Journalism is all about telling both sides of a story.

That’s as it should be. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard one side and been convinced they were right, only to hear the other side and be equally convinced. Often there are third and fourth perspectives, too.

The world isn’t a black and white place; that’s why covering news can be so challenging.

The coverage of Barack Obama’s budget speech last night got me thinking about this. Of course, print and broadcast journalists gave details from the speech. They related the high points of what the president said.

But it seemed like the coverage switched too quickly to what the opposition had to say, turning the story into a “he said, they said,” before readers/viewers had a chance to digest the content of what may turn out to be a very important discussion of the future of our country.

Maybe that’s because reporters assumed everyone had watched or listened to the speech and reaction was more important. 

I think there’s another reason. In the highly polarized state we’ve evolved into over the last couple decades, journalists have been under attack for leaning too far to the left. And they’ve been lambasted particularly in the last year for being too soft on Barack Obama.

So there is a knee-jerk response to make sure they’re getting the conservative response to everything the president says or does.  

Don’t get me wrong. I certainly think the Republican reaction to a presidential speech is an appropriate part of the coverage. It would be wrong not to include it.

But the meat and potatoes of coverage of a major presidential speech should be reporting on and analyzing the details and the nuances - helping  Americans understand what it all means to them.

Instead, it was turned into a political football to be kicked back and forth.

I’m not an expert on Nicholas Sparks’ books, or on making movies from novels.

Generally, I’ve avoided jumping on the ”hate-the-movie-because-it-didn’t-do-the-book-justice” bandwagon.

I try to enjoy both, for what they are. You can’t replicate the reading experience in a theater. So I try to just relax and not be judgmental.

That was the case last night when my wife, Kathy, and I watched ”Nights in Rodanthe,” the latest Nicholas Sparks novel turned to movie. Kath read the book several years ago and enjoyed it so much she suggested I read it, too.

As with most of his novels and movies, ”Rodanthe” is definately targeted at women. Romance and tragedy. Tragedy and romance. That’s what he writes about, and he does it well.  In this case, it involves middle-aged love with real passion, something you don’t find much in movies.

I have a sensitive side, too, and I enjoyed both the book and the movie. I got misty eyed at the appropriate places.

What struck me was that Richard Gere and Diane Lane, whatever the critics may think of their performances, succeeded in capturing the spirit of the book - including the gut-wrenching pain and soaring joy that come with life and love.

Of course, Sparks’ books obviously adapt well to movies. “The Notebook” and “Message in a Bottle” were big hits in recent years. He knows how to spin the anguish of life into bittersweet love.

And while Rodanthe is light on depth and heavy on sentimental cliches, it succeeded in providing a wonderful way to spend Valentine’s Eve.

As I read and listen to the coverage of Alex Rodriguez’s steroid use, I find myself wincing at the imprecise and sometimes just plain wrong use of the language.

One radio commentator kept talking about A-Rod’s drug abuse.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think steroids when I hear the term “drug abuse.”

Of course, the term “drugs” isn’t inaccurate. In its widest, generic use, almost anything you can ingest, from aspirin to caffeine, is a drug. But it sure isn’t the word I’d choose to describe what A-Rod and others did during the height of baseball’s steroid era.

Then there’s the term “performance-enhancing substance.”

Okay, that’s not “wrong,” either. But it’s almost as vague. Vitamin C is a performance-enhancing substance, along with protein drinks, Gatorade and granola bars.

Athletes have been searching for the most “performance-enhancing” food supplements since the days of Roman gladiators. There’s a fine line between the healthy, legitimate substances and the unhealthy, unethical ones.

Another term that drives me crazy is “banned substances.” That works in cycling and swimming.  But baseball had not banned the use of steroids and human growth hormones back in 2003 when A-Rod, Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire, among others, apparently were using them.

As in most writing, the best word choices are the most specific. If you’re talking about steroids, then call them steroids. If you’re talking about human growth hormones, then call them that. And quickly explain whether they were illegal or not at the time they were used.

Of course, one of the great ironies surrounding baseball’s now infamous steroids era is that nobody is going to be punished for using steroids or any other substance. But several people are likely to spend time in jail for lying about it.

It’s one of the many unfair facts about life – what you do isn’t as important as when you get caught.

Because Barry Bonds was fingered early in the process, he chose to lie, and now he’s on trial facing jail time because of it. Same with Miguel Tejada, who is facing charges of lying to Congress.

Alex Rodriguez’ steroid use wasn’t discovered until years later, when hindsight makes it obvious that the best option is to tell the truth – only lying in front of a judge or Congress can land you in jail.

They both did the same thing many of the other athletes of their era did – reach for any edge that would make them better. The pitchers were doing it – why do you think so many 88-mph fastballs became 94-mph fastballs. They wanted to compete.

Was it right? Of course not. They knew they were cheating. But it was like being in a classroom taking a test when the teacher left the room and a third of the class began comparing answers. Is it the students’ fault or the teacher’s?

A little of both, I’d say.

Some of the students are going to be punished. What about the teachers?

“It’s not personal.”

That comes from Mike Elrick, one of the reporters who broke the text message story that ended in Kwame Kilpatrick moving from city hall to the county jail.

“It’s business. Just doing my job. No hard feelings on my part,” was how Elrick described his state of mind just days after the former mayor got out of jail.

“Of course, Kwame may not feel that way,” he added.

I attended a talk Friday by the two Detroit Free Press reporters who broke the Kwame Kilpatrick text message story.

Elrick and Jim Schaefer spoke at the Michigan Press Association annual meeting Friday, in a session moderated by Ron Dzwonkowski, an associate editor at the Free Press.

I’m glad I went. There are lots of story lines from the talk. Including a few good nuggets that I can pass along to journalism students in my classes. Here are some highlights:

– First, I was impressed by the two reporters’ professionalism and humble, self-deprecating manner. It was good to see two guys representing our profession so well. There was no gloating or grandstanding. They clearly were proud of what they did - as they should be. But they did a nice job of keeping it in perspective.

– One of the principal messages they left was that good reporting is about building good relationships with sources. And the best way to do that is to always tell the truth. Be upfront and straightforward, both in any promises you give sources and in what you report in the newspaper.

 Even if you report information that is critical of a source, in the long run they and others will respect you if the facts are accurate and fairly presented.

Building good source relationships isn’t just about asking questions. It’s also about getting to know people as human beings.

 ”We talk to people when we don’t want anything, too,” Schaefer noted. 

And both added that it’s okay to give a source a heads-up the day before a critical story.

“At least that way, they can get to the newspaper in the morning before their spouse,” Schaefer said. “They appreciate the gesture.”

– Where and how you approach a source who may have information you want can make a difference.

Elrick and Schaefer often went to public officials’ homes in the evening to ask questions - so the sources wouldn’t have to explain to coworkers or bosses why they were talking to reporters.

“We try to find people in a setting where they are comfortable,” Elrick said.

– Persistence is one of a reporter’s best tools:

“We never take no for an answer,” Elrick said. “We know that more than one person has the information. And we know that people in their heart want to do the right thing. We try to make people understand why it’s in the public’s best interest to give us the information.”

– ”Off the record” conversations with sources are part of investigative reporting. 

Both Elrick and Schaefer said they let sources give them information  
confidentially. But both emphasized that it involves constant negotiation, trying to get as much information “on the record” as possible.

It’s not off the record until both the source and the reporter agree that it is, Elrick said.

 ”You can’t let a source say this is off the record and then just start talking,” he said.

It’s critical that the reporter clarifies exactly what ”off the record” means to both parties. And then, after listening to the information, the reporter should start trying to get as much as possible on the record.

Often, Schaefer said, sources want to be off the record. But when you read back to them what you want to report, they say, “yeh, that’s okay.”

– The other key message from the two reporters was that the Internet has dramatically changed the way they do business.

“People want to read, hear, see the news on a variety of platforms,” Elrick said.

As they reported on the text message story, they usually had at least one and often two or more videographers with them - so there would be video for the Free Press Web site, Freep.com.

They noted that the text message story broke on the Web site the night before it was in the print edition of the Free Press.