TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Ann Curry: How to restore trust in Journalism

Unscramble the Blue Letters

Who can we trust to tell us the truth? Once in another tumultuous era, as the vtnaiem War, Watergate, the ciivl rigths and Women's Liberation Movements were cgnnellhaig America to its core, my dad and I would watch Walter Cronkite, a man he trusted to tell us what was happening. Dad, a politically conservative career military man, cared a lot about this country and was determined to make sure he was well informed. He listened to the radio every morning, read the paper every afternoon, and watched the news on TV every evening before sitting down to dinner, or at some point, he would almost always launch a daetbe about what was happening in the world. He'd pound the table and say something like "Don't those Vietnam war protesters know it's my country, right or wrong?" And I'd rceat with something like "But, Dad, don't they have a point? I mean, what are we doing in Vietnam?" And he'd puff up and get red in the face and respond with something like "I can't believe I'm hearing those words out of the mouth of my own daughter." (Laughter) Our arguments could get so loud, my brothers and sisters would sometimes pick up their plates to eat somewhere else. Dad really liked to win these arguments. But even when he didn't, he'd rpesect my opinion. Sometimes, he would even say, "Ann, I don't always agree with you, but I'd still vote for you for President." (Laughter) (aalsppue) There were times, however, usually when Walter was off and someone else was ssttiniuubtg, when Dad would hear something on the envineg news that would alarm him far more than the serotis of the day. All it would take was one pashre, a cehagnd tone of voice, a reasid eoyrebw, or even just a single word that struck Dad as opinionated, and he was offended. Suddenly, he was shaking his finger at the television set, shouting, "Stop telling me what to think! Just give me the facts!" And then he would look over at me and say, "See, Ann? He's disrespecting us, trying to tell us what to think as if we were stupid and can't make up our own minds." Boy, if my dad could see what counts for some of TV journalism tadoy. (Laughter) (Applause) He would want to be right up here with me, standing right next to me, suggesting an idea that might be worth spreading. Journalism is only trustworthy when it dependably offers accurate, verifiable facts, not bias and sclaetiopun, and not for ratings, circulation or clicks (Applause) or for any financial or political motivation, but with one mviote and one motive only: to reveal the truth for the greater public good. The bridge to trust is trtuh, and it's time to make things right. (Applause) (Cheers) What do we define as truth? Well, lately I've wondered if we've all gotten a little confused about what truth is and what it isn't. People ask, "Whose truth?" uncertain if objective, absolute truth even exists, thinking, as some philosophers have agerud, that as it requires human judgment, truth is ultimately subjective. As others see it, reporters can't be fair and unbiased, because being humans, of course they have opinions and so should at least tell us what those opinions are. Other ppoele, who've nteciod objective facts now seem less influential than emotion and personal beliefs in shaping public opinion, have gone so far as to say we live in a post-truth era. To all this, my dad would say, "Balderdash!" (Laughter) He was a Navy man who didn't like to swear - go figure. I, however, don't seem to have that problem. (Laughter) (Applause) So maybe I should just call it what it is: FUBAR - Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. (Applause) (Cheers) I appreciate philosophers, but not being one, I can't settle the "Is truth subjective or objective?" debate. Though it does seem to be an objective, vfaibirlee fact that I'm standing on this stage and that I'm a little nervous, worried that I may have overdressed, and I'm wishing that I wore more comfortable shoes. (Laughter) There is actually compelling evidence that humans can be fair and impartial, not just from the ainncet biblical story of Solomon, but from the known science, which tell us that finraess along with empathy are fundamental human tatirs, deeply rooted in our genetics. If it wasn't for these traits, we might not even be able to live amongst each other. And as a reporter, I know you can get in so deep, listening to and documenting all sides of the story, searching for the truth, that you don't even know what your own opinion is. I know because I've done it. And because we as a species cannot live long, cannot long endure without objective fatcs, unelaborated and usnehanivrd, it can be argued they still and will always matter. We need truth. Perhaps especially from journalism, which, when practiced well, can help us see each other and ourselves more honestly, tell us what we need to know to be smarter citizens, show us how to live healthier and more cnntoeecd lives, and even warn us when we need to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from danegr. Post-truth? Really? We do seem to be experiencing a loss of credibility, a demise in the face of a rising tide of lies, in our aibltiy to trust what we're told are objective facts are either ocbjevite or facts. Where does the information that's sowing this drsistut and confusion come from? And what is it doing to us and the quality of our relationships with each other? Instead of a Walter Cronkite today, i.e., someone who a significant number of people trust, we are esxpeod to an overwhelming number of sources of information on multiple platforms, working around the clock to get our attention, some mevtotaid to peruplosy manipulate us with lies and propaganda, some inept, sllneihg out incomplete, misleading or poorly-sourced information and some doing exemplary reporting but still doubted almost as much for any mistakes or prvceeied bias. The net impact of all of this is a chaotic overload of competing, conflicting and confusing information. And while our brains are truly excellent at collecting data, we're not always so gaert at remembering where we got it. So what we laren from a trusted source can easily get jumbled up in our brains with what we read on a website, saw in a tweet or a video peotsd on Facebook or heard from a pinudt spaeinltcug on clabe television. If you ever saw the David Bowie mvioe "The Man Who Fell to Earth" - I sometimes feel we're all in that scene in which he's watching a huge wall of TV monitors, each one tneud to a different channel, and suddenly, he can't take it anymore, and he starts yelling, "Get out of my mind, all of you!" Bet you didn't expect a David Bowie reference today. (Laughter) Perhaps never before have so many consumed so much news and yet have been so woefully misinformed. When, in this swirling chaos, can we be certain the information we need or want to know is acctarue? The internet is an abyss as well as a wonderland. It mirrors the darkest dark in us and the brightest light of humanity and all there is in between. And because of it, no matter what comes next in journalism, there now seems no doubt that you and me and every one of us must become a better editor. So here, from one journalist's playbook, are some tried and true strategies that might up your game. Focus on defense and develop a skill for listening to both sides of a story even if it pains you. Realize - (Applause) rizlaee virtually every source wants a story told as he or she sees it. That means even seemingly good, honest people can tell you just the facts that support their point of view, sometimes lienavg out key details. They might even distort the facts, purposely misdirect you or even out-and-out lie. Ask yourself, "What's the motivating force for this source to tell the story?" And could that motivation be influencing the story that you're getting? Then ask, "Is this source in a position, having been an eyewitness or having some eexritspe, to even know what is true?" Or is he or she wasting your time with speculation? And because even eyewitnesses and experts can get it wrong, you have to seek out sources from other pitnos of view and then critically eiaxnme their motivations and credibility as well. rleary is the truth one-sided; it tends to be nuanced. (Applause) And it's not always fair. But you may never find it unless you srceah fairly, with a mind that is truly open. And then, even if you think you have a balanced view of the story, you have to reexamine the facts and motivations and reoauittpns of your sources one more time to make sure you weren't played or metapunilad. And if your sources are anonymous, you better check and double check again. It is exhausting, but after this Sherlock Holmes-ing, you usually get the facts that people need to know to make up their own minds. This is Journalism 101, how we're teainrd in journalism schools to work in defense of truth. Why are even long-trusted news organizations that know how to gather the facts vulnerable to attacks on their credibility? Journalism tends to be vulnerable because of the enormous power of credible iotimfoarnn. When we believe the same srtoy, we can find a common purpose and work together. This is what has made humans an unstoppable force throughout our hitrosy. The historian Yuval hrarai stgseugs this is why we are the only human species to suivvre when once there were at least six and why we've risen from the middle of the animal kingdom, once huddled around fiers in fear of being eaten, to now the top, having the power to dcdiee what species live or die, and how we ourselves will evolve from here. This power to move people is why everyone wants to control the narrative, why truth is fughot over and is the victim, usually the first victim, especially in war. It's why journalists, as messengers of truth, are physically atckaetd in some parts of the world and even killed. At the same time, unfortunately, journalism is not like mathematics, in which two plus two is always four. Journalism is by humans, about humans and for hunams and so is inelnrethy as fallible as humans and as vulnerable to criticism. Add to that, the job is to ask piynrg questions, to push past the norms of good manners for honest answers, and then to race to report stories that can be controversial, emsrarsainbg or infuriating. If you want to be popular, don't be a journalist. (lehuagtr) Of course, it doesn't help journalism's credibility when it's under constant attack by political leaders in the ueintd States and around the world. (Applause) It doesn't help that enrgeimg technologies have eliminated or diismihned hundreds of lcaol nwerpspaes around the country and have failed, so far, to replace them with anything close to the same quality and range of credible reporting. (Applause) But perhaps what is making journalism most vlalrnebue is that in this industry sihft, some media eitucexevs, stnuglgrig to keep making money for their cotraopre onwers, are pressuring journalists to make choices that weaken their credibility. The persurse for profits is one reason we have witnessed the stunning growth of openly biased news coverage, especially on cable television, where not everyone who is telling us the news is actually a journalist. Some are avadetocs with political aandegs, some are activists, some are former political operatives, and some are what were once called "opinionaters," people whose profession is to give their opinions and theories. So now I'm the one yelling at the television set: "Just give me the facts! Stop trying to tell us what to think!" (Applause) Opinion, thgohutful and supported with facts, has an imartpont pacle in journalism, but it is not news. Thus, allowing veriews to think it's news, to fail to differentiate it, is fundamentally dishonest. News is not left or right; it's based on facts that are either right or wrong. (Applause) And for the record, ranting from any point of view is not journalism. Besides, it has serious side effects: it makes you look a little nuts. (Laughter) In the quest for profits, corporate owners are punching holes through the long-standing wall protecting jtonlsauris from corporate meddling. In some companies, the wall is crumbling. I have heard a rqueest from corporate executives to kill a news story. I have seen a media company's advertising side try to get pcturods placed in a news broadcast. In some companies, the wall appears to be calloinspg. Recently, the nation's largest broadcaster, Sinclair btcrdoaasnig gruop, which owns and operates more than 190 stations, engaged in corporate manipulation when it required dozens of anchors to read a script the company had provided. The push for profits is also pressuring journalists to muddy their judgment with wirroes about reaching cklics, ratings and circulation glaos. This can afecft the decisions they make about what stories to cover, what interviews to do and how hleaiends and teasers should be weitrtn. The public is not stupid. It can sense these motives in the work and the hype. It knows the truth is in trouble. How do we make things right and defend our access to accurate, verifiable reporting, which according to our nation's Founding Fathers, our democracy needs to survive? We need a renaissance in journalism. (Applause) And it is actually possible that it is already beginning. We can see some of our nation's newspapers and magazines, in stpie of everything, leading a rebirth, doubling down on serious, competitive and groundbreaking shoe-leather janrlsuoim, working to tell all the nuances of the stories they're covering, including both domestic and foreign. Our citizens are awakening to the reasons journalism is vital in a doraecmcy. They're renedmid by the movies "Spotlight" and "The Post," and they're increasingly demanding and supporting quality work, and in some cases, they are even donating to the ctmemtioe to Protect Journalists. And journalists can be seen increasingly sntdniag up to corporate prueserss, including at the Denver Post and at Sinclair TV stotians. They're also pushing across pfaomrlts to do smarter and more ipcumftal reporting and bnaelacd stories. And in some newsrooms, editors are reviving investigative reporting. (Applause) Credibility lost is never fully regained. But what survives can be protected, and new bridges can be built by the journalists still to come. For that to happen, for news organizations to better erudne attacks on their credibility, journalists must be able to work with one motive: the public good. Corporate owners and executives must know how to stay in their lane and out of influencing what and how stories are cervoed. iostvnres and advertisers will need to stop prnesuirsg journalists to be their pot of gold and do what's right for this country: fund excellence and get out of the way. Editors and executive producers will have to fight harder against the blurring between opinion and news until all the stories we need to know, not just the ones or the one that might inecrase ratings and clicks. (Applause) Technologists should realize they are not journalists; they are patflorm creators and owners

Open Cloze

Who can we trust to tell us the truth? Once in another tumultuous era, as the _______ War, Watergate, the _____ ______ and Women's Liberation Movements were ___________ America to its core, my dad and I would watch Walter Cronkite, a man he trusted to tell us what was happening. Dad, a politically conservative career military man, cared a lot about this country and was determined to make sure he was well informed. He listened to the radio every morning, read the paper every afternoon, and watched the news on TV every evening before sitting down to dinner, or at some point, he would almost always launch a ______ about what was happening in the world. He'd pound the table and say something like "Don't those Vietnam war protesters know it's my country, right or wrong?" And I'd _____ with something like "But, Dad, don't they have a point? I mean, what are we doing in Vietnam?" And he'd puff up and get red in the face and respond with something like "I can't believe I'm hearing those words out of the mouth of my own daughter." (Laughter) Our arguments could get so loud, my brothers and sisters would sometimes pick up their plates to eat somewhere else. Dad really liked to win these arguments. But even when he didn't, he'd _______ my opinion. Sometimes, he would even say, "Ann, I don't always agree with you, but I'd still vote for you for President." (Laughter) (________) There were times, however, usually when Walter was off and someone else was ____________, when Dad would hear something on the _______ news that would alarm him far more than the _______ of the day. All it would take was one ______, a _______ tone of voice, a ______ _______, or even just a single word that struck Dad as opinionated, and he was offended. Suddenly, he was shaking his finger at the television set, shouting, "Stop telling me what to think! Just give me the facts!" And then he would look over at me and say, "See, Ann? He's disrespecting us, trying to tell us what to think as if we were stupid and can't make up our own minds." Boy, if my dad could see what counts for some of TV journalism _____. (Laughter) (Applause) He would want to be right up here with me, standing right next to me, suggesting an idea that might be worth spreading. Journalism is only trustworthy when it dependably offers accurate, verifiable facts, not bias and ___________, and not for ratings, circulation or clicks (Applause) or for any financial or political motivation, but with one ______ and one motive only: to reveal the truth for the greater public good. The bridge to trust is _____, and it's time to make things right. (Applause) (Cheers) What do we define as truth? Well, lately I've wondered if we've all gotten a little confused about what truth is and what it isn't. People ask, "Whose truth?" uncertain if objective, absolute truth even exists, thinking, as some philosophers have ______, that as it requires human judgment, truth is ultimately subjective. As others see it, reporters can't be fair and unbiased, because being humans, of course they have opinions and so should at least tell us what those opinions are. Other ______, who've _______ objective facts now seem less influential than emotion and personal beliefs in shaping public opinion, have gone so far as to say we live in a post-truth era. To all this, my dad would say, "Balderdash!" (Laughter) He was a Navy man who didn't like to swear - go figure. I, however, don't seem to have that problem. (Laughter) (Applause) So maybe I should just call it what it is: FUBAR - Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. (Applause) (Cheers) I appreciate philosophers, but not being one, I can't settle the "Is truth subjective or objective?" debate. Though it does seem to be an objective, __________ fact that I'm standing on this stage and that I'm a little nervous, worried that I may have overdressed, and I'm wishing that I wore more comfortable shoes. (Laughter) There is actually compelling evidence that humans can be fair and impartial, not just from the _______ biblical story of Solomon, but from the known science, which tell us that ________ along with empathy are fundamental human ______, deeply rooted in our genetics. If it wasn't for these traits, we might not even be able to live amongst each other. And as a reporter, I know you can get in so deep, listening to and documenting all sides of the story, searching for the truth, that you don't even know what your own opinion is. I know because I've done it. And because we as a species cannot live long, cannot long endure without objective _____, unelaborated and ___________, it can be argued they still and will always matter. We need truth. Perhaps especially from journalism, which, when practiced well, can help us see each other and ourselves more honestly, tell us what we need to know to be smarter citizens, show us how to live healthier and more _________ lives, and even warn us when we need to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from ______. Post-truth? Really? We do seem to be experiencing a loss of credibility, a demise in the face of a rising tide of lies, in our _______ to trust what we're told are objective facts are either _________ or facts. Where does the information that's sowing this ________ and confusion come from? And what is it doing to us and the quality of our relationships with each other? Instead of a Walter Cronkite today, i.e., someone who a significant number of people trust, we are _______ to an overwhelming number of sources of information on multiple platforms, working around the clock to get our attention, some _________ to _________ manipulate us with lies and propaganda, some inept, ________ out incomplete, misleading or poorly-sourced information and some doing exemplary reporting but still doubted almost as much for any mistakes or _________ bias. The net impact of all of this is a chaotic overload of competing, conflicting and confusing information. And while our brains are truly excellent at collecting data, we're not always so _____ at remembering where we got it. So what we _____ from a trusted source can easily get jumbled up in our brains with what we read on a website, saw in a tweet or a video ______ on Facebook or heard from a ______ ___________ on _____ television. If you ever saw the David Bowie _____ "The Man Who Fell to Earth" - I sometimes feel we're all in that scene in which he's watching a huge wall of TV monitors, each one _____ to a different channel, and suddenly, he can't take it anymore, and he starts yelling, "Get out of my mind, all of you!" Bet you didn't expect a David Bowie reference today. (Laughter) Perhaps never before have so many consumed so much news and yet have been so woefully misinformed. When, in this swirling chaos, can we be certain the information we need or want to know is ________? The internet is an abyss as well as a wonderland. It mirrors the darkest dark in us and the brightest light of humanity and all there is in between. And because of it, no matter what comes next in journalism, there now seems no doubt that you and me and every one of us must become a better editor. So here, from one journalist's playbook, are some tried and true strategies that might up your game. Focus on defense and develop a skill for listening to both sides of a story even if it pains you. Realize - (Applause) _______ virtually every source wants a story told as he or she sees it. That means even seemingly good, honest people can tell you just the facts that support their point of view, sometimes _______ out key details. They might even distort the facts, purposely misdirect you or even out-and-out lie. Ask yourself, "What's the motivating force for this source to tell the story?" And could that motivation be influencing the story that you're getting? Then ask, "Is this source in a position, having been an eyewitness or having some _________, to even know what is true?" Or is he or she wasting your time with speculation? And because even eyewitnesses and experts can get it wrong, you have to seek out sources from other ______ of view and then critically _______ their motivations and credibility as well. ______ is the truth one-sided; it tends to be nuanced. (Applause) And it's not always fair. But you may never find it unless you ______ fairly, with a mind that is truly open. And then, even if you think you have a balanced view of the story, you have to reexamine the facts and motivations and ___________ of your sources one more time to make sure you weren't played or ___________. And if your sources are anonymous, you better check and double check again. It is exhausting, but after this Sherlock Holmes-ing, you usually get the facts that people need to know to make up their own minds. This is Journalism 101, how we're _______ in journalism schools to work in defense of truth. Why are even long-trusted news organizations that know how to gather the facts vulnerable to attacks on their credibility? Journalism tends to be vulnerable because of the enormous power of credible ___________. When we believe the same _____, we can find a common purpose and work together. This is what has made humans an unstoppable force throughout our _______. The historian Yuval ______ ________ this is why we are the only human species to _______ when once there were at least six and why we've risen from the middle of the animal kingdom, once huddled around _____ in fear of being eaten, to now the top, having the power to ______ what species live or die, and how we ourselves will evolve from here. This power to move people is why everyone wants to control the narrative, why truth is ______ over and is the victim, usually the first victim, especially in war. It's why journalists, as messengers of truth, are physically ________ in some parts of the world and even killed. At the same time, unfortunately, journalism is not like mathematics, in which two plus two is always four. Journalism is by humans, about humans and for ______ and so is __________ as fallible as humans and as vulnerable to criticism. Add to that, the job is to ask ______ questions, to push past the norms of good manners for honest answers, and then to race to report stories that can be controversial, ____________ or infuriating. If you want to be popular, don't be a journalist. (________) Of course, it doesn't help journalism's credibility when it's under constant attack by political leaders in the ______ States and around the world. (Applause) It doesn't help that ________ technologies have eliminated or __________ hundreds of _____ __________ around the country and have failed, so far, to replace them with anything close to the same quality and range of credible reporting. (Applause) But perhaps what is making journalism most __________ is that in this industry _____, some media __________, __________ to keep making money for their _________ ______, are pressuring journalists to make choices that weaken their credibility. The ________ for profits is one reason we have witnessed the stunning growth of openly biased news coverage, especially on cable television, where not everyone who is telling us the news is actually a journalist. Some are _________ with political _______, some are activists, some are former political operatives, and some are what were once called "opinionaters," people whose profession is to give their opinions and theories. So now I'm the one yelling at the television set: "Just give me the facts! Stop trying to tell us what to think!" (Applause) Opinion, __________ and supported with facts, has an _________ _____ in journalism, but it is not news. Thus, allowing _______ to think it's news, to fail to differentiate it, is fundamentally dishonest. News is not left or right; it's based on facts that are either right or wrong. (Applause) And for the record, ranting from any point of view is not journalism. Besides, it has serious side effects: it makes you look a little nuts. (Laughter) In the quest for profits, corporate owners are punching holes through the long-standing wall protecting ___________ from corporate meddling. In some companies, the wall is crumbling. I have heard a _______ from corporate executives to kill a news story. I have seen a media company's advertising side try to get ________ placed in a news broadcast. In some companies, the wall appears to be __________. Recently, the nation's largest broadcaster, Sinclair ____________ _____, which owns and operates more than 190 stations, engaged in corporate manipulation when it required dozens of anchors to read a script the company had provided. The push for profits is also pressuring journalists to muddy their judgment with _______ about reaching ______, ratings and circulation _____. This can ______ the decisions they make about what stories to cover, what interviews to do and how _________ and teasers should be _______. The public is not stupid. It can sense these motives in the work and the hype. It knows the truth is in trouble. How do we make things right and defend our access to accurate, verifiable reporting, which according to our nation's Founding Fathers, our democracy needs to survive? We need a renaissance in journalism. (Applause) And it is actually possible that it is already beginning. We can see some of our nation's newspapers and magazines, in _____ of everything, leading a rebirth, doubling down on serious, competitive and groundbreaking shoe-leather __________, working to tell all the nuances of the stories they're covering, including both domestic and foreign. Our citizens are awakening to the reasons journalism is vital in a _________. They're ________ by the movies "Spotlight" and "The Post," and they're increasingly demanding and supporting quality work, and in some cases, they are even donating to the _________ to Protect Journalists. And journalists can be seen increasingly ________ up to corporate _________, including at the Denver Post and at Sinclair TV ________. They're also pushing across _________ to do smarter and more _________ reporting and ________ stories. And in some newsrooms, editors are reviving investigative reporting. (Applause) Credibility lost is never fully regained. But what survives can be protected, and new bridges can be built by the journalists still to come. For that to happen, for news organizations to better ______ attacks on their credibility, journalists must be able to work with one motive: the public good. Corporate owners and executives must know how to stay in their lane and out of influencing what and how stories are _______. _________ and advertisers will need to stop __________ journalists to be their pot of gold and do what's right for this country: fund excellence and get out of the way. Editors and executive producers will have to fight harder against the blurring between opinion and news until all the stories we need to know, not just the ones or the one that might ________ ratings and clicks. (Applause) Technologists should realize they are not journalists; they are ________ creators and owners

Solution

changed
broadcasting
democracy
viewers
noticed
evening
ability
local
humans
endure
advocates
debate
traits
search
movie
substituting
eyebrow
leaving
suggests
products
learn
information
posted
executives
impactful
fairness
truth
vulnerable
perceived
today
journalism
vietnam
committee
exposed
survive
investors
pressures
expertise
raised
pressuring
fires
emerging
goals
pundit
cable
manipulated
verifiable
reputations
spite
facts
points
rights
fought
shift
increase
speculation
civil
balanced
realize
challenging
platforms
trained
thoughtful
struggling
distrust
people
argued
collapsing
headlines
worries
agendas
group
harari
stations
attacked
decide
motivated
unvarnished
pressure
tuned
speculating
rarely
reminded
connected
story
affect
clicks
objective
request
applause
phrase
purposely
standing
prying
inherently
respect
embarrassing
stories
united
important
covered
motive
examine
diminished
react
owners
journalists
newspapers
corporate
shelling
great
written
ancient
place
danger
laughter
platform
accurate
history

Original Text

Who can we trust to tell us the truth? Once in another tumultuous era, as the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Civil Rights and Women's Liberation Movements were challenging America to its core, my dad and I would watch Walter Cronkite, a man he trusted to tell us what was happening. Dad, a politically conservative career military man, cared a lot about this country and was determined to make sure he was well informed. He listened to the radio every morning, read the paper every afternoon, and watched the news on TV every evening before sitting down to dinner, or at some point, he would almost always launch a debate about what was happening in the world. He'd pound the table and say something like "Don't those Vietnam war protesters know it's my country, right or wrong?" And I'd react with something like "But, Dad, don't they have a point? I mean, what are we doing in Vietnam?" And he'd puff up and get red in the face and respond with something like "I can't believe I'm hearing those words out of the mouth of my own daughter." (Laughter) Our arguments could get so loud, my brothers and sisters would sometimes pick up their plates to eat somewhere else. Dad really liked to win these arguments. But even when he didn't, he'd respect my opinion. Sometimes, he would even say, "Ann, I don't always agree with you, but I'd still vote for you for President." (Laughter) (Applause) There were times, however, usually when Walter was off and someone else was substituting, when Dad would hear something on the evening news that would alarm him far more than the stories of the day. All it would take was one phrase, a changed tone of voice, a raised eyebrow, or even just a single word that struck Dad as opinionated, and he was offended. Suddenly, he was shaking his finger at the television set, shouting, "Stop telling me what to think! Just give me the facts!" And then he would look over at me and say, "See, Ann? He's disrespecting us, trying to tell us what to think as if we were stupid and can't make up our own minds." Boy, if my dad could see what counts for some of TV journalism today. (Laughter) (Applause) He would want to be right up here with me, standing right next to me, suggesting an idea that might be worth spreading. Journalism is only trustworthy when it dependably offers accurate, verifiable facts, not bias and speculation, and not for ratings, circulation or clicks (Applause) or for any financial or political motivation, but with one motive and one motive only: to reveal the truth for the greater public good. The bridge to trust is truth, and it's time to make things right. (Applause) (Cheers) What do we define as truth? Well, lately I've wondered if we've all gotten a little confused about what truth is and what it isn't. People ask, "Whose truth?" uncertain if objective, absolute truth even exists, thinking, as some philosophers have argued, that as it requires human judgment, truth is ultimately subjective. As others see it, reporters can't be fair and unbiased, because being humans, of course they have opinions and so should at least tell us what those opinions are. Other people, who've noticed objective facts now seem less influential than emotion and personal beliefs in shaping public opinion, have gone so far as to say we live in a post-truth era. To all this, my dad would say, "Balderdash!" (Laughter) He was a Navy man who didn't like to swear - go figure. I, however, don't seem to have that problem. (Laughter) (Applause) So maybe I should just call it what it is: FUBAR - Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. (Applause) (Cheers) I appreciate philosophers, but not being one, I can't settle the "Is truth subjective or objective?" debate. Though it does seem to be an objective, verifiable fact that I'm standing on this stage and that I'm a little nervous, worried that I may have overdressed, and I'm wishing that I wore more comfortable shoes. (Laughter) There is actually compelling evidence that humans can be fair and impartial, not just from the ancient biblical story of Solomon, but from the known science, which tell us that fairness along with empathy are fundamental human traits, deeply rooted in our genetics. If it wasn't for these traits, we might not even be able to live amongst each other. And as a reporter, I know you can get in so deep, listening to and documenting all sides of the story, searching for the truth, that you don't even know what your own opinion is. I know because I've done it. And because we as a species cannot live long, cannot long endure without objective facts, unelaborated and unvarnished, it can be argued they still and will always matter. We need truth. Perhaps especially from journalism, which, when practiced well, can help us see each other and ourselves more honestly, tell us what we need to know to be smarter citizens, show us how to live healthier and more connected lives, and even warn us when we need to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from danger. Post-truth? Really? We do seem to be experiencing a loss of credibility, a demise in the face of a rising tide of lies, in our ability to trust what we're told are objective facts are either objective or facts. Where does the information that's sowing this distrust and confusion come from? And what is it doing to us and the quality of our relationships with each other? Instead of a Walter Cronkite today, i.e., someone who a significant number of people trust, we are exposed to an overwhelming number of sources of information on multiple platforms, working around the clock to get our attention, some motivated to purposely manipulate us with lies and propaganda, some inept, shelling out incomplete, misleading or poorly-sourced information and some doing exemplary reporting but still doubted almost as much for any mistakes or perceived bias. The net impact of all of this is a chaotic overload of competing, conflicting and confusing information. And while our brains are truly excellent at collecting data, we're not always so great at remembering where we got it. So what we learn from a trusted source can easily get jumbled up in our brains with what we read on a website, saw in a tweet or a video posted on Facebook or heard from a pundit speculating on cable television. If you ever saw the David Bowie movie "The Man Who Fell to Earth" - I sometimes feel we're all in that scene in which he's watching a huge wall of TV monitors, each one tuned to a different channel, and suddenly, he can't take it anymore, and he starts yelling, "Get out of my mind, all of you!" Bet you didn't expect a David Bowie reference today. (Laughter) Perhaps never before have so many consumed so much news and yet have been so woefully misinformed. When, in this swirling chaos, can we be certain the information we need or want to know is accurate? The internet is an abyss as well as a wonderland. It mirrors the darkest dark in us and the brightest light of humanity and all there is in between. And because of it, no matter what comes next in journalism, there now seems no doubt that you and me and every one of us must become a better editor. So here, from one journalist's playbook, are some tried and true strategies that might up your game. Focus on defense and develop a skill for listening to both sides of a story even if it pains you. Realize - (Applause) Realize virtually every source wants a story told as he or she sees it. That means even seemingly good, honest people can tell you just the facts that support their point of view, sometimes leaving out key details. They might even distort the facts, purposely misdirect you or even out-and-out lie. Ask yourself, "What's the motivating force for this source to tell the story?" And could that motivation be influencing the story that you're getting? Then ask, "Is this source in a position, having been an eyewitness or having some expertise, to even know what is true?" Or is he or she wasting your time with speculation? And because even eyewitnesses and experts can get it wrong, you have to seek out sources from other points of view and then critically examine their motivations and credibility as well. Rarely is the truth one-sided; it tends to be nuanced. (Applause) And it's not always fair. But you may never find it unless you search fairly, with a mind that is truly open. And then, even if you think you have a balanced view of the story, you have to reexamine the facts and motivations and reputations of your sources one more time to make sure you weren't played or manipulated. And if your sources are anonymous, you better check and double check again. It is exhausting, but after this Sherlock Holmes-ing, you usually get the facts that people need to know to make up their own minds. This is Journalism 101, how we're trained in journalism schools to work in defense of truth. Why are even long-trusted news organizations that know how to gather the facts vulnerable to attacks on their credibility? Journalism tends to be vulnerable because of the enormous power of credible information. When we believe the same story, we can find a common purpose and work together. This is what has made humans an unstoppable force throughout our history. The historian Yuval Harari suggests this is why we are the only human species to survive when once there were at least six and why we've risen from the middle of the animal kingdom, once huddled around fires in fear of being eaten, to now the top, having the power to decide what species live or die, and how we ourselves will evolve from here. This power to move people is why everyone wants to control the narrative, why truth is fought over and is the victim, usually the first victim, especially in war. It's why journalists, as messengers of truth, are physically attacked in some parts of the world and even killed. At the same time, unfortunately, journalism is not like mathematics, in which two plus two is always four. Journalism is by humans, about humans and for humans and so is inherently as fallible as humans and as vulnerable to criticism. Add to that, the job is to ask prying questions, to push past the norms of good manners for honest answers, and then to race to report stories that can be controversial, embarrassing or infuriating. If you want to be popular, don't be a journalist. (Laughter) Of course, it doesn't help journalism's credibility when it's under constant attack by political leaders in the United States and around the world. (Applause) It doesn't help that emerging technologies have eliminated or diminished hundreds of local newspapers around the country and have failed, so far, to replace them with anything close to the same quality and range of credible reporting. (Applause) But perhaps what is making journalism most vulnerable is that in this industry shift, some media executives, struggling to keep making money for their corporate owners, are pressuring journalists to make choices that weaken their credibility. The pressure for profits is one reason we have witnessed the stunning growth of openly biased news coverage, especially on cable television, where not everyone who is telling us the news is actually a journalist. Some are advocates with political agendas, some are activists, some are former political operatives, and some are what were once called "opinionaters," people whose profession is to give their opinions and theories. So now I'm the one yelling at the television set: "Just give me the facts! Stop trying to tell us what to think!" (Applause) Opinion, thoughtful and supported with facts, has an important place in journalism, but it is not news. Thus, allowing viewers to think it's news, to fail to differentiate it, is fundamentally dishonest. News is not left or right; it's based on facts that are either right or wrong. (Applause) And for the record, ranting from any point of view is not journalism. Besides, it has serious side effects: it makes you look a little nuts. (Laughter) In the quest for profits, corporate owners are punching holes through the long-standing wall protecting journalists from corporate meddling. In some companies, the wall is crumbling. I have heard a request from corporate executives to kill a news story. I have seen a media company's advertising side try to get products placed in a news broadcast. In some companies, the wall appears to be collapsing. Recently, the nation's largest broadcaster, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns and operates more than 190 stations, engaged in corporate manipulation when it required dozens of anchors to read a script the company had provided. The push for profits is also pressuring journalists to muddy their judgment with worries about reaching clicks, ratings and circulation goals. This can affect the decisions they make about what stories to cover, what interviews to do and how headlines and teasers should be written. The public is not stupid. It can sense these motives in the work and the hype. It knows the truth is in trouble. How do we make things right and defend our access to accurate, verifiable reporting, which according to our nation's Founding Fathers, our democracy needs to survive? We need a renaissance in journalism. (Applause) And it is actually possible that it is already beginning. We can see some of our nation's newspapers and magazines, in spite of everything, leading a rebirth, doubling down on serious, competitive and groundbreaking shoe-leather journalism, working to tell all the nuances of the stories they're covering, including both domestic and foreign. Our citizens are awakening to the reasons journalism is vital in a democracy. They're reminded by the movies "Spotlight" and "The Post," and they're increasingly demanding and supporting quality work, and in some cases, they are even donating to the Committee to Protect Journalists. And journalists can be seen increasingly standing up to corporate pressures, including at the Denver Post and at Sinclair TV stations. They're also pushing across platforms to do smarter and more impactful reporting and balanced stories. And in some newsrooms, editors are reviving investigative reporting. (Applause) Credibility lost is never fully regained. But what survives can be protected, and new bridges can be built by the journalists still to come. For that to happen, for news organizations to better endure attacks on their credibility, journalists must be able to work with one motive: the public good. Corporate owners and executives must know how to stay in their lane and out of influencing what and how stories are covered. Investors and advertisers will need to stop pressuring journalists to be their pot of gold and do what's right for this country: fund excellence and get out of the way. Editors and executive producers will have to fight harder against the blurring between opinion and news until all the stories we need to know, not just the ones or the one that might increase ratings and clicks. (Applause) Technologists should realize they are not journalists; they are platform creators and owners

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
news organizations	3
pressuring journalists	3
public good	2
objective facts	2
david bowie	2
double check	2
corporate owners	2
executive producers	2

Important Words

ability
absolute
abyss
access
accurate
activists
add
advertisers
advertising
advocates
affect
afternoon
agendas
agree
alarm
allowing
america
anchors
ancient
animal
ann
anonymous
answers
anymore
appears
applause
argued
arguments
attack
attacked
attacks
attention
awakening
balanced
based
beginning
beliefs
bet
bias
biased
biblical
blurring
bowie
boy
brains
bridge
bridges
brightest
broadcast
broadcaster
broadcasting
brothers
built
cable
call
called
cared
career
cases
challenging
changed
channel
chaos
chaotic
check
cheers
choices
circulation
citizens
civil
clicks
clock
close
collapsing
collecting
comfortable
committee
common
companies
company
compelling
competing
competitive
conflicting
confused
confusing
confusion
connected
conservative
constant
consumed
control
controversial
core
corporate
country
counts
cover
coverage
covered
covering
creators
credibility
credible
critically
criticism
cronkite
crumbling
dad
danger
dark
darkest
data
daughter
david
day
debate
decide
decisions
deep
deeply
defend
defense
define
demanding
demise
democracy
denver
dependably
details
determined
develop
die
differentiate
diminished
dinner
dishonest
disrespecting
distort
distrust
documenting
domestic
donating
double
doubling
doubt
doubted
dozens
easily
eat
eaten
editor
editors
eliminated
embarrassing
emerging
emotion
empathy
endure
engaged
enormous
era
evening
evidence
evolve
examine
excellence
excellent
executive
executives
exemplary
exhausting
exists
expect
experiencing
expertise
experts
exposed
eyebrow
eyewitness
eyewitnesses
face
facebook
fact
facts
fail
failed
fair
fairness
fallible
fathers
fear
feel
fell
fight
figure
financial
find
finger
fires
focus
force
foreign
fought
founding
fubar
fucked
fully
fund
fundamental
fundamentally
game
gather
genetics
give
goals
gold
good
great
greater
groundbreaking
group
growth
happen
happening
harari
harder
headlines
healthier
hear
heard
hearing
historian
history
holes
honest
honestly
huddled
huge
human
humanity
humans
hundreds
hype
idea
impact
impactful
impartial
important
including
incomplete
increase
increasingly
industry
inept
influencing
influential
information
informed
infuriating
inherently
internet
interviews
investigative
investors
job
journalism
journalist
journalists
judgment
jumbled
key
kill
killed
kingdom
lane
largest
laughter
launch
leaders
leading
learn
leaving
left
liberation
lie
lies
light
listened
listening
live
lives
local
long
loss
lost
lot
loud
loved
magazines
making
man
manipulate
manipulated
manipulation
manners
mathematics
matter
means
meddling
media
messengers
middle
military
mind
minds
mirrors
misdirect
misinformed
misleading
mistakes
money
monitors
morning
motivated
motivating
motivation
motivations
motive
motives
mouth
move
movements
movie
movies
muddy
multiple
narrative
navy
nervous
net
news
newspapers
newsrooms
norms
noticed
nuanced
nuances
number
nuts
objective
offended
offers
open
openly
operates
operatives
opinion
opinionated
opinions
organizations
overdressed
overload
overwhelming
owners
owns
pains
paper
parts
people
perceived
personal
philosophers
phrase
physically
pick
place
plates
platform
platforms
playbook
played
point
points
political
politically
popular
position
post
posted
pot
pound
power
practiced
president
pressure
pressures
pressuring
problem
producers
products
profession
profits
propaganda
protect
protected
protecting
protesters
prying
public
puff
punching
pundit
purpose
purposely
push
pushing
quality
quest
questions
race
radio
raised
range
ranting
rarely
ratings
reaching
react
read
realize
reason
reasons
rebirth
recognition
record
red
reexamine
reference
regained
relationships
remembering
reminded
renaissance
replace
report
reporter
reporters
reporting
reputations
request
required
requires
respect
respond
reveal
reviving
rights
risen
rising
rooted
safe
scene
schools
science
script
search
searching
seek
seemingly
sees
sense
set
settle
shaking
shaping
shelling
sherlock
shift
shoes
shouting
show
side
sides
significant
sinclair
single
sisters
sitting
skill
smarter
solomon
source
sources
sowing
species
speculating
speculation
spite
spreading
stage
standing
starts
states
stations
stay
stop
stories
story
strategies
struck
struggling
stunning
stupid
subjective
substituting
suddenly
suggesting
suggests
support
supported
supporting
survive
survives
swear
swirling
table
teasers
technologies
technologists
television
telling
theories
thinking
thoughtful
tide
time
times
today
told
tone
top
trained
traits
trouble
true
trust
trusted
trustworthy
truth
tumultuous
tuned
tv
tweet
ultimately
unbiased
uncertain
unelaborated
united
unstoppable
unvarnished
verifiable
victim
video
vietnam
view
viewers
virtually
vital
voice
vote
vulnerable
wall
walter
war
warn
wasting
watch
watched
watching
watergate
weaken
website
win
wishing
witnessed
woefully
wondered
wonderland
word
words
wore
work
working
world
worried
worries
worth
written
wrong
yelling
yuval