create these situations that some view as problematic; no you did that all on your own, and we simply inform the public of them.

I will be forced to consider another profession the day someone is allowed to "control" local news in The Meridian Star. Trust me, people try, often those who consider themselves pretty powerful in the sense that they control some pretty large purse strings in town. But let me be clear: if I wanted to be someone's puppet I would have gone to work for Jim Henson. Instead, I went to work for a newspaper that prides itself on reporting local news, even when that news is bad.

Here at the paper, we also don't consider ourselves to be in charge of bringing jobs to the area. That's not our job, nor should it be. But while we don't list that job description on our resumes, we do happen to care deeply about the local economy and availability of jobs. We care so much that we trust others with that particular expertise to do their jobs, just as we'd like to be trusted to do ours.  

And while we do a number of things to service this community and make it a better place — serve on boards, volunteer our time at local jails, feed the hungry, celebrate our community's successes — we don't shy away from reporting bad news, especially when taxpayer money is involved. Instead, it is our duty to confirm information that we've acquired and then to report it.

Recently, we've been a little more proactive at reporting on local government, particularly on openness. We've reported on salaries and travel — all things paid for by our readers' tax dollars. We've held our public officials accountable to the state's open meetings law. Nothing major, pretty much standard Journalism 101.

But even that basic standard has managed to cause a stir in this area, especially in some circles. Some have become a bit defensive. Others feel targeted. And in all of the hoopla, some have tried to steer the conversation away from the basics of what we're doing: opening up local government to the public. We're asking our officials to do the public's business in front of them. There's no hidden agenda. We're not trying to make anyone look bad. We're just asking for public information that any taxpayer should have access to.

The role of a free, independent press is not a new idea that sprung about over night. I can't think of anything more American. A free press that holds its public officials accountable was noted by our founders as essential to our very freedom.

In fact, when our founders were framing our country they offered this nugget in the Continental Congress when discussing the role of the press as watchdogs: a free press is an important mode of communication "whereby oppressive officials are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modules of conducting affairs."

It was Henry Adams who coined the famous "published for the public good" phrase that helped spawn the ideals of the First Amendment.

This isn't some new initiative that I, or anyone else at the paper thought up to "embarrass" — as one lady told me — any local officials. Back in the early 1900s, famous Washington Post editorial writer Alan Barth summed it up like this:

"A free press — that is, a press free from government regulation or control — serves as a censor of the government. First, it is supposed to give the people of a democratic society the information about the world they live in and about what their government is doing without which they cannot possibly, in any real sense, be self-governing. This is, of course, the business of news pages."

We're simply trying to improve at doing our jobs. I think what we're doing is “for the public good” when it accurately reflects the reality of a community.     

We will ask for information you are uncomfortable giving. We will remind you of your role to the public. We will hold you accountable for taxpayer dollars. And we will report factual information even if your best side is not shown. It is not our responsibility to make you look good. It is our duty to inform this community.

And to those who want to pressure me to manage the news rather than report it: well, I don't work for them; I work for you.



Fredie Carmichael is executive editor of The Meridian Star. E-mail him at fcarmichael@themeridianstar.com.