Thoughts on Interpretation   

Posted: Thurs. March, 3, 2011

Some comments on Rem Rieder's column "A Matter of Interpretation" (Winter):

• USA Today's strict rules on sourcing are generally a good idea, even when reporters have to ask questions of those who know less than they do. Which explains why I love being a columnist. In some areas I know more than the "authorities," some of whom have good reason to not answer fully or truthfully.
• Let's keep traditional objective reporting, but let's allow the reporter to add a sidebar or box, call it analysis, in which he or she boils it down and explains what it means. It is very important the analysis be fact-based, not ideological.
• Per MSNBC's Keith Olbermann: The big stink (for me, anyway) was that MSNBC let him anchor. Fox doesn't make that mistake with Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. If it doesn't bother you that Olbermann contributes to candidates – and then has them on his air – would it bother you if he wrote speeches for them and didn't disclose that?
• I agree, too many want their own views reinforced, the "silo" effect. Very bad for democracy. Personally, I check in at both Fox and MSNBC to try to get the full story― or at least watch the attempts at spin, which can be amusing, edifying or simply shocking.

Stu Bykofsky
Columnist
Philadelphia Daily News
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

###