In the last few months I have been doing a lot of research about our paper, the Sun Advocate, because I have been writing a series of historical pieces on the paper itself. Much of the time I have spent so far has been in the pre-1930 era papers. In doing that I have learned a lot about how newspapers have changed over the years, particularly when compared to today's papers.

The technology to produce newspapers, both from a production and printing point of view is obviously vastly different, but interestingly enough, a lot of the stories remain the same in our area as they were 80 years ago. We are still squabbling over water, land and energy out here in the eastern part of the state, just as they were then. However, what has changed is how stories are reported.

Early newspapers are known for obviously editorializing within their news stories. Journalism schools today teach that opinions belong on the opinion page and not in the story on the front, but still the trend persists. Today it seems it is more subtle than many years ago, which is certainly more insidious than a direct frontal attack. I worry about that.

We all have our bias, and it is often hard to keep opinions about something we are passionate about from cropping up in a story, but many reporters today have a way of shaping a story so only the parts that support their point of view are obvious. Taking things out of context, twisting a comment around to fit the circumstances and quoting people inaccurately often crop up in stories I see in other places that I have been involved in or covered.

A couple of years ago I went to a hostage situation in our area and the county's SWAT team was there. I walked up and was standing there and I heard one of the SWAT members tell a teammate “Oh no, the newspaper guy is here. Who the hell called him?” Our county sheriff was standing nearby and heard the comment. He told the officer that I had a right to be there, as long as I stayed out of the way. He further told the young cop that over the years our paper reported things that the sheriff's office had been involved in accurately and fairly and that he felt comfortable in letting me in on anything that they were doing.

That made me feel good, knowing that the highest law enforcement official in my county would feel that way, especially since the reporting we have had to do on his department has not always portrayed them in the perfect light. I know a lot of police officials in the state who hate the media because of stories that were one sided. Some hate it because they were also involved in doing something wrong too. Sometimes it is hard to tell which they hate us for.

Editors of papers are charged with being sure what reporters bring in and what is printed is accurate. But editors have busy schedules and a lot of pressures, so sometimes things slip through the cracks. Being a reporter in rural Utah is a lot different from working in urban areas in the state; I realize that. But facts are facts, and reporters should be held accountable for what they write.

On the other hand public officials should be held accountable for trying to deceive the public or for hiding facts that are important to a story.

We, as the media, should keep our hands as clean as we can in the effort to report the news accurately. If we develop a good reputation for honesty, truthfulness and accuracy, our sources will always be much more willing to share information.