Browning chief. [volume] (Browning, Mont.) 1941-1953, 1944-01-14
Analysis of a
Reporters Job

AS sit down to my typewriter,
I sometimes try to visualize the
people who will read what I write
just as try to visualize the little
groups gathered about the loud
speaker when I talk to them.
Sometimes 1 shudder lest they ex-
aggerate the importance of the
things we reporters report.
I am not bit different from the
anxious anonymous reporter who,
after the last war, still clad in his
khaki shirt, wearing the Cd Cts
"GI' now tie and trench coat, who
came down to work and stumbled
around the various offices and meet
ings getting his stories and writing
them under the eagle eye of the
copy desk.
The reason I am worried now is
because I hear so many people talk
about the things "the Washington
correspondent" writes-or says on
the radicals gospel. Well, most OF
us try to report what we see and
hear. We don't always know wheth-
er it is true or false. We just try
to tell you about it. Most of us label
what we know and what we think.
Some do not.
Sometimes when we talk with peo-
pie we think really ought to know,
we report what they say with a lit
tie more confidence. If we can't
quote the Brass Hat" or the cabi-
net officer or the senator who told
us this or that we say authoritative
quoters." We are supposed to know
from experience whether what we
hear is sound fact or just wishful
thinking.
The longer we live, the better we
are able to judge between the real
people and the phonies. Most old
timers in the government don't try
to fool reporters because they know
they can only do that once. Maybe
twice.
You know the old Scotch proverb:
IF he cheats you once, shame on
him; if he cheats you twice, shame
on you"
Many people think that unless we
attack the party in power, we must
be in favor of it. That isn't true.
We know, as the old bull said, lone
COW is much as another" We know
that despite the different party re-
gala politicians display, they are
really pretty much alike once they
get into office-not as good as they
might be for the most part, seldom
as bad as the opposition paints them.
The Active Element
But the party in power is the &C.
tive element, it makes news because
it does things. The minority merely
objects. We report what is done.
Not because we approve or disap-
prove of what is done but because
that is concrete act. The opposi-
ton can do little more than oppose.
That is negative. We know that if
the opposition were in power, it
might do the same thing, and the
party in power, which would then
be the minority, would object.
That is hard for the partisan lay
man to understand. We know that.
We have ideas, too, and the party in
power usually has some pretty good
ones which the minority has to OBJ
ject to, merely on party grounds.
Not being of either party we, the
reporters, may also become parti-
sans not really of the party but of
some of the partys ideas.
1t is hard to make some people
believe that we are not partisan
when we are objective, easy to make
others believe we are not when we
are.
have covered Republican and
Democratic regimes. I have COW
cred one Democratic regime a long
time. l certainly hope, for the good
of the state, that I shall be able to
cover a regime of the Republican
party, not because l think it is per
Sc better or worse than the Demo-
cratic regime but because l think
change is good for the republic.
When the next administration
comes in, shall report what it does.
l shall lean, in spite of myself, to-
ward the constructive issues it pro-
mulgates. But that won't, I hope,
make me Republican any more
than my leanings toward the con-
structive side in this regime make
me a Democrat. I am neither. l
am, and hope to remain, a reporter.
But, as beauty lies in the eye of the
beholder, so truth often lies in the
ear of the listener.