Last Updated: August 12, 2002
Printer-friendly version
Public attitudes
about journalism credibility
In the 1999
tracking study, a series of questions were repeated from the original Journalism
Credibility Project’s 1998 baseline research to identify any fundamental shifts
in the public’s attitudes toward the press, or the beliefs they expressed
about journalism credibility.1
Because
each of the test sites was a discrete sample, there is no direct comparison
of national numbers possible. Even given that, the similarity of responses
across this set of markets is striking. Irrespective of the diversity in size,
demography and geography represented by these eight markets, more than 80
percent of adults in each agree with statements like:
- “The major job of
newspapers is to get the facts right, not to tell me how to interpret those
news events.”
- “I believe that newspapers
frequently overdramatize some news stories just to sell more papers.”
And more than
two-thirds believe that:
- “It’s pretty easy
for special interest groups to manipulate the press.”
- “Newspapers pay lots
more attention to stories that support their own agenda or point of view.”
- “In a controversy
with two clearly different sides, newspapers should not publish a news story
if they can only reach one side for comment.”
- “Lately I have become
more skeptical about the accuracy of anything I hear or read in the news.”
Only about
half of residents in each of these markets think:
- “It’s a legitimate
role for newspapers to use their power to protect the interests of the underdog.”
- “The press is covering
the Clinton administration fairly.”
While residents
of Colorado Springs, Colo., and Brevard County, Fla., are more likely than others
to agree that “the press is out of touch with mainstream Americans” (Newport
News, Va., and San Jose, Calif., are least likely), there is still more similarity
than difference in the pattern of responses.
About 80 percent
of test-site residents perceive bias in the news media, and television is mentioned
more frequently as the medium that they feel is “most biased.”
What do these
tracking data suggest about the public landscape in which the Journalism Credibility
Project test site newspapers are experimenting with credibility-building solutions?
First, even without a simple apples-to-apples comparison of national samples,
it seems the attitudes measured in the baseline study were not a fluke, nor
did they seem to be skewed by the arguably hot media environment of 1997 and
1998.
Second, the
similarities across markets appear much more profound than the differences.
The fact that residents of very differently sized and very differently constituted
markets tend to agree on these fundamental attitudes toward the credibility
of the press is notable.
Finally, these
data suggest that nothing in the fundamental structure of public attitudes about
journalism credibility has changed since 1998. In order to make comparisons,
the 1999 responses in the seven test-site samples were combined (excluding Philadelphia,
which was not trackable because of a shift in the geography and definition of
qualified respondents), and compared to a similar combination of test site responses
from 1998.
There are
some shifts that seem to be emerging, but it’s an exaggeration to call them
trends. For instance, 48 percent of adults in the test-site markets now believe
the Clinton administration is being covered fairly by the press (up 6 percentage
points from the test site findings of 1998). And a higher proportion who see
bias in the media blame television as the worst offender (46 percent now, an
increase of 7 percentage points in the test sites). On the other hand, there
is a growing proportion of adults who believe that newspapers:
- Frequently overdramatize
news stories just to sell papers (87 percent agree now, a 6 percentage point
increase vs. 1998).
- Should not publish
until they can reach both sides of a controversial story (75 percent agree
now, a 7 percentage point increase).
Fewer believe
that newspapers have a legitimate role to:
- Use their power to
protect the interests of the underdog (49 percent agree now, down 5 percentage
points since 1998).
Perhaps there’s
comfort in the fact that – when asked to explain the public’s dissatisfaction
with the press – more adults now say that the press is “just an easy target
to blame for deeper problems in our society” (38 percent, up 8 percentage points
since 1998). However, it’s still true that 53 percent feel the dissatisfaction
is justified.
Public
perceptions of newspapers
Across the
test sites, there is almost as much similarity in these residents’ perceptions
of newspapers as there is in their underlying beliefs about the press. While
an overwhelming proportion believe that newspapers really understand the issues
important to their local community, it’s more likely to find that residents
see newspapers as more liberal politically than they are. Just as was true in
1998, there’s a split on the perceptions of the degree to which newspapers provide
fair/balanced reporting (vs. unfair/unbalanced reporting) of groups that they
might disagree with, and whether they pay too much (vs. too little) attention
to coverage of ethnic or racial groups.
What’s painful
and obvious, however, is to see that twice as many adults in each test site
market would accuse newspapers of making biased (rather than objective) decisions
about what news to publish, and that more than three times as many believe that
profits overshadow the public interest as newspapers’ primary concern.
The incidence
of both negative perceptions has also been growing in the population: 50 percent
of test site adults (excluding Philadelphia) now believe that newspapers “make
biased decisions about what news to publish” (up 7 percentage points). And 69
percent say newspapers are “concerned mainly with making profits” rather than
the public interest (up 12 percentage points from 1998).
Please note
that some of the data cited is comprised of 1998 and 1999 test site results.
Charts on the following pages contain 1999 test site data, along with the results
of 1998 national research.
