Whether they are attempting to be objective or the opposite, reporters should acknowledge their personal opinions, writes David Adams
I ONCE MET the iconic broadcaster and journalist Walter Cronkite at a garden reception on Martha's Vineyard. A lovely man, we chatted for half an hour or so about some of the historic events he had covered during his long career in journalism. And, as it turned out, he knew a little about Northern Ireland, having been stationed at Derry with the US coast guard for a while during the second World War.
At one point I was tempted to drop the name of another American journalistic type into the conversation, the late Hunter S Thompson, whose work I'd always enjoyed, to try and get a first-hand account of what Thompson was really like - but I changed my mind. I was pretty certain that my regard for Thompson wouldn't be shared by Cronkite, and didn't want to run the risk of ruining the moment by raising something we disagreed upon.
To say that there were chasmic differences between the two journalists in their choices of lifestyle would be putting it mildly. It's hard to imagine Walter going along with Hunter on this little gem: "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence and insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."
Nor, I might add, has it ever been suggested that Thompson might have been exaggerating. Apart from lifestyle differences, Cronkite and Thompson were polar opposites professionally.
Cronkite was a firm believer in the principle of objective journalism, and of the need for a reporter or broadcaster to stay separate from the story. Famously, on the occasions where his news broadcast finished with an opinion or commentary piece, he would drop his trademark end-of-programme phrase: "And that's the way it is . . . "
Hunter S Thompson, on the other hand, claimed that not only was there no such thing as objectivity in journalism, but that any effort towards it was a waste of time (not that he ever wasted much time striving towards it himself). In his wonderful book Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72, he wrote: "With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms."
True to his word, Thompson happily painted himself as a central character in all of his reportage, and took great delight in mercilessly denigrating public figures, most especially politicians. This was one of the kinder things he had to say about the "greedy little hustler" (and then US president) Richard Nixon: "McGovern made some stupid mistakes, but in context they seem almost frivolous compared to the things Richard Nixon does every day of his life, on purpose . . . Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President?"
Sometimes, for my own amusement, I try to imagine what Hunter S Thompson might have made of the peace process here, and how he would have described some of the "major players". Legal constraints prevent me from elaborating much beyond saying that, considering our cast of characters, I'm certain he would have had a field day.
Something else of a local nature has had me reflecting on both Walter Cronkite and Hunter S Thompson in recent days: I've been wondering what each of them would have made of the claim that RTÉ Northern editor Tommie Gorman acted as a facilitator for talks between Sinn Féin and the DUP (something, I should stress, that Gorman himself has denied).
Cronkite would of course oppose on first principle the very idea of journalists ever "crossing the line between observers and players", as journalist and author Ed Moloney put it last week (Letters, July 12th). Whereas Thompson, who positively revelled in his dual role as actor and observer (at least as he saw it), would hardly have complained about somebody else doing the same thing.
Despite their differences, however, I suspect that both would have agreed on one fundamental: if you are going to cross the line, for whatever reason, then it should never be done in secret. With both Cronkite and Thompson, the public knew precisely what they were getting. Cronkite never tried to pretend that he didn't have personal opinions (after all, anyone with a pulse and something approximating a brain has those), he just made a continual, conscious effort not to allow them interfere with his work.
Likewise, Thompson never made any pretence at neutral observation; quite the reverse, he made clear where he stood on every individual or issue that came under his notice. Behind the larger-than-life character of Hunter S Thompson, and overshadowed somewhat by his fantastic writing, was an outstanding journalist who had more in common with Walter Cronkite than might be imagined.
Both believed strongly that everything of relevance should be put into the public domain, and people then left to make their own judgments. As far as Thompson was concerned, it was of fundamental importance that the public should know that, as far as he could manage it, he was a "player" himself.
He would never have dreamt of concealing that fact.