A Matter Of Trust

When the coverage began Friday night about the death of newscaster Walter Cronkite, one of the first things I heard was how he was considered the "most trusted journalist".

It immediately dawned on me that if I were to be described as a journalist, trusted would be the word I'd want.

That's what has always been my goal as a reporter. I wanted people to pick up the paper or magazine and see my name and immediately associate it with credibility. They'd read the story with full knowledge that they not only believed in my work but trusted it.

That's how I view other reporters. I see who the story is written by. If it is work by a journalist I respect, I'll likely read it and believe what I find in the story. If it is written by a reporter that I don't trust, I might bypass it completely or solely read it because I'm sure they'll have screwed up something so badly in the piece that I'll likely get a good laugh out of it.

I do the same for TV journalists. If Tim Russert reported something, I'd trust it. Same goes currently for someone like Chuck Todd or Andrea Mitchell. If it's one of those Fox nitwits, I won't even take it seriously. Most of the local sports talking heads are laughable. They try to be funny, when they're not and obviously lack knowledge of what they're covering. One TV journalist had to be rescued last week by their photographer - oh, sorry - their photo journalist - because when a golf ball was flying towards them and people yelled "Fore" they just stood there and nearly got hit.

Now, I know some people don't look at news the same way I do. It doesn't matter to them who is delivering the news. They don't care whose by-line is on the story. I've had people approach me to commend me for a story that they really liked - the only problem would be that I didn't write it.

Then there are others that when they hear my name, they'll be like "Oh yeah, I read your stuff all the time" or maybe they just remember my mug from the football picks we used to make.

It really doesn't matter to me whether they remember my name or not. I'm not in the business to literally make a name for myself. What I do care about is that if they do bother to remember my name that they associate that with quality work and trust.

I've been fortunate. I think I've been able to do that. I often show up at various sporting events and am told by coaches and athletic staff that they're glad to see me there - as opposed to other reporters that they can't stand or can't trust. Granted, sometimes they're happy to see me just so they don't have to report the score later.

I've had some tell me things off the record and beg me not to print it - citing the fact that another reporter they know would likely do just that, despite being told not to. That's a good way to give journalists a bad reputation.

When I was recognized by the Maine Interscholastic Athletic Administrator's Association last spring, one athletic director gave me one of the greatest compliments anyone had ever given me. He told me that people trusted me. And as if that weren't enough , he told me that I was one of the few that people could.

I work for a paper that could care less about the work I do or the credibility I've established. I can't remember the last time one of the powers that be commended me for a job well done and told me I was appreciated. Heck, when I was given the media award by the MIAAA last spring, the SJ made no mention of it in the paper or to me. I guess I can't complain. At least they gave me the night off, which is more than they were going to do for my father's funeral.

But, I'm not out to impress them. I'm not out to make a star out of myself like some reporters. I'm there to be a journalist. I want to to do quality work, treat the job and the people I deal with with respect and understanding. In turn, I want respect and trust.

I think I've not only been able to establish that but have also earned it. Coaches, players, fans and readers have come to understand, and hopefully appreciate, that.

The problem some newspapers have now is that they're losing that trust with readers and the people they're reporting on. I see many reporters that are just plain lazy and lacking knowledge about the event they're covering. Doing a half-assed job is just as good to them. There are others whose ego's are so big that they get in the way of their work and credibility. They like to brag about how much they do and how good they are - when they're not all that good at all.

I don't know how much time I've got left in this business. I've had one foot out the door numerous times. It is still a job I can enjoy and feel like I make a difference in.

Who knows where the newspaper business is going. The media is evolving into a faster-paced environment where the foundations of who, what, where, when and why are being replaced by sound bites, tweets and web posts. Journalists are trying to be media stars as opposed to doing their job credibly. It can be rather disgusting to watch because the job and its role is being diminished. I still think there is a place for trust in the media, but I fear that it is losing its place as journalism becomes more about entertainment and egos than it is about information and serving the public's interests.

I'm sure there will be a lot of talk about Cronkite's death and acknowledgement that he's of a by-gone era and that there won't be many like him anymore. That's kind of a scary thought.