Q: Describe the Journalsim Credibility Report initiative undertaken at your newspaper.

Our focus was on improving accuracy, chosen because providing accurate information is at the very core of our mission as news organizations. Specifically, we focused on developing methods to improve accuracy in our calendar listings and on developing a reader advocate program, through which readers could bring inaccurate information to our attention.

Q: Please detail the process by which you implemented the initiative.

The reader advocate program was announced in a front page story.

With calendar listings, we met with the news assistants responsible for inputting calendar material, along with their supervisors, to determine the kinds of corrections we would track. We focused on errors we made, rather than incorrect information that was provided to us. We charged supervisors with tracking corrections by the news assistants on their staffs on a monthly basis. At the end of each month, we paid a bonus to news assistants who had no corrections.

“We decided that rather than having one person serve as the advocate full time, we would rotate the entire staff into the position for weeklong stints. This would provide every staffer the opportunity to talk directly with readers.” – Janet Weaver

We launched the reader advocate program after extensive discussion among the newsroom editors. We wanted to create a place where readers could report corrections, but we really wanted it to be a one-stop shop for any reader complaint or concern. We decided that rather than having one person serve as the advocate full time, we would rotate the entire staff into the position for weeklong stints. This would provide every staffer the opportunity to talk directly with readers and hear first-hand how important accuracy is to them. Our weekend/special projects editor, Cheryl Smith, created a staff rotation and worked with Newsroom Business Manager Jan Gehle to create a training program for the advocates.

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

Community listings were scrutinized for accuracy, and the editor often wrote about credibility issues.

Q: Describe community outreach efforts related to the project.

There hasn’t been any organized community outreach. We have run a number of stories in the paper explaining the advocate and soliciting calls. Each day on Page 2A, we run an explanation of what the advocate does, the number to call and a photo of that week’s advocate. On Saturdays, the advocate reports back to the readers in that same space about his/her experience during the week and any

problems that have been resolved as a result of reader calls.

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

Because we will take calls about any problem in the newspaper, employees in circulation and in the pressroom are very familiar with the advocate program. We frequently call circulation or the pressroom to get answers to readers’ delivery problems or problems with the quality of the newspaper they received.

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

Yes. In October, we began running a column from the executive editor or managing editor every Sunday, explaining some aspect of the newsroom – a decision to run a story or a photo, policies on using unnamed sources, etc. We also have run boxes with stories, explaining decisions to include or exclude information in that story. And we currently are assembling a reader advisory committee that will critique our coverage and offer suggestions for improvement.

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

The reader advocate program drove home to our staff just how much readers value accuracy and how even small errors erode our credibility. We were fairly amazed about how many errors in standing features had appeared for long periods of time and were only noted when we asked readers to call us about problems. We recognized that credibility isn’t just about the big stories, but about the details – which are very important to our readers.

Q: What were the toughest?

The hardest lesson is learning how to let go of our defensiveness and invite the readers in, to listen to their comments and complaints without trying to argue with them – to really hear them instead of constantly trying to defend ourselves.

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

The reader advocate program has worked very well and been very positive both inside the organization and with our readers. The calendar listings effort did not fare as well – we did not monitor corrections consistently. And offering bonuses for something that should have been an expected part of job performance did not send a positive message to the overall staff.

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

We must remember to focus not only on big stories but on elements such as calendar listings and briefs – credibility rests in the small things as well as the major stories. We need to monitor not just the facts but the tone and manner in which we present those facts. We should lower the wall between newsrooms and readers, be willing to explain the reasons we do the things we do, and be better listeners to those we are trying to serve.

What staffers say Kent Thurber Production Editor “(I found that while serving as a reader advocate) our conversations confirmed my conviction that a newspaper is not a thing apart, but rather a piece of a larger community, partnered with our readers. As a community, we become stronger, better, by helping each other.”

What readers say “I’m glad to see the paper working on improving credibility, with the reader advocate and the Reader Advisory Committee. I want to remind you that we look to the newspaper to be unbiased, to be neutral, to be fair. If I could give you one word to guide your news coverage, it would be moderation.” Harold Wolfe Sarasota