Newspaper Editors Study Ways To Regain Public Trust, Respect

At first glance, this may not look like its Y2K related, however it is a Y2K media opportunity.

While the 8 test papers are gathering public feedback data, it may be the time to send in your e-mail opinions about their lack of investigative journalism related to Y2K issues, et. al.

Diane

Newspaper Editors Study Ways To Regain Public Trust, Respect
Susan Sward, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, April 12, 1999
)1999 San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/04/12/MN76235.DTL

Highlights/excerpts ....

 The public harbors considerable disdain for journalists. Readers see journalists as a biased, insensitive breed hungering to sell papers.

 This reputation of journalists as jackals has spread at a time when circulation figures show that newspapers reach a shrinking proportion of American households.

 The American Society of Newspaper Editors is in the midst of a three-year project to pinpoint the causes of newspapers' lack of credibility and to develop ways to lessen readers' distrust. Some of the project's findings will be discussed at a four-day ASNE annual convention, which begins tomorrow at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco.

 This industry self-examination is worthwhile ``whether or not it sells a single paper,'' there is little doubt that stark circulation figures and the competition from news sources over other media, including cable television and the Internet as well as radio and broadcast TV, gives a special urgency to the industry's navel gazing.

 This new research comes on the heels of an ASNE-sponsored study last year, performed by Urban & Associates of Sharon, Mass. The survey found that the public thinks newspapers make too many errors, do not show enough respect for or knowledge about their readers, display bias far too often, over- sensationalize stories to sell papers and demonstrate values that do not mirror the public's respect for personal privacy.

 ``Credibility is the root of whether people will want to continue reading your newspaper...''

 As the eight newspapers begin this ``test site'' research, the hurdles the industry is facing are great. ... the number of Americans viewing news organizations as immoral has almost tripled since the mid-1980s -- from 13 percent to 38 percent.

 ``The public rates daily newspapers no better than broadcast journalists. In fact, they trust local broadcast journalists more than local papers because they can see more for themselves.''

 It is the federal government and the media that have been on the rockiest road in terms of public confidence.''

 ``To a great extent, the public doesn't understand us, and we have been too self-righteous in the past to explain ourselves,'' ... ``Beyond that, there are too many of our practices that are out of touch,'' ... ``Newspapers miss the gray, but the public knows about the gray because they know how they feel. We have a tendency to put things in black and white. The world isn't pro and con, yet we construct so many of our stories that way.

 ``Overall trust in the accuracy of the news media is low, but this represents a long-standing state of affairs,'' according to a 1998 Gallup poll.

 There is also some sentiment within the industry that newspapers' front offices are chasing after research for answers that are already obvious. ... ``The quality of a newspaper depends on what it has always depended on -- reporters and editors working hard and conscientiously in their jobs, and I don't think anyone needs research to establish this...''

 The ASNE credibility research, however, has big voices defending it. Jack Fuller, president of the Chicago Tribune, said the study's findings should be taken to heart. ``Somewhere along the line . . . the shame of making a mistake began to decline,'' Fuller said. ``What I am talking about is reversing that trend so that throughout our newsrooms, through a variety of means, we create the conditions where accuracy is our very first priority.''

 In the ASNE test site study, editors are hopeful they will be able to ferret out some specific causes for public distrust.

 Steve Smith, editor of the Gazette in Colorado Springs whose paper is another of the test sites, said his staff is focusing on the public's perception that newspapers chase after sensationalistic stories. ``News values say, `This is news and readers should know about it even if they don't want to.' And readers are saying, `Yeah, we need to know about it, but don't rub our noses in it,' '' Smith said.

 ``The market is increasingly fragmented,'' ... ``So it really demands that newspapers not sink to compete with the lowest common denominator but rather reach for the higher end and say, `We are going to do what we do really well -- with respect for our communities and our readers.' ''

 The Chronicle invites your comments about the series. Please e-mail Managing Editor Jerry Roberts at robertsj@sfgate.com or write to 901 Mission St., San Francisco, 94103.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 12, 1999

Answers

The same article continues ...

This week the American Society of Newspaper Editors gathers in San Francisco for its annual meeting. The key topic: the public's eroding trust in the media. Today The Chronicle begins a five-part series about the important credibility issues facing the media.

Today: Media credibility
Tuesday: Covering high tech
Wednesday: Political scandals
Thursday: Privacy
Friday: The celebrity circuit

How 8 Newspapers Are Studying Credibility Issues for ASNE Here is a summary of work at eight newspapers participating in the American Society of Newspaper Editors' credibility study:

PORTLAND OREGONIAN

(Newhouse Newspapers) Circulation: 330,327 Daily, 437,508 Sunday

The Oregonian is examining readers' perception of bias. Part of the research includes holding meetings with the public and asking people to point to specific instances of one-sidedness.

``We tend to think people are accusing us of political bias, and it's more often . . . some everyday things we do (such as) accepting the police version of something when there can be two versions,'' said Oregonian Editor Sandra Mims Rowe.

DAILY PRESS

(Newport News, Va.) (Tribune Company) Circulation: 97,116 Daily, 118,251 Sunday

The Daily Press is looking at ``the disconnection between readers and journalists.'' Editor Will Corbin says that as one approach, editors are meeting at local breakfast spots where ``we let anyone who wants to, sit in with us. . . . I think to some extent people are surprised to find out we are human.''

AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN

(Cox Newspapers) Circulation: 178,643 Daily, 238,014 Sunday

The American-Statesman is trying to ``turn credibility into a daily event,'' said Managing Editor Kathy Warbelow. The paper will go into the community to seek reader feedback on stories and put that feedback into the paper. Then researchers will see if readers noticed and approved of the approach.

Credibility is not some trick or gimmick, Warbelow said: ``It is about the daily stories -- how you frame a story, what picture ran with the story, who did you talk to, was the headline fair?''

FLORIDA TODAY

(Broward County) (Gannett) Circulation: 87,005 Daily, 114,620 Sunday

The paper is tracking errors to see what causes them and is working on strategies to eliminate them. Executive Editor Judy Christie said her paper felt that without emphasis on accuracy, any other change the paper might make would ``not amount to much.'' Focus groups will be convened to see if the public notices any difference.

THE GAZETTE

(Freedom Communications) Circulation: 99,815 Daily, 121,301 Sunday

This Colorado paper is examining sensationalism by having a group of residents ``go through a month of papers and write us a report on the good, the bad and the ugly,'' said Editor Steve Smith. The paper will respond in writing, and the residents will reply. The paper will print all three documents.

``People don't like and trust us,'' Smith said. ``We may never get `like' back, if we ever had it, but we have to build better levels of trust if we are going to hang in there for the long haul.''

SARASOTA HERALD-TRIBUNE

(New York Times) Circulation: 108,271 Daily, 135,240 Sunday

The Herald-Tribune is trying to make its listings more accurate. Among the steps the paper is taking is a reward system for the newspaper clerks handling the listings and appointment of a listings czar who would work to improve accuracy.

``If we give the readers the wrong day for a play, we have harmed their trust in a way that is much more significant than if we misspell the name of a county commissioner,'' Executive Editor Diane McFarlin said.

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS

(Knight Ridder) Circulation: 288,730 Daily, 342,902 Sunday

Managing Editor David Yarnold said his paper is looking at whether a story's accuracy is increased if an outside group of experts checks its facts before publication. The paper is also ``creating a data base to track our corrections and look for patterns,'' Yarnold said.

In addition, the Mercury News has begun publishing answers to questions readers frequently ask about how the paper works.

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

(Knight Ridder) Circulation: 390,880 Daily, 878,660 Sunday

The Inquirer is looking at its zoning effort in the South Jersey area -- emphasizing more government, civic and education stories to see whether it makes the paper more valuable to readers.

``I believe a lot of papers created zoned editions as advertising vehicles and never seriously think of them as journalistic vehicles,'' said Arlene Morgan, the Inquirer's assistant managing editor for readership.

[snip -- the story continues with charts and percentage polls]

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 12, 1999.

journalism + trust + respect ?? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

-- hahahaha ouch it hurts haha (haha@ha.ha), April 12, 1999.

Thanks Diane, I sent them this email......

I read with intrest the story " Newspaper Editors Study Ways To Regain Public Trust, Respect". I can only offer you my personal opinion as a daily newspaper reader.

What passes for news these days, is merely repeating verbatim "official" press releases, be they from industry or government. What ever happened to investigative journalism? Most articles in national news I read are either just a republished AP (or Rueters, or UPI) story, or a simple parroting of a press release or executive summary.

Let me give you an example. When the Senate released its Y2K report a few weeks ago, i downloaded it and read it that night. When I read what my daily paper had to say the next day, I asked myself if they even read the thing. Curious, I checked out all of the online newspapers I could find. With one exception, i concluded that they had not even read it, but rather only reported what they had heard from Senator Bennetts press conference. A couple of sound bytes, that was about it. The only exception was the San Jose Mercury News. It appeared that they had at least read the Executive Summary of the report.

The Internet has given the public an amazing tool. It is now possible to (in a short time) read the coverage of the same national story in dozens of different papers across the country, or the world. The sad part is, is that within the USA, other then the headline, the story is the same.

It's funny - I always thought that journalists were supposed to question and verify the "facts" as uttered by government and industry, not just repeat them ad nauseam.

-- Arachnid (arachnid@spider.web), April 12, 1999.

Every little bit may help, Arachnid.

Will e my response after I see what tomorrows coverage on ... Tuesday: Covering high tech ... contains.

Diane

See also ...

American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), founded in 1922, is the nation's oldest and largest newspaper editors group. Directing editors of daily newspapers and editors of major sources of news for daily newspapers throughout the Americas are eligible for membership.

Their web-site ...

http://www.asne.org/

1999 ASNE CONVENTION SCHEDULE, Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco

http:// www.asne.org/events/99convsked.htm

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 12, 1999.

Public media are first, last, and always, in business for profit. If a media outlet fails to make sufficient profit, it will either disappear, or find its management replaced. Without exception, advertising revenue is essential for the economic survival of any media outlet. Advertising revenue depends on the good will of advertisers. It is prudent for media to report nothing that would affect this good will.

Reports that might cause a particular business, or business sector, to experience a drop in its stock price, must pass a very high threshold.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 12, 1999.

well diane...i gave it a shot. i understand what tom is saying regarding the advertising but other than display ads they also want to sell newspapers...can't sell ads if no one is reading the paper. so for what it is worth i responded to your suggestion. if enough people would take the time to flood them with their opinions on the y2k issue it might help. if they are worrying about *why* a good response would remove all doubt.

> as a result of koskinen and abrams *advising* the press to be > responsible in their reporting of y2k issues many people feel > that y2k related events are not being reported in the most > forthcoming fashion. > > question. > > what type of government tells the *free press* how to report > on an issue? > > a] fascist > b] totalitarian > c] dictatorship > > in addition to adhering to the governments 'suggestion' the > papers in this country, in the main, have either reported on > the issue by sensationalizing, ridiculing, or downplaying > the severity of the problem. > > sensationalizing-survivalists store food, guns, and water and > head for the hills. > > ridiculing-millennialists prepare for doomsday > > downplay-bump in the road > > and you have to have a conference to determine why you do not > receive respect? > > suggested topics > > out of the 72,000 systems used to run our government 9,000 deemed > 'mission critical.' when unable to reach compliancy within the > reduced figure 'mission critical' count fell to 6,200. does this > send up red flags? > > mission critical means only the systems necessary to 'limp along.' > define limp. > > fuel availability sliced in half by the inability of third world > countries to achieve y2k compliancy. can you see a possible crisis > looming? > > water systems at risk due to embedded chip problem. imagine a large > city with a disrupted water supply. > > nerc twists status reports...hides results from the doe and the > public. nerc spokesman states that the public would become 'confused. > this is called *lying* in the world outside the newsroom. > > how about some real reporting on the issues...forget the spin. no > one ever suggested that planes would fall from the sky but one > should certainly excercise discretion in relation to boarding one > around 01/01/2000. no one said that elevators would plummet to the > earth but if you remember last year when pg&e experienced difficuly > with transmission those same elevators stopped mid ascent/descent. > > so here you have it...a few of the reasons people do not trust the > newspaper industry. > > imagine how you are going to be thought of post y2k. all you had to > do was print the truth. > > could be a problem, no one knows for sure, wouldn't hurt to make > some preparations. > > good luck with your confrence!

-- marianne (uranus@nbn.net), April 12, 1999.

sorry about that!

as a result of koskinen and abrams *advising* the press to be responsible in their reporting of y2k issues many people feel that y2k related events are not being reported in the most forthcoming fashion.

question.

what type of government tells the *free press* how to report on an issue?

a] fascist b] totalitarian c] dictatorship

in addition to adhering to the governments 'suggestion' the papers in this country, in the main, have either reported on the issue by sensationalizing, ridiculing, or downplaying the severity of the problem.

sensationalizing-survivalists store food, guns, and water and head for the hills.

ridiculing-millennialists prepare for doomsday

downplay-bump in the road

and you have to have a conference to determine why you do not receive respect?

suggested topics

out of the 72,000 systems used to run our government 9,000 deemed 'mission critical.' when unable to reach compliancy within the reduced figure 'mission critical' count fell to 6,200. does this send up red flags?

mission critical means only the systems necessary to 'limp along.' define limp.

fuel availability sliced in half by the inability of third world countries to achieve y2k compliancy. can you see a possible crisis looming?

water systems at risk due to embedded chip problem. imagine a large city with a disrupted water supply.

nerc twists status reports...hides results from the doe and the public. nerc spokesman states that the public would become 'confused. this is called *lying* in the world outside the newsroom.

how about some real reporting on the issues...forget the spin. no one ever suggested that planes would fall from the sky but one should certainly excercise discretion in relation to boarding one around 01/01/2000. no one said that elevators would plummet to the earth but if you remember last year when pg&e experienced difficuly with transmission those same elevators stopped mid ascent/descent.

so here you have it...a few of the reasons people do not trust the newspaper industry.

imagine how you are going to be thought of post y2k. all you had to do was print the truth.

could be a problem, no one knows for sure, wouldn't hurt to make some preparations.

good luck with your conference!

-- marianne (uranus@nbn.net), April 12, 1999.

For those who haven't heard the audio - The freedom forum online has an interesting program (real audio) on "Covering y2k" http://www.freedomforum.org/freeradio/schedule/mar99.asp (go to March 15)

"Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowships: "Y2K  A Preparedness Overview." Speaker: John A. Koskinen, chairman of the president's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. Live from the World Center, Arlington, Va."

(or March 18)

"Jane Garvey, administrator, Federal Aviation Administration and John A. Koskinen, chairman, President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. Encore Webcast of Koskinen speech. Garvey and Koskinen spoke to the Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellows on March 15 at the World Center, Arlington, Va."

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), April 12, 1999.

Watched a kid grow up, become a journalist and one day he was telling me about the evils of logging etc., how the spotted owl was being destroyed because of a lack of virgin timber. We were in the mountains at the time and the area had been stripped of timber during the gold rush era. A forest service "bird watcher" took my wife and kids to view a Spotted Owl nest in the new growth area. I asked the new journalist what he thought of that. "Well, I never even thought about that before." he said. I replyed to him that it would be a good idea if he checked his facts with those who knew before he wrote an article based on emotion rather than facts.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), April 13, 1999.

Tom --- Yes. Not evil, just fact. TV, for instance, exists FOR selling advertising, not for content. Print, radio likewise. It's a contradiction in terms to expect mainstream media to be "independent".

Like many things today, purported objectivity is more of a problem than admitted bias. In the olden days, newspapers were AVOWEDLY liberal, conservative, Republican, etc. This was positive, not negative, since it enabled readers to bring their own intelligent filter to everything said.

For instance, the New York Times today is "pro-nanny government" (to take one tiny example); CNN "pro-NWO" and so on. Journalists would have MORE credibility if this were admitted and introduced into the full light of the public square. It's the manipulation that Americans sense intuitively and are repulsed by. In this sense, whether you love Rush or hate him, he's "easy to read".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 13, 1999.

Todays Newspaper Editors Covering high tech installment ... not even an itty bitty mention of Y2K. But interesting, all the same.

Diane

High-Tech Reporting Frenzy
David Einstein, Jon Swartz, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 13, 1999
)1999 San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/04/13/MN20156.DTL

This week the American Society of Newspaper Editors gathers in San Francisco for its annual meeting.

The key topic: the public's eroding trust in the media. This is the second in The Chronicle's five-part series abou the important credibility issues facing the media.

YESTERDAY: Media credibility TODAY: Covering high tech

TOMORROW: Political scandals

THURSDAY: Privacy FRIDAY: The celebrity circuit

It wasn't that long ago that the only chips likely to interest a journalist were the kind that came with a cheeseburger.

But Apple Computer, the Internet and Bill Gates have changed all that. The media, which knows a good yarn when it sees one, has sunk its teeth into technology like a pit bull biting a burglar.

From a handful of nerdy trade publication reporters a decade ago, the technology press corps has mushroomed into hundreds of writers and editors representing newspapers, magazines, TV, radio and, most recently, online news operations.

The proliferation has created an ``inside the beltway'' mentality in Silicon Valley, where packs of reporters often chase any lead -- no matter how farfetched -- in pursuit of a scoop.

Unlike the Washington press corps, the tech pack must comprehend and translate for readers an alphabet soup of acronyms and technical jargon -- from TCP/IP to bandwidth. By comparison, most people know a sex scandal when they see one.

According to many academic experts and business leaders, journalists haven't been able to keep up with the pace of technology, and often have no idea how new products and services will affect consumers and the marketplace.

As a result, there is ``too much reporting based on press releases'' and ``high-tech personalities,'' says Scott McNealy, the outspoken, charismatic leader of Sun Microsystems, who has become a favorite of the tech media.

The pressures of trying to beat the competition has created a circuslike atmosphere. ``We're running around like chickens with our heads cut off,'' says Orville Schell, dean of journalism at the University of California at Berkeley.

Nowhere was that more evident than in Washington, D.C., in October, when herds of reporters descended on a federal courthouse for the start of Microsoft's antitrust trial. The only scene that rivaled it was the grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky, which took place in the same building on the same day.

The media's infatuation with Microsoft and Gates, the world's richest man, mirrored an insatiable public thirst for information on new technology and the ways it is revolutionizing nearly every aspect of daily life, from communications to entertainment to investing.

Newspapers and other media also have concluded that the more they report on technology, the more advertising they can generate from technology companies, which are striving as never before to reach a mass market.

In the past two years, all major news organizations have beefed up their tech coverage -- especially in the Bay Area. The Chronicle has increased its tech reporting and editing staff from three to nine in the past three years. The San Jose Mercury News' tech team has grown from three to 14 since 1997.

News organizations based on the East Coast also have increased their Bay Area presence. The Wall Street Journal, for example, now has 13 tech reporters and editors in San Francisco -- more than double the number three years ago.

The Washington Post opened a Silicon Valley bureau in September 1997 and has increased its high-tech staff nationwide, from six to eight members, over the past two years.

And Fortune and Forbes, which, until recently, maintained token bureaus in the Bay Area, have also increased their tech presence. Forbes has even created a magazine, ASAP, devoted to technology.

Even local television stations now have tech reporters and are not afraid to dive into industry staples like Microsoft's battle with the government or the latest computer virus.

``A pack mentality fosters more competition and can result in good reporting,'' says Michael Wolff, author of ``Burn Rate,'' a scathing indictment of many Internet industry insiders. ``But we often get trends wrong because technology is such a crapshoot and we don't understand it.''

A vast majority of technology reporters, in fact, have little formal training in technology. And their job is made harder by the fact that technology is ever-changing, forcing reporters to write about technologies before they are fully developed.

``Most papers and magazines realize that technology is important, but I'd say only 10 percent of the tech reporters know what they're doing,'' says Wolff, who, until recently, wrote a column on technology for the Industry Standard, a San Francisco magazine about the Internet.

The tremendous pressure on news organizations to break stories has fostered an atmosphere in which the media reports on many events before they even happen -- often sacrificing accuracy and detail.

In particular, the media follows the lead of the Wall Street Journal, which routinely gets word of corporate mergers and major product announcements ahead of time and prints stories about what companies ``are expected to announce today.''

Sometimes that shoot-first-and- ask-questions-later strategy can backfire, such as in January 1996, when the Journal reported that Sun Microsystems had offered to buy Apple Computer. The New York Times came back with a story of its own, quoting a different price for the deal.

Other papers, meanwhile, felt compelled to report the story even though they lacked sources of their own. In the end, there was no deal, the Journal printed a retraction, and the entire newspaper business had egg on its face.

Because most reporters have little knowledge or historical perspective about technology, many are accused of looking for the ``big shallow story'' designed to pacify editors and attract readers.

Such stories usually either highlight the seamy underbelly of technology, such as sexual predators lurking on the Internet, or glorify flashy innovations like the candy- colored iMacs. And when it comes to the information superhighway, there tends to be no middle ground.

``The press, for the most part, is guilty of either covering technology as a menace or hyping it to the skies,'' said Jon Katz, a former member of the Washington Post and CBS News staffs who frequently writes about technology. ``You'd think the Net was a haven for perverts, pedophiles and geeks.''

When the media turns on a company, it can drive down its stock price and drive its chief executive out of office. Such was the case with Apple, which was besieged by press coverage during the stormy 17- month tenure of CEO Gil Amelio -- a period in which the company lost $1.6 billion.

Perhaps the best example of the love-hate relationship that can develop between reporters and a high- tech company is that of Netscape Communications. In August 1995, when the Mountain View company went public, the media extolled it as the first great Internet company.

``Everybody leaped on Netscape in the mid-1990s because it was interesting and different,'' said the company's co-founder, Jim Clark.

``It was a big story. The press fed into the hype, and the company took off,'' Clark recalled. ``Shortly, however, it was dinged for being arrogant when it got too much publicity. Then we were described as indecisive after Microsoft trained its sights on us.

``Eventually, Netscape was accused of switching strategies all the time,'' he said. ``It's interesting how things swung. Another herd mentality had taken over, but this one was ugly.''

Former Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale still bristles when recalling the feeding frenzy.

``My biggest frustration was the way the press wrote us off when Microsoft entered the market and declared a browser war,'' he said. ``I had to spend a lot of time reassuring our customers that we were not dead. And once the stories started, it was nearly impossible to stop.''

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.

And then, also in todays paper ... a Y2K mention ... groan!

(Its the journalist, stupid!)

Diane

Jumping the Gun on New Products
David Einstein, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 13, 1999
)1999 San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/04/13/MN10780.DTL

[snip]

Y2K (looking ahead) -- This has the potential to be one of the most overhyped stories of the millennium. As of now, stories mentioning the Year 2000 problem are appearing in The Chronicle at the rate of one per day -- a pace that undoubtedly will quicken as the year proceeds.

Many computer industry leaders, however, think it's a bunch of baloney, and that when January 1 rolls around, the only people in trouble will be those who work for companies that provide Y2K ``solutions'' and are left with nothing to do.

``I'm not concerned about it,'' former Netscape Communications CEO Jim Barksdale said. ``Actually, one of the biggest dangers we face over the next six months is the press hyping Y2K and turning it into a crisis situation for the public.''

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.