Newspaper stories and television broadcasts have never been more closely scrutinized by opposing political parties and other pressure groups for what they deem is unfair one-sided journalism. 

The effect is all too often the criticism of journalists not being fair in their reporting has resulted in no-news reporting.  That's because when quoting an individual in a story it has become a standard that an opposing viewpoint must be included.  The result is a "he said, she said" story which results in the blurring of the truth. 

A prime example is the "he said, she said" duel regarding Obamacare, where opponents, who were always against the legislation, sprout broad negative statements about it placing defenders of the act into answering the charges instead of having the opportunity to speak about its benefits, resulting in stories that are half true, half fiction. 

This nonsensical type of journalism is practiced every day in newspapers and on television.  It is a fundamental component of the cable TV political shows and on the Sunday morning network political programs.

Even this attempt to be even handed does not prevent news outlets from being attacked for not telling the truth and being biased.  So, in my opinion, it's time for "he said, she said" journalism to be spiked and let the facts reported speak for itself.

But let's face it. Occasionally unintentional biases do appear in news stories, but not to the extent that important facts are omitted. Nevertheless, personal subconscious viewpoints can influence the way a story is reported or edited.

As anyone who has met a deadline on the news side knows, in most stories, except the blockbuster ones that every reporter wants to cover, the ledes can be written differently without omitting relevant facts.  In show business that would be called artistic discretion.  In journalism, it can be defined as slanting a story.

"You're burying the lede, rewrite it," used to be an editor's response to a story. Today, with the 24/7, 60 seconds a minute deadlines I wonder how often editors say that, especially on Web stories.

 Quotes are another problematic area.  Who to quote, how long should the quote be and where the quotes are placed in the story can also be a matter of controversy.  Most quotes that appear in print are abridged versions of longer statements; on TV the short sound bite is a staple of newscasts. Often the quotes are a fraction of what the individual being quoted said and can also give an incomplete meaning of what was being said.

The placement of stories in newspapers has also resulted in accusations of biased journalism.  In one newspaper a story might be positioned on page one; a similar story in another newspaper might be placed on Page 11.  It's usually a matter of editors' judgement but can be cited by provocateurs as a paper's unfair coverage.

Criticism of reporting has been with us forever and will not disappear.  Thus today, with less people reading detailed accounts of happenings in newspapers, editors should not blur the truth by insisting that every story be balanced and do away with "he said, she said" guidelines.  They should report the story and let readers decide the truth for themselves.

* * *

Arthur Solomon, former senior VP at Burson-Marsteller, is a frequent contributor to PR/sports business publications, consults on PR projects and serves on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at [email protected].