I see what you were saying about Joe the Plumber. Do get your point.

As far as parents being the experts, I love your idea to view it that way. You’re right — they are truly the experts, but I don’t think most journalists would see it that way or describe them as such.

In my experience, many education stories (and others, but I’m picking on education today) lack these “experts” and rely too heavily on the official voice. When I edited reporters, my biggest struggle was to get them to quote a greater variety of voices in a story. I think some reporters tend to go to the same people again and again because they have a relationship with these sources, and, quite frankly, it’s easier.

I’ve ready many government, education, political stories that quoted just paid government leaders; I’ve read seldom that truly treated the stakeholders as experts. That I think is a shame.

Thanks for expanding the discussion. Your insightful comments have really made me think.

– Gina

Very good point — I agree. Just throwing two points out there without having the two — or more — sides defend them is, well, pointless.

I think it’s the casualty of laziness often.

– Gina

@Anthony > you’re absolutely right. Just leaving two (opposing) points of view standing there is useless, you need to let them get at each other’s arguments. That is what I meant in my comment, but I could definitely have clarified it better.

Good and very necessary debate!

What reporters should be doing is pressing sources to explain their positions and defend them against contradictions point-by-point. THAT would be illuminating and valuable. But to do this requires an innate inquisitiveness which, sadly, a lot of journalists don’t have. Instead, filing the article becomes an end unto itself.

Well, Joe the Plumber … I wouldn’t quite call him a “regular Joe” despite his name (which wasn’t really his name.) He was pretty much in my mind a plant by a particular party to make a particular point.

And I do agree that just talking to “average Joes” could make for shallow coverage. I certainly wouldn’t want to read a story about the toxic mortgage crisis, for example, that quoted only “regular Joes” because they likely wouldn’t understand it. (Who really does?) That type story begs for experts, and a variety of them to make the issues clear — or at least more clear.

However, I would love to hear from homeowners who had to foreclose in light of the crisis — and understand how they got in that spot.

Another example: If you cover education, and you only quote the schools superintendent and the school board members, you get a very limited view of what’s going on in the schools. You get spin.

They’re not going to tell you that the “new math” program that the district officials touted so proudly makes it tough for first-graders to understand the concept of adding.

Or that ninth-graders have no time in their schedule for lunch because they’re too busy taking advanced-placement classes to help them get into the best colleges.

Talk to parents, and you’ll find that out in a hurry.

Journalism to me is at its best when there’s a balance between quoting the officials — and the stakeholders, who in many cases are regular folks.

But I agree that whenever journalists quote anyone, they should strive to find people who know enough about the issue to have an opinion worth repeating. Good point.

– Gina

My other issue is the good old rule about always quoting two or more (opposing) sources. I find that more and more journalists in almost all types of media seem to forget this and I must say that it’s sorely missed!

Hats off to your blog and its most honourable purpose!