While putting a high value on contextual stories about public safety, the reorganization stressed that all reporters would continue to respond to incidents of breaking crime news. The goal was to develop topic expertise (violence, neighborhoods, etc.) that would allow the team to put incidents in perspective in deciding whether to write about them and when they wrote about them.

The initiative was launched in mid-1999 with a Page One story on car break-ins, a chronic problem in Portland that previously had received only passing attention from the newspaper. It struck a chord; About 50 readers called or sent e-mails to the reporter after the story appeared.

Q: How easily did the newsroom come aboard? How did you handle communication, motivation, and commitment?

Crime team reporters were mostly enthusiastic about the change; they appreciated the opportunity to bring more depth to their work and liked having clearer standards for how they would spend their time and how we would judge newsworthiness and play.

The paper's crime coverage (above and above left) and Public Safety page (directly above)

Executive Editor Peter Bhatia gave the staff periodic updates on Gage’s research and recommendations. Reaction around the newsroom has been mostly curiosity about the initiative. Some worry that readers will think we are falling short by failing to match television reporting of crime incidents; others believe the Metro cover has become less “newsy” because fewer crime incidents make the cover. Some wonder if we are stopping our reporting on certain incidents too soon because we assume we won’t write about them, especially on weekends when most of the police and city desk editing shifts are on a rotation.

Q: Describe community outreach efforts related to the project.

Reader feedback, including calls to the newspaper’s public editor and the reader groups described above, were a key part in forming the initiative. Michele McLellan, who was then the public editor, and Bhatia also wrote columns explaining the changes to readers and soliciting their responses. The public editor column appeared while research was under way and solicited reader comments; the executive editor announced the changes as they began and again solicited comments. We did not promote the initiative beyond editors’ notes; one question was whether readers would notice the daily changes without promotions.

Reader feedback since the changes occurred has been largely positive. Tellingly, reader calls complaining about crime and sensationalism dropped markedly after the initiative began.

Readers were told about and invited to comment on changes in crime coverage.

Q: How aware were your colleagues in other newspaper departments of the credibility project?

We have kept the directors of the business-side departments informed of the newsroom plans.

Q: Did the credibility initiative spark other ideas and/or changes in your newspaper? Please describe.

The crime initiative coincided with an increasing interest inthe newsroom in capturing trends and experiences that affectthe public below the threshold of agency involvement. Developing intelligent trend reporting also figures in our second credibility initiative, youth, and on other topic beats.

Q: What were the most important lessons learned about credibility?

Readers have good ideas for improving news coverage; they should routinely be part of the early discussions of new initiatives.

Newspapers need to exercise news judgment and control where they can in the context of credibility. Breaking loose from TV on crime coverage is difficult. But we’re proving we can make a separation in the minds of readers while still providing strong news coverage.

It’s important to ask fundamental questions about coverage, asking what parts of our coverage are shaped or possibly distorted by habit or because of the press for newsiness on any given day. It is important to challenge the effectiveness of standard practices in aiding public understanding, keeping the best practices and discarding those that do not best serve readers.

Q: What were the toughest?

The crime initiative underscored the difficulty of breaking old habits, even when there is consensus for change. Staffers naturally rely on old reflexes when news breaks; it is important for newsroom leaders to engage in conversation about the new philosophy when specific stories emerge.

Q: If you had it to do over again, what would you do better or not do at all?

This project has gone very smoothly thanks to Gage’s good research, planning and persistence. We have realized in retrospect that we have more work to do in showing the newsroom how the lessons of the crime initiative apply to other topics; that is a priority for 2000.

Q: How can newspapers continue to build credibility and increase public trust in the future?

Newspapers will build trust if they consistently demonstrate that they are trying to meet the high standards of readers as well as those of the industry. We need to keep finding places within newspaper coverage, such as crime and youth, and go through a similar process. Coverage and topic-based initiatives are very powerful, much more so even than correction boxes and taglines on stories. Topic-based initiatives may not be as immediately visible or marketable, but in the long term they will change public perceptions.

What readers say Cyntia LaCrone Portland ’’Something seems to be happening lately. Your stories are more in-depth, more special interest oriented and not so focused on violence… Am I imagining things or are you folks actually making an effort to focus on nonviolent news?”

What staffers say Susan Gage Team Leader “Our beats are now structured to be less reactive and more topical — including coverage of property crime and white-collar crime — which affects many people but got little attention before. We still cover breaking news, but put it in context and play it at a volume that’s less alarmist.”