Objectivity or equal time

Nice quote in today's paper attributable to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, about why he doesn't do interviews:

"In the past, the media often have their own script... (They) have been universally untrustworthy because they have their own notions..."

I actually say "nice" in an ironic, somewhat sarcastic tone, because we all know how difficult & controversial the Clarence Thomas confirmation proceedings went nearly 15 years ago. Sometimes, the subject will bring the controversies, issues & questions on his/herself.

But it is still the goal of the news media to promote unbiased stories (though "sweeps week" in TV broadcast media blemishes that idea) wherever possible. This is the ultimate goal of a TV interviewer who decides not to go the Jerry Springer route. People may witness emotions in interviews, but they tune in mostly to get factual information about issues.

I actually found it hard to watch a few local public affairs shows two years ago during election season, where the mayoral candidate of my old hometown was interviewed by a show host who had done business with her before. He was promoting a forum on a hotly-contested mayoral race. Were they younger, I'm sure they would have high-fived each other through the interview.

What kept him from getting the Clarence Thomas stigma is that he granted equal time to the remaining candidates; each received their own half-hour forum. The host could afford to be "biased" for one half-hour; provided he return the favor for the other candidates.

Half my later years in TV production were on interview shows like this one. So, for interviewers who want to give the medium a better name than it has now (print as well as electronic journalism), show objectivity, even if you've done your field research and may find some issues.

If not, then be sure your program is not a "one-time special", and be prepared to host differing points of view. My best friend's mother years ago taught me there were two sides to every story, and the complete person heard both sides.

If you want to avoid Supreme Court intervention (lol), you'll take the objective route.