That they don't know the answer to something.
That, because some very human issue intervened, they didn't finish the job.
Yet, transparency has become one of the most important aspects of doing quality journalism.
And journalists are just as guilty as everyone else of glossing over mistakes, holes in information, and how real life can side-rail their work.
In the interest of transparency, the Times does a number of things right. It clearly states that some of these allegations were dug up by a news competitor, the Associated Press. It openly stated that one of its sources, Chris Wilson, who worked as a pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Cain led that trade group, would not say what Cain said to one of the allegedly harassed women, and that Wilson couldn't shed much light on any such instance. It identifies Wilson today as being a pollster for the Rick Perry campaign for president.
But the Times story also contains this passage, supposedly outlining the sweep of its interviews to try to get to the bottom of this Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill-like mess:
While Mr. Cain’s accusations briefly turned the attention away from him, interviews with more than a dozen people over the last three days paint a picture of his 1996-99 tenure at the National Restaurant Association that is at odds with his insistence that he never harassed anyone. Several people who worked at the association said they knew of episodes that women said had made them uncomfortable dealing with Mr. Cain.
If you keep reading though, very little info "at odds" with Cain's story is revealed. Many people are quoted anonymously. The story leaves me feeling unsettled, unconvinced. Why was this story on Page One of the nation's most influential newspaper?
And, in fact, this is how I want my journalism students at Miami University of Ohio to feel whenever they consume some news that doesn't quite fit nicely in a transparent box.
I want them to be skeptical. To challenge assertions. To go seek out other info, other viewpoints.
And, ultimately, I want my students to be MORE transparent when they must write an article in which the stakes are high, the answers obscured by muck and the audience ravenous.
