Last Updated: May 26, 1999
Printer-friendly version
On public journalism
Three steps to improve public journalism
Stop taking money from the Pew Center for Civic Journalism,
remain cautious of ‘defining the agenda,’ stay competitive with other newspapers
By Richard A. Oppel
Washington writers are alarmed over what is called "public journalism,"
and some have mounted high-saddled horses to instruct their country brethren.
We are grateful.
If I hear the message accurately, it is: "Do it like we do it."
Which has a few perils. When you stop and think about it, a good part
of why people hate the press is that supposedly impartial Washington reporters
are raking in $20,000 a speech from special interest groups, or editorializing
on TV.
(The Wall Street Journal noted that a Washington bureau chief referred
to Paula Jones of Arkansas, who has filed a sexual harassment case against
President Clinton, as "some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the
trailer parks.")
As for public journalism, I speak to the criticism as an admitted practitioner.
The Charlotte Observer launched its "Your Vote" project in 1992, when I
was editor. This effort later was called public journalism. What was it?
We surveyed voters long before the election to determine what issues
they felt were most important (they said crime, drugs, job security, health
care). We interviewed about 300 of those respondents in depth. We explored
the issues in special reports. That’s about it.
I saw it as returning to the traditional roots of journalism, and away
from political journalism of the 1980s: horse-race polls, insider politics
and manipulation by candidates and their managers.
Public journalism’s goal is to reconnect the press with the reader.
It is not traditional stenographic reporting, where "elites" of the media
and politics talk over the heads of readers. It is the press’s effort to
create an environment where citizens can have a reasoned discussion about
community problems.
The critics’ idea of "good" coverage apparently is heavily dependent
on reporting what the candidates do and say on the campaign trail. This
is of some value if the contest is for president.
But how does that serve the reader when the contest includes a stealth
candidate like Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.? Helms’ candidacy includes feel-good
(except at the end of the campaign) TV ads, a rare appearance before a
small-town crowd and refusing interviews with reporters.
Stenography doesn’t work. Good, solid digging into the facts, trends
and events behind the issues is a substantial substitute. Yet, with all
of the arguments for trying new ways of campaign coverage, there are several
changes to "public journalism" that I think should be considered:
-
Stop accepting money from foundations. The Pew Center for Civic Journalism
is headed by Ed Fouhy, a respected former CBS Washington bureau chief.
Pew’s goal is to improve civic life. I would support grants to assist universities
and civic organizations, but refuse grants to newsrooms to pay for reporters,
editors and their expenses. Newspaper credibility is eroded.
Most daily metropolitan newspapers are profitable, and their editors shouldn’t
be asking foundations for subsidies. The editors are fortunate, too, if
the owners of their companies pay as much attention to the communities
in which they operate as they do to Wall Street.
-
Be cautious in "defining the agenda." Critics say public journalists arrogantly
set the issues agenda based on polls, dismissing issues later raised by
candidates. Supporters like Fouhy say good public journalists help citizens
set their own agenda, and then get out of the way.
Agendas, though, change rapidly with events. Newspapers can’t faithfully
follow those fluctuations.
-
Remain competitive with other newspapers. In 1996, large dailies in North
Carolina combined on polling and the common publication of 12 issues stories.
The Washington Post’s Jonathan Yardley attacked this cooperation as a cabal.
I cannot imagine Claude Sitton at the News & Observer of Raleigh and
me at the Charlotte Observer joining forces in 1992, when we were trying
to beat each other’s heads in. Editors should nurture fierce competition
in a time of media concentration, not surrender it.
Public journalism is no substitute for investigative reporting, which
risks irritating powerful interests in a community. Public journalism seldom
offends and seldom brings to light the outrageous things that go on in
a community.
Readers expect newspapers to expose corruption. If a newspaper seeks
to offend no one, it will be dismissed as irrelevant. The best kind of
journalism begins with the reporter who digs up stuff that will never appear
in a public opinion poll — and ends with an editorial page raising hell
about reform.
Oppel, editor of the Austin (Texas) American-Statesman, is treasurer-elect
of ASNE and co-chair of The American Editor Committee.
