Ernie Harwell Quotes

Many times, when you do what I do or work in journalism in general, people try to not explicitly present their opinions on topics.

For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience.

My fellow journalists called themselves correspondents; I preferred the title of reporter. I wrote what I saw. I took no action -- even an opinion is a kind of action.

I'm an expert on the NewsHour and it isn't how I practice journalism. I am not involved in the story. I serve only as a reporter or someone asking questions. I am not the story.

The journalistic endeavor - at least theoretically - is grounded in objectivity. The goal is to get you to understand what happened, when and to whom.

In the end, we journalists try - or should try - to be the first impartial witnesses of history. If we have any reason for our existence, the least must be our ability to report history as it happens so that no one can say: 'we didn't know - no one told us.'

I'm one of these people who doesn't say that objectivity is not within our reach. I think if you're a pro, and you're a reporter, you do it. Whether you agree with the guy or not is just quite incidental. It doesn't count at all, really.

I think journalists have the right to their opinions but I think their opinions should be based on history and what they see, not what they feel, how long they've been waiting or whether it's raining or it's snowing or whatever.

I have nothing to do with the selection of stories. I'm the reporter.

I don't think a reporter should give advice or make predictions.

We're journalists, so our default position is we're not writing editorial. We're trying to bring information to readers, viewers, so that they can make up their own conclusions.

Well, I don't know about objectivity, but I know for certain that it's always possible for a professional journalist who understands what he or she's up to to be fair, and that's the key word. Fairness to individuals, fairness to ideas, and to issues and whatever - that is critical, and that is also part and parcel of what the job.

I'm not in the judgment part of journalism.

A lot of journalism wants to have what they call objectivity without them having a commitment to pursuing the truth, but that doesn't work. Objectivity requires belief in and a commitment toward pursuing the truth - having an object outside of our personal point of view.

I'm sometimes embarrassed by how clinical I can become when I'm out reporting.

There's a longstanding tradition that journalists don't cheer in the press box. They have opinions, like anyone else, but they are expected to keep those opinions out of their work.

The first duty of a newspaper is to be accurate. If it be accurate, it follows that it is fair.

Journalists hold themselves apart, and above, the common person. They have rules designed to ensure their objectivity and impartiality.

I'm not an advocacy journalist - that's not what I do. My role in journalism is to be able to engage the most interesting people with the best ideas.

The fact is, most journalists I know are not particularly political. They move around a lot.

I do not subscribe to the advocacy journalism school. It's not who I am and not who CNN wants me to be.

Journalists should wear a white uniform to indicate the purity of their character.

Journalism is not an exact science. At best it i a crude art.

We all have our likes and our dislikes. But... when we're doing news - when we're doing the front-page news, not the back page, not the op-ed pages, but when we're doing the daily news, covering politics - it is our duty to be sure that we do not permit our prejudices to show. That is simply basic journalism.

You could say that any book that takes a position is not fair, unless you keep saying, 'On the one hand, on the other...' and take a great deal of trouble to present both sides. That kind of journalism tends not to be very interesting.