Telling the truth:

The line between fact-based reporting and opinion-based commentary

The notions of journalistic integrity, objectivity, and bias have been tossed around lately as we watch the world of media coverage continue to evolve. Some might even say it’s devolving, because many people are upset that large media corporations are bending a knee proactively, or paying multi-million-dollar settlements, rather than facing or fighting the Trump administration’s allegations of biased coverage.

As someone who worked as an investigative reporter for daily metropolitan newspapers for 19 years, and who now writes long-form investigative journalism by publishing nonfiction books, I don’t like to see these large media corporations bending their knees, either. For our democracy to work properly, we need the media to cover what is actually going on, not to normalize corruption, stupidity or wrongdoing, or to react in fear of the officials they are writing about.

In most of these recent cases, it seems more like a business decision than a journalistic ethics decision. The bean-counters in charge seem to think it’s cheaper in the long run. They don’t want to lose access to the people running our government, no matter who they are or what they’re doing.

But in my view, these decisions do come at a cost: the loss of credibility, and in many cases, subscribers and viewers. When billionaire owners of newspapers and TV networks make these decisions, readers and viewers have been voicing their opposition by turning the channel, outright boycotting, and cancelling subscriptions. They are taking to the streets to voice their opposition, in numbers are great as the estimated 12 million who participated in the No Kings protests.

All that said, I’m going to broach a topic that may not be popular among my former news colleagues or many readers out there who oppose the Trump administration’s tactics. But I want to help people understand the established and standard ethics that must be maintained for media to keep its credibility intact.

Telling the truth is paramount. It is the mantra that I live by. Still, there are boundaries that news reporters must adhere to that opinion-based columnists do not. I’m no longer a news reporter, but I was trained as one. And, after giving this much consideration—and revisiting the notion as our federal government and legacy media have moved to the right—I continue to make the personal choice to keep working within the same neutral and unbiased mindset of objectivity that I was forced to maintain for the 19 years I worked in newspapers.

I could choose to do otherwise. Some authors state their opinions in their books, and that is their choice to make. My way is not always the easy way, especially these days when the lines have become so blurred between what is news reporting and what is opinion-based commentary on TV and online. I’m constantly asked for my opinion on guilt or innocence of a defendant in whatever case I’m writing about. But I don’t want my readers applying any bias to my books, which they are so apt to do.

I feel it’s counterproductive and a no-win situation to state an opinion, so believe it or not, I actually try to refrain from even forming one while I’m writing a book. You’ll often hear me say, “I don’t know, because I don’t have enough information.” I may have a gut feeling, but if I can’t say something for sure, then it’s not even my truth, so that’s why I keep it to myself.

That said, I will not normalize corruption or wrongdoing it when I see it, and I won’t ignore allegations of confirmation bias or prosecutorial misconduct in the cases I’m covering, as have been made by parties in my last two books, DEATH ON OCEAN BOULEVARD and my upcoming release, DOWN TO THE BONE, which comes out on June 24.

Many viewers and readers do not understand that media outlets convey information in two very distinct and separate ways. Fact-based investigative reporting is what shows like “60 Minutes” are known for. That is NOT the same as commentary based on opinion, which is what you’ll often see on FOX News, and which is what they have stated in their own defense in court when they are sued. This “commentary,” which, these days is often based on conspiracy theories, is the crux of so much of the misinformation and disinformation we see all over the media today, because it so often is based on ideological talking points, not on facts. Unfortunately, many viewers and readers are not good at discerning the difference. They say they want to “do their own research,” but that doesn’t do them any good when they believe much of the nonsense they find on the internet.

I often hear, “well, look around you at how many media organizations cross that line every day.”

“Well,” I would counter, “if I do it too, then I’m just as bad as they are.”

I’m only one person, but I am going to stick to what I know is right, and I will tell the truth even while conforming to these boundaries, no matter what everyone else around me is doing. It’s the only way to maintain my integrity and credibility, which is so important these days.

Stating an opinion is exactly what got former ABC news reporter Terry Moran fired recently after he posted and then removed his late-night commentary about President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller on X.

In short, Moran described Miller, Trump’s immigration policy czar, as “a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred,” in fact his “hatreds are his spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, he said Trump, whom Moran previously interviewed in a prime-time slot, is a “world-class hater” who uses hate for his “own glorification.”

Moran has since said that he wrote this “because I thought it was true,” disregarding the fact that he was crossing a line by stating his opinion on social media. ABC promptly suspended him, describing this as a “clear violation of ABC News policies,” then fired him shortly thereafter. Moran has been defended by many people who are now subscribing to his posts on Substack, where many former big-time journalists are posting after losing their prime-time posts, as am I.

“But he told the truth,” many people posted on Facebook.

That is not the point.

I’m not writing this to be a political post, but even if you agree with what he said, and believe it to be the truth, you still have to understand that he crossed that line of news ethics. And based on his recent comments, he did not post that while drunk, he did it knowingly and purposefully, only a few days from the end of his contract.

It’s the same reason why Keith Olbermann lost his job as a political commentator at MSNBC after making political campaign donations. Even though he was a commentator, for which different standards may apply, his actions apparently violated newsroom rules at MSNBC.

These are the choices you make when you take that kind of job. While I was a news reporter, I was not allowed to participate in political protests, sign petitions, or state any opinions about topics I covered when I was interviewed on radio or TV. Or there was hell to pay.

Now that I’m on my own, self-employed, my own boss, and no longer a member of the media, I am not required to bend to those standards. So, yes, I could join these opinion-stating folks. But rather than alienate readers who may have different political beliefs—or different views of the facts that I write about in my books—I still refrain from stating those beliefs when I write my books and when I do interviews about my books.

If I should decide not to write another true crime book, that could change, of course. I recently landed a two-book deal for the first two thrillers in the new “Katrina & Goode” series with Thomas & Mercer. I’ve since written two more books in the series, the first of which I’m about to submit for consideration for another two-book deal. Fiction writers are a whole different breed, and they are not judged for their credibility, only if they know their material and write compelling, page-turning stories. So, we’ll just see what happens. Because I do have opinions, believe me. I just think that for now, in this chaotic and divisive world we’re living in, it’s wiser to keep them to myself.