Words matter. How much of a platitude is that to spring on this group of graduates of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications? Of course, words matter. You know that. We all know that, but I’m beginning to wonder if we as a society still act as if “words matter.”

We are living, after all, in a country in which slogans are expected to sell programs, programs that are often not at all as advertised. Examples? How about “No Child Left Behind”? The Clean Skies Initiative? The Food Safety Act? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act? How about “Mission Accomplished”? Has our cynicism become such that we just wink and ignore these attempts by executive and legislative leaders to shape perceptions that are at total variance with reality? As a small step, I’d like to see legislative efforts like the previous examples be called by the names of their sponsors, not the fairytale titles that are tacked on in an effort to fool the public. Labels like the Davis-Bacon Act or Bayh-Dole Act are not descriptive but they do tell us who is responsible for them. Alternately, if we want to be descriptive we at least could be accurate. Perhaps the “Senators From Farm States Whose Campaigns Are Supported by Meat Packers” is a more descriptive and accurate label than the “Food Safety Act.”

And, of course, the state legislatures are no improvement. Toward the end of the most recent session, Kansas politicians were touting an act that would “ban human cloning.” What they did not say was that the bill would prohibit stem cell research. The ploy didn’t work this session, but look for it to be used again. I don’t so much blame the legislators for the attempt to deceive as I blame the press for not blowing the whistle and clearly telling the public what was really afoot.

As an educator, I have a recent example of labeling, actually of mislabeling” that I’d like to share with you. The word is “proficient,” and the situation is one that should be of interest to you, as new college graduates. This is a “scoop” in your parlance for as to my knowledge what I am about to tell you has not been reported previously in the press. On December 16, 2005 Sam Dillon reported in the New York Times that only 31% of recent college graduates proved to be “proficient” on the National Survey of Adult Literacy. Shocking! 69% of you are not proficient at literacy?

But that “proficiency” rate is not the news; the news is how the term "proficiency" came to be used. We appear to have been misled by the U.S. Department of Education who was advised by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to label the top category on this literacy scale “advanced” (Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for Adults National Academy Press, 2005, p 8.) Had they followed the NRC’s advice the scale would have read as follows: “below basic, basic, intermediate and advanced”. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education released the scale as: “below basic, basic, intermediate and proficient.” Thus, failure to achieve at the top of the scale on the adult literacy test is made to sound like a negative when it really is not that at all. Was this an attempt to deceive the public? I don’t know but I do know that the press has frequently reported that only 31% of college graduates are proficient at literacy.” Those on the Spellings Commission looking at reform of Higher Education have frequently cited this finding as a reason to “reform” higher education.

Words matter! Don’t you as journalists allow yourselves to be used by those who mislabel to mislead the public. This Department of Education miscommunication could have been corrected had the press reporting this finding really dug into the press release. Don’t be used; report the facts that inform, not facts that misinform.

It is my hope that KU students will be in the forefront of what this nation so desperately needs--and that is discerning citizens. Those of you who are graduating with journalism degrees have a tremendous obligation to report facts--not partisan versions of the facts that are handed to you as part of briefing kits. You may argue that fewer people rely on the professional media to get information, and you will be right. But perhaps this move by the public away from old-fashioned reporting is a reaction against uncritical acceptance and reporting by the media of those “facts” provided to them by interested parties. Perhaps the public has grown skeptical. Perhaps they have grown to believe that it is the political-journalistic complex that is to be mistrusted.

The task ahead is enormous. How do we reengage the populace in the business of governing? How do we surmount factions and special interests in order to advance the common good? Obviously, I have far more questions than answers, but you who are beginning careers in communication have both great opportunities and great responsibilities to make things better. A high expectation? Yes, but an expectation that you, as graduates of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications are prepared to fulfill. I wish you all success—for your sakes, and ours.

Back to graduation main page.