Last Updated: May 26, 1999
Printer-friendly version
A note from the president
Credibility watch: Think twice before covering the
pack
By Sandy Rowe
As the ASNE credibility project begins, I’ve been seeing press credibility
questions around every corner.
As one piece of that, I increasingly wonder how bound up we are with
other media in the public perception. How much of the undeniably declining
view of the media has to do with perceived sins of newspapers as opposed
to those of our cousins in television? Or, in the case of trash TV and
tabloid journalism, the offenses of kin we don’t even claim.
The most recent surveys make it clear none among us can assume the problem
is everyone else’s, not ours. But still, is our newspapers’ credibility
really bound together with that of other media?
We should want to be thought of as different from television news because
we have fundamentally different values on many things. Yet, I’m less certain
we act as differently as we should.
Newspapers and television differ in the range of news we present, in
the way we view our responsibility to provide depth and context in stories
and in newspapers’ instinct to explain complex subjects. That’s not just
a difference in the tools we use.
It is in our interest to keep the values of television and newspapers
from merging, even as an increasing number of information companies (all
of which used to be newspaper companies) set up TV stations in corners
of their newsrooms.
Consider the need for video at 6 and 11. The news lens for television
news directors is the camera’s lens. Years ago I found that a good way
to duck a TV interview was to tell the reporter I’d be happy to talk about
the subject of his call, but I didn’t want to be interviewed on camera.
End of story.
The need for video not only dictates what stories TV can do easily,
but it also causes TV reporters to camp out at an individual’s home, place
of employment, neighborhood bar, grocery store or wherever a microphone
can be held out and a film crew can catch a passing shot of the target
of the day.
We haughtily condemn the pack though we’re frequently a part of it.
With alarming frequency, we report on the pack whether we’re a part of
it or not. I’m reminded of the question a mentor of mine skewered me with
whenever I published something he thought stupid. "What’s the theory behind
this story?" he would scrawl in the margin. That’s what I want to ask when
I see us covering TV covering a waiting game. What’s the theory behind
this? I don’t see how it serves anything other than the public cynicism
about our motives and processes. The pack is rarely a pretty sight and
surely never gives the public a smidgen of substance or meaning.
Recently I was stewing about unnecessary coverage of "the media" and
the resulting lack of distinction among different media because of a story
in my own newsroom. Last month, local authorities located and identified
a newspaper reporter who had disappeared in Tacoma, Wash., 12 years ago
and had not communicated with colleagues and family members since. An amnesia
victim, she had long ago created a new identity and was living in Alaska
with her husband and two sets of twin daughters.
Perfect newspaper story, right? The grateful parents. The tearful reunion.
The all-American family with all the pieces put back together after a dozen
lost years. But, as we all know, life is rarely so tidy. The woman was
stunned to discover her true identity — grown siblings, elderly parents,
the whole deal. Somewhat reclusive by nature, she wanted nothing to do
with the growing media horde gathering outside her double-wide trailer
in Sitka, Alaska.
So there we were, day after day for most of a week, outside in the drizzle
with the camera-toting TV folk waiting for her — or anyone — to emerge
and speak. She did not. But her parents and husband made a deal and granted
an interview to "Good Morning America" and to a local TV station. And we
dutifully and repeatedly reported the media crowd outside her home, we
took pictures of the media horde and even reported when the TV interview
would be broadcast.
Were we there because of the news value to our readers or were we there
because everyone else was? The answer is not always as easy as we like
to pretend. In this case, we flew to Alaska on the same plane as the parents,
and we, of course, hoped for the exclusive interview once the reunion occurred.
When we didn’t get it, we stayed anyway, still hoping. Besides, who wants
to be the first to leave and risk getting beat if news finally does happen?
Meanwhile, the media mass — and specifically TV — were a substantial part
of our coverage.
If you are feeling smug that this doesn’t happen in your newsroom, consider
the coverage of media swarms at the O.J. trials, the JonBenet murder investigation,
the Olympics or even the political conventions. We’ve fallen prey to covering
ourselves. The public is paying attention.
Is it news? Evidently we think so. And in some cases it may be. But
one thing I’m sure of. The sins of pack journalism, not the least of which
is coverage of pack journalism instead of real news, do not help differentiate
us from TV news.
I hope that the ASNE credibility project helps us understand better
how we are viewed, and what we do that detracts from our credibility. But
more than that, I hope that local daily newspapers don’t settle for just
being better TV. We’re different. And we ought to protect and nurture that
difference more than we do.
Rowe is ASNE president and editor of The Oregonian, Portland.
