"He Said, She Said" Journalism: Are We Done With That Yet?

There I am, sitting at the breakfast table, with my coffee and a copy of the New York Times, in the classic newspaper reading position from before the Web. And I come to this article, headlined "Ex-Chairman of A.I.G. Says Bailout Has Failed." I immediately recognize in it the signs of a he said, she said account.

Quick definition: "He said, she said" journalism means...

* There's a public dispute.
* The dispute makes news.
* No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story. (Under the "conflict makes news" test.)
* The means for assessment do exist, so it's possible to exert a factual check on some of the claims, but for whatever reason the report declines to make use of them.
* The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.

When these five conditions are met, the genre is in gear. The he said part might sound like this:

Mr. Greenberg asserted that he would have reduced or at least hedged A.I.G.'s exposure to credit-default swaps in 2005, when A.I.G.'s credit rating was reduced.

"A.I.G.'s business model did not fail; its management did," he asserted.

Followed by the "she" said...

That provoked another scornful counterattack from his former company, saying that Mr. Greenberg's assertions were "implausible," "not grounded in reality" and at odds with his track record of not hedging A.I.G.'s bets on credit-default swaps.

I had read enough of the Times coverage of Mr. Greenberg to wonder why the editors would run something so lame. Their business columnists have been (excuse the expression) kicking ass on meltdown coverage, including A.I.G. But here there was no attempt to assess clashing truth claims, even though Times journalism was available to do just that. Instead Hank Greenberg got to star in a game of "you say black, I say white."

It seemed strange to me that in 2009 stories like that were still being waved on through. On Twitter I sometimes talk to Ryan Chittum, who writes The Audit column for Columbia Journalism Review. It's a running critique of the business press after the banking meltdown. So I asked Ryan, "is this the best the Times can do?" because he knows a lot more about the coverage than I do. A few hours later he answered me at CJR.

This one's easy: No. The Times's story offers no analysis and forces readers--95 percent of whom know little or nothing about Greenberg's tenure at AIG--to try to guess who's right.

Which is why these stories are so frustrating: we're left helpless by them. I want to quote the rest of his judgment because it helps nail down what is meant by he said, she said, not just at the New York Times, which has no special purchase on the form, but anywhere. The means are available to do better, but these are not employed. Chittum:

There's no attempt to try to separate out who's right here, even though everybody but Hank Greenberg knows he has major responsibility for driving AIG into the ground.

Here's some stuff that helps explain why. I just culled it from the excellent Washington Post three-parter on AIG in December (if you haven't read that yet, make sure you do):

He created the Financial Products division in 1987 with traders from soon-to-be disgraced Drexel Burnham Lambert, approved its entry into the credit-default swap market in 1998, empowered Joseph Cassano, oversaw FP when it set up "sham" companies that resulted in tens of millions in fines, was an unindicted co-conspirator in a huge fraud at AIG, oversaw the company's credit downgrade from AAA, was in charge when half of the company's $80 billion in CDS on subprime CDOs were written. Apparently, Cassano and FP stopped issuing CDS within months of Greenberg's exit in 2005.

How much more evidence do you need to tell your readers that this guy has significant responsibility for the disaster that came to his his company and the entire economy--to not let him spin away?

"How much more evidence do you need?" is the kind of exasperation a lot of us have felt with what he calls "false balance," which is another name for the pattern I'm describing.

So far so good. I told you what he said, she said is, and gave you an example. CJR chimed in, and told the New York Times it could do way better, showing how. Press criticism lives! (Twitter helps.) But this does not tell us why he said, she said reporting still exists, or ever existed. To understand that we have to cut deeper into news practice, American style.

Turn the question around for a moment: what are the advantages of the newswriting formula I have derisively labeled "he said, she said?" Rather than treat it as a problem, approach it as a kind of solution to quandaries common on the reporting trail. When, for example, a screaming fight breaks out at the city council meeting and you don't know who's right, but you have to report it, he said, she said makes the story instantly writable. Not a problem, but a solution to the reporter's (deadline!) problem.

When you kinda sorta recall that Hank Greenberg is a guy who shouldn't necessarily get the benefit of the doubt in a dispute like this, but you don't know the history well enough to import it into your account without a high risk of error, and yet you have to produce an error-free account for tomorrow's paper because your editor expects of you just that... he said, she said gets you there.

Or when the Congressional Budget Office issues a report on ethanol and what it's costing us in higher food prices, the AP reporter to whom the story is given could just summarize the report, but that's a little too much like stenography, isn't it? So the AP adds reactions from organized groups that are primed to react.

This is a low cost way of going beyond the report itself. A familiar battle of interpretations follows, with critics of ethanol underlining the costs and supporters stressing the benefits. Of course, the AP could try to sort out those competing claims, but that would take more time and background knowledge than it probably has available for a simple "CBO report issued" story. "Supporters of ethanol disagreed, saying the report was good news..." gets the job done.

These are some of the strengths of the he said, she said genre, a newsroom workhorse for forty years. (Think it's easy? You try making any dispute story in the world writable on deadline...)

The best description I've read of the problem to which devices like he said, she said are a solution comes from former Washington Post reporter Paul Taylor, who covered national politics. Here's a comment about it that I left at the New York Times Opinionator blog. It was an attempt to explain a phrase I use to describe the kind of distortion that he said, she said can produce: "regression toward a phony mean."

Journalists associate the middle with truth, when there may be no reason to.

In his 1990 book, See How They Run, former Washington Post reporter Paul Taylor (once seen as heir to David Broder) explained why regression toward a phony mean is so common in journalism. It answers to a need for what he calls "refuge." Here is what he said:

"Sometimes I worry that my squeamishness about making sharp judgments, pro or con, makes me unfit for the slam-bang world of daily journalism. Other times I conclude that it makes me ideally suited for newspapering- certainly for the rigors and conventions of modern 'objective' journalism. For I can dispose of my dilemmas by writing stories straight down the middle. I can search for the halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone (or some policy or idea) and write my story in that fair-minded place. By aiming for the golden mean, I probably land near the best approximation of truth more often than if I were guided by any other set of compasses- partisan, ideological, pyschological, whatever... Yes, I am seeking truth. But I'm also seeking refuge. I'm taking a pass on the toughest calls I face."

Clearly, there can be something extreme about this squeamishness, too. Clearly, the desire for refuge can get out hand. Writing the news so that it lands somewhere near the "halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone" is not a truthtelling impulse at all, but a refuge-seeking one, and it's possible that this ritual will distort a given story.

Like the "straight down the middle" impulse that Taylor writes about, he said, she said is not so much a truth-telling strategy as refuge-seeking behavior that fits well into newsroom production demands. "Taking a pass" on the tougher calls (like who's blowing more smoke) is economical. It's seen as risk-reduction, as well, because the account declines to explicitly endorse or actively mistrust any claim that is made in the account. Isn't it safer to report, "Rumsfeld said...," letting Democrats in Congress howl at him (and report that) than it would be to report, "Rumsfeld said, erroneously..." and try to debunk the claim yourself? The first strategy doesn't put your own authority at risk, the second does, but for a reason.

We need journalists who understand that reason. And I think many do. But a lot don't.

He said, she said reporting appears to be risk-reducing, but this is exactly what's changing on the press. For a given report about, say, former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke, "the halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone" is no more likely to be accurate than the one-fifth mark, especially when you factor in the reality of the Overton Window and the general pattern we know as "working the refs." The halfway point is a miserable guideline but it can sound pretty good when you are trying to advertise to all that you have no skin in the game. This is how I think of he said, she said reporting. Besides being easy to operate, and requiring the fewest imports of knowledge, it's a way of reporting the news that advertises the producer's even handedness. The ad counts as much as the info. We report, you decide.

"Ex-Chairman of A.I.G. Says Bailout Has Failed" was a text most likely intended for the print edition of the New York Times business pages. The newswriting formula that produced it dates from before the Web made all news and reference pages equidistant from the user. He said, she said might have been seen as good enough when it was difficult for others to check what had previously been reported about the ex-chairman of A.I.G., but that is simply not the case for a New York Times reporter in April, 2009.

There has been a loss of refuge. And this is why he said, she said journalism is in decline, even though you still see plenty of it around. Today, any well informed blogger, competing journalist or alert press critic can easily find the materials to point out an instance of false balance or the lame acceptance of fact-free spin. Professional opinion has therefore shifted and among the better journalists, some of whom I know, it is no longer acceptable to defend he said, she said treatments when the materials are available to call out distortions and untruths. (That doesn't mean the practice has halted; I'm talking about a shifts in the terms of legitimacy among journalists, and about efforts like this.)

In fact, it's taken a long time to get to this point. Back in 2004 setting a higher standard than he said, she said was still a novel idea. Chris Mooney wrote about it in the context of science coverage under Bush. ("How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality.") As CJR's Campaign Desk noted...

The candidate makes a statement. You write it down, then you call the other side for a response. It's one of journalism's fundamentals. Tell us what he said, tell us what she said, and you're covered, right?

Well, no. Given the amount of spin this election year, the old rules don't apply any more. Campaign Desk herewith proposes a new ground rule: "He said/she said/we said."

... With a variety of Internet research tools readily at hand, it has never been easier for reporters to draw an independent assessment on any given day of who is right, who is wrong, and in what way.

The tools are there to make an independent assessment of who is right: for journalists, that is the critical point. (See also my post from 2004, He Said, She Said, We Said and Rethinking Objectivity by Brent Cunningham from 2003.) Because of that--and because of working the refs, the Overton Window, the failures of the political press under Bush--he said, she said no longer has the acceptance rates it once did. Which is why it was so easy to get Ryan Chittum to answer my question, "is this the best the Times can do?"

It wasn't. And it's easier than ever to show that. More people are involved in showing it, too. This raises the question of whether a he said, she said treatment loses you more in user disgust with your lameness than any informational gain in having fresh news to report about Hank Greenberg trading barbs with A.I.G. Do people want to feel helpless in sorting out who's bullshitting them more? Is that the news media's role, to increase that feeling? Is such a practice even sustainable in the Web era?

That it may not be (and the industry knows it) is shown by what The Politico called a "high-stakes experiment" at the AP's Washington bureau. The plan was to move "from its signature neutral and detached tone" to a more aggressive style of newswriting that bureau chief Ron Fournier calls "cutting through the clutter."

In the stories the new boss is encouraging, first-person writing and emotive language are okay.

So is scrapping the stonefaced approach to journalism that accepts politicians' statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers.

In other words, we can't skate by on he said, she said any more. Call it like they see it is, in fact, a successor principle but this means that AP reporters are now involved in acts of political judgment that can easily go awry, and their own politics can be at issue.

Time to wrap this up.

Part of the problem is that American journalism as an occupational scene has never gone for the candor Paul Taylor showed in his comments on searching for the halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said. The pro system talks about the reporting of news as a truth-telling enterprise, but not a difference-splitting or dilemma-disposing one. It says: we're the source of "the most authoritative news coverage," as the AP recently put it. But it rarely mentions the refuge-seeking part, which subtly undermines that authority.

As I tried to explain in Why Campaign Coverage Sucks (published at TomDispatch.com and Salon, January 2008) there is an "innocence agenda" at work in the mainstream press. It favors certain practices:

Who's-gonna-win is portable, reusable from cycle to cycle, and easily learned by newcomers to the press pack. Journalists believe it brings readers to the page and eyeballs to the screen. It [plays] well on television, because it generates an endless series of puzzles toward which journalists can gesture as they display their savviness, which is the unofficial religion of the mainstream press.

But the biggest advantage of horse-race journalism is that it permits reporters and pundits to play up their detachment. Focusing on the race advertises the political innocence of the press because "who's gonna win?" is not an ideological question. By asking it you reaffirm that yours is not an ideological profession.

In its heyday he said, she said was like a stamping plant in the factory of news. It recognized that production demands trumped truthtelling requirements. But these were the production demands of a beast that is now changing. Refusing to serve as a check on Hank Greenberg's power to distort the news when the means for a such a check are available-- this too can have a cost, just as importing the knowledge to do the check has a cost. At a certain point in this dynamic, he said, she said journalism loses its utility and becomes one of the things dragging the news business down. But as the industry sheds people and newsrooms thin out, there could be greater reliance on a more and more bankrupt and trust-rotting practice. That's a downward spiral.

Criticism of he said, she said practices and the flippancy that comes with it should therefore continue. The other day, Paul Kane of the Washington Post said it was too much to expect him to import into his account the background knowledge that a Republican Senator warning about the dangers to Senate comity of proceeding with only 50 votes had voted to do the same thing when her party held the majority but not 60 votes. (Matthew Yglesias picked up on it.)

Kane said he was astonished by this demand; he couldn't figure out where it was coming from. "We reported what Olympia Snowe said. That's what she said. That's what Republicans are saying. I really don't know what you want of us."

If he's not just blowing smoke, and he really doesn't know-- that is a problem for the Washington Post.

Comments

[beastmode]

I'm not sure what it says when the example of breaking out of the he said/she said pattern is what the AP Washington Bureau has been doing. What they have been doing is basically exchanging news with commentary - it's necessary to flush out the facts to see how the arguments mesh, but Fournier and company have basically become commentators rather than reporters.

[CharleyCat]

Someone mentioned Russert was an exception to this and he was in some sense I suppose. His style was more "you say/you said," as if pointing to a prior contradictory statement by the interviewee would lead to some greater truth. Unfortunately, these moments always felt highly scripted. Having achieved his "Gotcha" moment, Russert would allow some mealy-mouthed response from the interviewee and then move on to his next question, without having accomplished anything more than slightly (if that) embarrassing the subject. People like Dick Cheney would leave whoppers on the record and walk away unscathed. In fact, having passed the "Russert" challenge, his statements now appeared to have an extra layer of imprimatur about them. All this did was again reinforce the cynical idea that everyone is a liar, since Russert gave just about every subject the same "gotcha" test.

[dsbsh]

Unfortunately, what Russert often did was "you say/my own distortion of what you said"-- and was able to rely on his reputation to avoid the "sorry Tim, you're misquoting me (or lying)" response.

[CharleyCat]

The other problem with "he said/she said" is that it breeds a growing sense of cynicism in the viewers/readers. When two opposing viewpoints are given equal standing, the viewer either chooses to believe that the truth lies in between (as you say) OR they select the viewpoint that confirms their existing bias. In either case, the subconscious message is that everyone (politicians, commentators, et al) is lying or at least spinning the facts. This in turn, frustrates the viewer, encouraging a disengagement from the seemingly impossible task of ascertaining the truth.

Also, "he said/she said" is implicitly a-historical. In the 24-hour news cycle, what happened in the past is less important than what someone is saying right now about what happened in the past. We treat these statements as "events" in themselves and they get reported as news, without the requisite background that would make sense of the statements.

[dogdiva]

This is an excellent piece. I wish there were posts like this in the major newspapers every week although I suspect with the demise of newspapers that might be short lived.
I cannot help but think "he said, she said" is responsible in many ways for the state of media today. Outrageous fabrications and sheer opinion can be put out as the equal to fact. If we were able to remove ourselves from the daily fray and just overlook the last 10 years of argument in this country I think we would be astounded and the months and years given to arguments over already established truths. Total fabrications and wild emotional arguments have been given equal time and equal consideration in our public discourse. Is it any wonder we are where we are today?
If we lose investigative reporters and newspapers, who will find and report facts. So many reporters and commentators now seem to be more drawn to the "good life" as frequent guests on cable shows. Rather than bring an honest and truthful accounting to these shows they are often overly solicitous of the show host and his/her views. Maybe there should be a separation between news and opinion.
I wonder if it will be possible to turn around the media crisis we've gotten ourselves into. If there is no outlet for good reporters and no reward for good reporting (or shunning of poor reporting) what will provide the inpetus for change.

[Photofarm]

I didn't get through all of your post, but I certainly agree with the first part of it, and the headline is dead on. It seems with political discussions it is especially he said she said journalism.

[steppenwolfsayshi]

I studied rhetoric in school and false balance in news coverage is one of those major issues we write a lot about. Our major concern with it is that the more powerful or well known perspective in the story always has an edge up, even if the facts are not behind them, since people pay less attention to people they're not familiar with or don't think they can relate to. I'm really happy to see its starting to getting out there to the journalism professors where it will make a difference to practice. A proper understanding of the stakeholders in news stories is crucial!

[thnk4selfagain]

One of the best posts I've read in a while. It is good to learn that the journalism profession is examining its practices. I suggest that the lack of context and background in a article in order to avoid the perception of bias, even when the facts are not in dispute and have been reported previously, actually causes the perception of *bias.* Time constrants and lack of knowledge maybe contributing factors for a lack of factual perspective, but the mega-corporate media's short cuts have the an *intended* effect of manipulating the audience toward a "phony mean" and misinformation.

It's a win-win for the corporation that would not really like to inform the public against the corporate interests. Yesterday was a great example: CNN repeatedly runs a piece by Jessice Yellin about the top 1-2% earners pay the most taxes (38% ), while the bottom 20% pay just 8% of taxes. No explanation as to why this is, just a tax day incitement with statistics: No common sense interpretation of the figures that takes into account the proportion of income and taxes paid or how the numbers reveal more about disparity of income worthy of thirdworldom. It is with this kind of pandering and manipulation that I feel "bullshitted." Until the mainstream media commits to regaining the 'trust' of its consumers, the US will continue to be without civilized consensus about public affairs -- a toxin that is already paralyzing this country.

[AndSoItGoes]

This is the cheap, lazy way to fill time and space in the so called news media and it is irritating as hell. Being retired through the last couple of years of the presidential race, it got so annoying watching various networks trying to sort out the TRUTH or as close to it as you can get through TV anymore. Tim Russert was always the go to guy to find out the truth and context of issues. Olbermann & Maddow, along with the Huff Post are some of the best sources of info now.

I watched when John McCain made the statement at a town meeting that he promised we would never again go to war over oil. CNN played a segment on McCains statement on the Situation Room between 4 & 6 p.m. on the day he made the statement and they didn't take issue with it. I thought that was HUGE. McCain also changed his tone on the alien amnesty bill he co-sponsored and said that he "hears the people" meaning he gets it that citizens didn't like his position but reading between the lines he never said he would reverse his position on it. He just avoided the subject. Network bias obvious.

Oh for the days of good investigation reporting. I understand that there are good journalists out there but finding them now is getting more and more difficult. Again, Huffington Post, thanks for the good job you do in presenting GOOD journalism on relevant issues.

[booksnmoreforyou]

Fabulous piece!

[harveyr2]

The current crop of journalists are pathetic imitators of the professionals of years past. Gone are the days of critical reporting. Regardless of the news organization, reporters inject their opinions into the facts.

[Cloud7Raymaker]

He-said, she-said journalism may be risk-reducing, but it's also the reason so many people are walking away from traditional news sources. When Newspapers & Television stop being afraid of being called "liberal" they may regain their core audience - those of us that want accurate and insightful analysis and not just a two-sided stenography dump.

[realpolitic]

Almost all modern journalism is of the "he said, she said" variety. There is no attempt to find facts. The reader is left frustrated because he learns little more than he began with, after sorting through what amounts to name-calling. Newspapers lose. The right often takes a position far to the right on any issues and especially culture war issues. The left is usually closer to the center. Therefore, when reporters takes this middle ground, passive approach their articles are skewed more to the right by the dogmatism of the spokesmen on the right. The right typically uses false narratives because they have become so extreme so the reporter ends up giving false narratives an equal probability of truth as the narrative told by the other side. In the runup to the Iraqi war, there was no attempt to get behind government hardline messages and get at the truth except by the McClatchy newspaper reporters. Climate chain doubters are given as much credence as those scientists who say man is causing the climate to warm by burning greenhouse gases. Almost all climate scientists back the anthropogenic climate change position. It just goes on and on and grows tiresome. At least no one is offending, I guess, except those concerned about the dumbing down of society.

[jdloeb]

"On Bullshit" by Harry G. Frankfurt should be required reading for every journalist. The valued role of the journalist is in helping society make sense of the world so we can, and must, take action in the world. That means making assessments of their own. Yes, we need journalists to have strong opinions and to share them powerfully. We, of course, expect and demand that their opinions be very well grounded. And we need journalists to call 'bullshit'.

http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239912094&sr=1-1

Frankfurt opens with, "One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted."

The bullshitter "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

[OtayPanky]

jdloeb: Frankfurt opens with, "One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted."

===

Please name a culture that is not full of bullshit.

It seems to me this is simply a fixture of the human condition...same as it ever was.

[TremoluxMan]

It aggravates the daylights out of me when I see and hear a TV newsperson interview someone they know is obviously lying through their teeth and not call them on it. This isn't being objective or neutral; it's being gutless and buggering the truth.

I'm not referring to some esoteric subject the interviewer might not have knowledge of, but subjects someone in the news business would reasonably be expected to know.

[Laserbeam]

..or else they're being incredibly lazy, or are woefully uninformed. I took journalism in college. I wonder every time I watch MSM if they're acquainted with the 5 W's, or have ever heard of the 5 W's. When I majored in journalism, that was the basic tenet! Cover the 5 W's, don't include opinion in a hard news story, and never, ever make yourself part of the story.

[TremoluxMan]

Sounds like more than a few skipped Journalism 101 and headed straight to the anchor chair.

[ThePeacemakers]

And the Bank owners and wealth holders love he said /she said journalism.

It doesn't matter to them what side you're on (Right / Left) - Just as long as you're not united with your eyes focused on following the money trail.

That's why there is support for the Tea Parties (even if they are misinformed)...

Just think - there's been a week spent criticizing our fellow Americans, when we need to be demanding the names of those who profited from this manufactured economic crisis.