In the article “We Have No Idea Who’s Right: Criticizing ‘he said, she said’ journalism at NPR,” Jay Rosen expresses his disdain for what he calls “he said, she said reporting.” He believes that when journalists present the differing views surrounding a public dispute, they do not assess “clashing truth claims.” While trying to be unbiased, today’s journalists are really being lazy and it makes for a boring piece. He says that this kind of reporting allows journalists to “claim innocence,” avoid bias, and escape criticism. Is trying to avoid those issues necessarily a bad thing though? Would diverging from “he said, she said” reporting potentially alienate some readers? With some traditional forms of journalism struggling, would it be wise to switch to new ways of reporting that could diminish its audience even more? Or could new types of reporting be beneficial and maybe grow its audience?
He said, she said what?!