George Rebane
City Editor of The Union, Alan Riquelmy, writes that ‘What matters is your opinion’ in the 20may20 edition of the newspaper. His op-ed piece is about the Tara Reade imbroglio, and his involvement interviewing the lady and her contacts. But that’s not what drew my interest in his remarks. Let me begin with the admission that I don’t know Mr Riquelmy personally, have perhaps howdied with him at some local affair we both attended, and have exchanged cordial emails about some Other Voices pieces I have submitted for publication. But from what I do know of him, everything confirms that he’s a fine gentleman and a diligent journalist doing a commendable job during difficult times at The Union. Full disclosure: As a member of the Union’s editorial board, Jo Ann has known and worked with Mr Riquelmy during the years she has been on the board, and she speaks highly of him.
What really piqued my interest in Riquelmy’s op-ed, and actually gave me concern, was his attitude about opinions that people, including him, hold. Since Ms Reade has local roots, Riquelmy did some interviews with her about her allegations and published them in the newspaper. The word got out that Riquelmy might have some new perspectives about Reade that would be of interest to wider national audiences. Therefore, some media reporters wanted to interview Riquelmy, but he “declined all of them”, stating that “the reason is because my opinion on Reade and her allegations doesn’t matter.”
I would take exception to that sentiment/belief. There’s more here than just his opinion on Reade and her allegations. What may be of greater importance is how he, as an experienced professional journalist, came to the opinions he formed from his interviews and research. Most certainly that is my greater interest, and I submit is also the interest of other media professionals. Today, opinions about Reade et al are a dime a dozen, but Riquelmy had a unique opportunity to form his opinions, and that is of interest.
If we take a step back, we see that ‘matter’ is itself a subjective opinion. What and how something matters is in the eye of the matterer. Since none of us can claim to be paragons of objectivity, how someone of note and interest forms opinions and views of the world matters much, in this case to Mr Riquelmy’s readers of whom I am one. We who regularly read the words that he puts through his ‘matter filter’ would benefit knowing about the contours, tenets, and operation of that filter. Because such a matter filter is an embodiment of one's belief system, knowing of it we will know from where someone's ideas and assertions are coming.
Without such knowledge, the reader is left to solve two intertwined puzzles – first, understanding the chosen words and how they were assembled, and second, from what foundation did such choices and assembly arise. Today, journalism is one of the few professions that has long been consigned to the bilges of public opinion, and for very good reasons. One of them is the journalists’ assumed hubristic mantle of objectivity, which almost all of them wear poorly. A journalist who reveals certain relevant tenets of his belief system to readers would be a breath of fresh air to the profession. And who knows, it may even become a welcome new standard to lift the media industry from its dismal depths.
Coda. As RR readers know, I am an explicitly professed ideologue, commentator, and definitely NOT a journalist (more here). However, I pride myself in having the confidence to make my own credo (belief system) fully known to my readers, along with a glossary of terms which I use that may have a more specific or different definition than found in dictionaries, or worse, incorrectly assumed by the reader. (see upper right panel) My credo is not poured in concrete or recorded on stone tablets. Instead, it is open to critical examination by one and all, and since I am a Bayesian, it is malleable in the Keynesian sense. As Fisher and Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project taught us long ago (more here), the subject matter discussed in these pages demands nothing less. The only downside I’ve encountered is that readers, either innumerate and/or burdened with calcified ideologies, have not always found my ideas easy to understand. Nevertheless, I soldier on.
Having maybe read two Alan Riquelmy columns over the past few years does afford me the luxury of making an informed judgement on his journalism or world view. One column I stopped reading after three paragraphs, most times I don’t bother. With that disclaimer out of the way, is there a difference between journalism and an accurate record of facts?
This article brings up the distinction between ‘journalism’ and ‘historical accuracy.’ Might be on topic in a very broad sense....
‘1619 Project Creator Says Her Series Is ‘Journalism’ and ‘Not a History’
https://freebeacon.com/media/1619-project-creator-says-her-series-is-journalism-and-not-a-history/
Keep those Pulitzer Prizes and accolades rolling in. BTW, I expect columns to be subjective because we were born with brains to use. Now, using journalism as a basis for mandated history lessons in government run public schools across the fruited plain is another matter.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 21 May 2020 at 07:12 AM