The best short definition of news is ‘that which is new, interesting, and true’. ‘New’ in that it is an account of events which the listener has no’ heard before-or an update of a story familiar to him. ‘Interesting’, in the sense of the material being relevant, or affecting him in some way ‘True’ because the story as told is factually correct.
It is a useful definition not only because it is a reminder of three crucial aspects of a credible news service but because it leads to: consideration of its own omissions. If all news is to be really ‘new’ a story will be broadcast only once. Yet there is an obvious obligation to ensure that it is received by the widest possible audience. At what stage then can the news producer update a story, assuming that the listener already has the basic information? What do we mean by ‘interesting’ when we speak not of an individual but of a large, diversified group with a whole range of interests? Do we simply mean ‘important’? In any case how does the broadcaster balance the short-term interest with the long And as for the whole truth – there simply is not time. So how should we decide out of all the important and interesting events which confront us what to leave out? And concerning what is included, how much of the context should be given in order to give an event its proper perspective And to what extent is it possible to do this without indicating a particular point of view? And if the broadcaster is to remain impartial, do we mean under all conditions?
These are some of the questions involved in the editorial judgment of news. To begin with we need to consider not the practical solutions but the criteria by which possible answers may be assessed.
Starting with the listener, what does he expect to hear? Certainly in true democracy he has a general right to know and discuss what is going on around him. There will be limitations, defined and maintained by la – matters of national security, confidences of a business or private nature to which the public does not have rightful access. But these reasons cc: be used to cloak the genuine interest of the individual. Caught in such conflict, the broadcaster is faced with a moral problem -the not-unfamiliar one of deciding the greater good between upholding the law and championing the rights and freedom of the individual. At such times, those involved in public responsibility should consider two separate propositions:
- Broadcasters are not elected: they are not the government and as such are not in a position to take decisions affecting the interest of the State. If they go against the practice of the law they do so as private citizens, with no special privileges because they have access to a radio station.
- Associated with the public right to know is the private right not to divulge. A society which professes individual freedom does not compel or allow the media to extract that which a person wishes lawfully to keep to himself.
Thus the listener has a right to be informed; but although the constraints may be few and the breaches of it comparatively rare, the right is not total. Every broadcaster must know where he tends and on what basis his lines of editorial demarcation are drawn.
