龜趣來嘻

This means not just recognizing that on most matters there are multiple points of view out there as opposed to a single, discoverable “truth,” but also — and this is just as important — acknowledging that the world is a complicated place, and the stories and issues we cover are not always reducible to simple, television-friendly explanations.

However, that cannot be an excuse for us to shrug our shoulders and abdicate our core responsibility to strive for the highest standards of accuracy, fairness, and thoroughness. We broadcast to a large and diverse audience, much of which does see mainstream news as “definitive” whether we acknowledge its limitations or not. And we cannot shy away from following the facts—and yes, there is such a thing as a fact—where they take us.

Two: Yes to Point-of-View Journalism

We have to figure out a way to incorporate point of view, even while protecting the notion of fair-minded journalism dedicated to accurate reporting without fear or favor. Put another way, point of view and even bias have to be something we report on even while we fight to recognize it in our own reporting and story selection. This is a really complex and nuanced area, not subject to glib solutions (like “Just acknowledge your own bias and everything will be fine.”).

Three: News Has an Authenticity Problem

We have to break down the tired formulas of television news and find a more authentic way of writing, speaking, and interacting with the people and subjects we report on. Artificial inflections and vocabulary (Pontiff instead of Pope, blaze instead of fire), predictable sound-bites, often-generic video, and stick-figure caricatures of human beings (victim, bureaucrat, cop, businessman, soccer mom) have turned the worst of television news into a kind of newzak— in one ear and out the other. The strongest exemplars of mainstream commercial television news—60 Minutes, CBS News Sunday Morning, the network newscasts at their best—stand out not just by original reporting but also by avoiding these traps. And I’m convinced a consumer-empowered marketplace will reward authenticity over artifice.

Andrew Heyward has been President of CBS News since January 1996, the second-longest of any president in the 47-year history of CBS News. (Richard Salant is number one.)

資料來源：PressThink:Andrew Heyward: The Era of Omniscience is Over

----------------------------------------------
10.21補記
我個人覺得，主流媒體能有這種體認已經很了不起了，當然，聽其言還得觀其行。不過morph的Gloria Pan顯然不是這麼想。她在這篇文章裡回應Heyward，並認為Heyward以及他所代表的主流媒體根本甚麼都沒搞懂，但稍嫌有點雞蛋裡挑骨頭了。

我猜她應該是很激進的獨立媒體主義者吧，和我不太一樣。她屬於那種主張「主流媒體的時代已經過去，草根媒體才是未來主流」的信仰者，也就是不管主流媒體做的多好多認真，都要等著被淘汰。但對我來說，如果主流媒體能做的好，能看得見公民的立場，那麼草根媒體並不需要那麼強勢地去取代主流媒體，而可以透過互相補充的方式進行競爭與合作。

而且就技術層次和實際面上來看，不管科技門檻降得多麼低，草根媒體要取代主流媒體實在有困難，更何況，草根和主流只是光譜的兩端，而不是絕對的二元關係，新的主流會不斷出現，新的草根也是。

相較之下，Tim Porter的評論和我比較類似，他說：
「Change does not come easily to successful people, especially those in rigid businesses like news, which depends on a fixed hierarchy, identifiable rules and a predetermined set of players. Top executives like Heyward don't suddenly wake up one morning and refute the principles, practices and processes that made them successful. ("Hey, everything I know is wrong!")

If it is true that change begins at the edges, in Heyward's comments, Sill's blogging and Goldberg's questioning of objectivity, I see the middle beginning to move.」