At the start of my physics courses, I carve out some time for the basics of science. It’s important that students have a sense of what science actually is, what it can tell us about fact and truth, as well as what it can’t.  Journalism often purports to do the same–to tell us about fact and truth–though with less formal structure as to who plays the part of decider.  More often than not, reporters and editors take on this role for themselves.

Getting to truth

It’s not at all uncommon to hear Colorado journalists talk about what’s true and what isn’t, usually in the context of a “shared reality.”  Local media spirit-animal Kyle Clark from 9News has made a part time job of it.  At a  2024 discussion hosted by the University of Denver (DU), Clark proclaimed: “When societies do not have shared realities—basic sets of facts that people understand to be true for them to bring their own life experiences, ideas and impressions to—dangerous things happen in society, people turn against their neighbors in unimaginable ways, which suddenly become entirely imaginable when you understand that people believe untruths about others and situations.”

He’s not alone. The Denver Post’s Jon Murray, in a sit down with Independence Institute president Jon Caldara, said (at about the 5:42 mark), “Whether we disagree, agree or disagree, on the causes of it [any given problem], the lack of having, you know, common set of facts that we’re all basing the same conversation on is always a problem.”

I don’t disagree.  We are wise to ground discussions and approach the world from a standpoint of shared fact and truth. Starting at the idea of shared reality, however, puts the cart before the horse; it misses an important, fundamental step.  Before deciding what’s true and what isn’t, you need to determine the rules for fact and truth in any given context.

News media often skips this step; all too often they (consciously or not) figure they are the judge.

I’m not making the simplistic claim that truth and fact are relative, but rather you use different tools to divide truth from non-truth for different situations.  In answer to the question “what’s the meaning of life?” you might turn to scripture, a pastor, or perhaps turn inward.  Science can’t provide the answer because the question cannot be found false via experiment.  If you try to use the formal rules of science in answering that question, you are trying to turn a bolt with a screwdriver.

To avoid that mistake, prior to anyone claiming something is fact or not, we should stop and ask “what is the nature of the question?”  Is it a question of faith?  A scientific question?  A legal question?

Putting aside the complication that the media intentionally or unintentionally shape our reality in a feedback loop with where they put their attention, some also feel it is their job to tell us what is real or not based on their own experience, research, or what the friendly experts they have on speed dial think. They put themselves right in the middle of the question of fact and truth as referees, while sidestepping the nature of the question part.

The deciders

A recent documentary titled “Truth Be Told” has a quintessential example.  At about the 10:15 mark, 9News reporter Marshal Zelinger discusses his reporting about the failed attempt to make Douglas County a home rule jurisdiction. “You watched as I interviewed Douglas County, a commissioner, about a ballot issue, that I couldn’t use most of what that commissioner told me on TV because it wasn’t factually accurate. It wasn’t true to what the ballot issue would actually do, and instead of putting it on TV or in the story and then explain why it wasn’t true, I made the editorial choice that I just couldn’t show viewers that specific part of the interview.”

This echoes something fellow 9News colleague Clark said at DU (quoting here from a Colorado News Collaborative blog post by journalism professor Corey Hutchins): “Asked about journalism’s role in an age of echo chambers and a death of expertise, Clark said one thing it’s not is ‘for journalists to retreat into he-said-she-said and let people figure it out on their own. That’s lazy, that’s cowardly.'”

Clark continues, “‘I think objectivity is something that the public desires, but I think that too many journalists have used the guise of objectivity to do very shoddy work and to avoid telling the truth about things. I think what people want is the truth. I think what people want is for someone to say ‘I’ve looked at the fact set, I’ve talked to the key players, I’ve brought to bear every brain cell I have to rub together, and this is what appears to be going on here’ — and not to couch that and make that something that I tell my friends at parties and don’t tell you. If I know something, I tell you. That’s the bargain.’”

Besides being presumptuous, this approach to journalism is lazy.  Without seeing what parts of the interview Zelinger decided he couldn’t show us, I am not comfortable getting too specific, but if they mirror claims in a contemporaneous written article, the disagreement here seems to be one of legal interpretation.

Now stop.  Ask the question.  When it comes to this type of disagreement, who is the decider here?  Ultimately it’s the courts, not Mr. Zelinger.  The example cited in the written article might be a legal interpretation that you’d struggle to get a judge to agree to, but until there is specific case law, there is no certainty as to absolute fact and truth (and not even entirely then given the nature of judicial rulings).

Instead of his paternalistic approach, it would’ve been less editorializing and more honest for Zelinger to share what the commissioner said, tell viewers what defines true in this situation, and then share whether that has been tested. This respects the commissioner, the process, and, most importantly, you, the news consumer.

A little humility can’t hurt

I’m not comfortable with any journalist deciding true from false, whether I am ideologically in line with them or not.  First, many lack the training and education to speak competently or sift through what an expert tells them.  I’m no different in that regard.  I’ve said multiple times that I know nothing about things such as raising cattle or farming and leave what I write open to comment by those that do know.

Second, even in hard science, facts can change.  Sticking to examples that are relatively recent, there was a long and hard fight to convince researchers that tumors recruit their own blood supply.  Everyone that was anyone in cancer research knew that was a fanciful theory.  Returning to journalists, even 9News’ own Kyle Clark seems to have had to reverse course about the COVID lab leak theory.

Reality is messy, complicated, and apt to change.  I would much rather see reporters take the humble and honest approach hinted at in Clark’s earlier statement, “this is what appears to be going on here” than the certainty displayed by Zelinger.  The doubt, the room for different interpretation, is our true shared reality.

Cory Gaines teaches college physics and is a regular contributor to Complete Colorado.  He lives in Sterling on Colorado’s Eastern Plains.  He also writes at the Colorado Accountability Project substack.