The declaration that the old newsroom warhorse – separation of news and opinion – is due for retirement could be misconstrued. Quite rightly Stephen Ward says that the “just-the-facts” dictum is insufficient in an age when we need much more explanatory, interpretative and well-informed analysis of events and issues. As the brilliant new manifesto for change in journalism, by Geneva Overholser at Annenberg notes, hiding behind facts-only or so-called “objective” journalism “has become a subtle but powerful means of self-censorship….It has become a crutch for journalistic practices that work against civic aims.”

However, a separation of what could be called news and what could be considered opinion still remains a workhorse of conventional journalism and not to be pastured. Trying to achieve more explanatory, informative news should be based on established, verifiable information, and when reportage extrapolates from that base to interpretation and then goes further to what amounts to unsubstantiated hypotheses and opinions on the news, the distinction needs to be made clear to news consumers.

The Globe and Mail’s Jan Wong erred by inserting a personal hypothesis (linking Dawson College-type shootings to Allophone alienation in French-first Quebec) in an otherwise visibly fact-based (names, quotes, verifiable descriptions) news-feature story on the shooting. The hypothesis moved that part of the story from conventional information to (for lack of supportive evidence) well beyond analysis to opinion. Readers could easily have absorbed the hypothesis as fact rather than subjecting it to healthy scrutiny. Readers deserve the media’s help in approaching such opinionated reporting within news coverage. Criticism of the story would have been more muted if her story had been better labeled as not-just news, or better still, better edited.

Ward cites Michael Valpy’s Globe and Mail take on Belinda Stronach as good interpretative writing. But while colourfully written, that piece was firmly rooted in uncontestable information, incidents and others’ opinions, which Valpy displayed for any reader to measure before buying into his interpretation of what they meant. No label needed. Undeniably, in this age of fragmenting media structures and more openly partisan new sources, “just the facts has never seemed so inadequate,” and there’s a desperate need for “investigative stories and analyses that are grounded in intellectually honest reporting,” as Brent Cunningham recently noted (CJR Daily, October 9, 2006.) But the key is intellectually honest reporting, a la Valpy, based on news – facts – from which to draw analysis. Intellectually honest reporting includes reporter self-discipline and labeling to sustain distinctions between news and opinion, employing logos, mug-shots, set design CBC’s Rex Murphy unNational-looking set?) , disclaimers, and other devices.

It would be dangerous to put the news-opinion distinction out to pasture if it encourages more opinion-driven material masquerading as fact-based analysis, or as news, a la Fox News. As Nick Cohen recently noted (Observer, October 8,2006) opinion pieces and talking heads are proliferating because they’re cheap and that pleases the media corp CEOs.

“Producers know that comment is free but facts are expensive” to go out and unearth via shoe-leather journalism. There is even a place for fully uninformed blathering – much of the Blogosphere is overly full of it -- as long as it doesn’t intentionally seek to mislead by mimicking news in format and label. The news-opinion dichotomy is still valid in sustaining rigorous reporting rather than opining, and is still meaningful to news consumers. Note that although they’ve migrated to the Web, the majority of consumers take first roost on labeled news sites of conventional reliability like CNN.com and CBC.ca and Thestar.com and Canoe.ca.

Labelling still counts. To its credit, in the UK the Independent, desperate for readers, has acknowledged that it is no longer a newspaper but now a “viewspaper,” often starting on A1 with features shaped by the known and evident views of the writers (Robert Fisk et al.) Its editor acknowledges he’s selling attitude; his readers can go to TV and radio for conventional news. The New York Times is right in attempting to maintain its readers’ trust (and loyalty) by invoking different labeling for news reports which its editors perceive to be more (less?) than fact-based analysis and may constitute news-related but unsubstantiated opinion. And The Times still further identifies pure opinion which it reserves to columnists and op-ed writers.

I agree that reporting, especially for newspapers, needs to be more interpretative, more analytical and I would add, absolutely more diverse in its analytical perspectives, especially in BC media. But reporting based on facts, as reporters best ascertain them at the time, remains the first priority and it should be a recognized distinction in the newsroom.