Last Updated: May 26, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Journalism credibility
Credibility: A trust that was rarely there
A look at the historical record of the public’s trust
in newspapers finds that outside of Watergate, the media has rarely had
that trust
By Arlene Notoro-Morgan
Newspapers have been in an almost perpetual state of war with the reading
public over the issues of sensationalism, truthfulness, believability and
bias since the moment the Founding Fathers put the words "free" and "press"
together. The gap between professional standards and reader preferences
certainly points to a number of problems for editors who must balance what
sells with what can be credibly produced in the allotted time. Often the
public that criticizes our performance as sensational is the same public
that has made People the one of most profitable magazines on the newsstand.
In his book, "The Press and The Public: Who Reads What, When,
Where and Why in American Newspapers," industry researcher Leo Bogart says
that success in editing a newspaper is also tied to circulation gains and
wonders if this means that the traits that make a newspaper good are the
same ones that make it popular.
A number of good newspapers were among the 200 or so that have gone
out of business in the latter part of this century. Credibility, as defined
by accuracy, fairness and balance, had nothing to do with their failures
and probably little to do with the papers that dominated them.
But today, credibility issues, focused on the goal of quality improvement
in this increasingly media-savvy society, may mean more to our future survival
than they have in the past.
To move forward with a self-analysis on why the industry’s trust ratings
are so low in the eyes of the public, today’s editors should stop yearning
to recapture a trust they presume existed in the past. History fails to
document, with the exception of Watergate, that we ever had their trust.
The power and influence of the press, depending on what poll one reads,
has ranged from awesome to minimal. A 1997 Gallup poll put the public’s
trust in newspapers behind pharmacists, physicians and ministers, about
neck to neck with politicians but behind television news anchors. News
researchers, however, don’t think these ratings are a reason to panic,
pointing to statistics that show 85 percent of the population reading a
newspaper at least once a week and about 65 percent reading on a daily
basis.
Fragile at best, credibility ratings can change from day to day, from
story to story and from issue to issue and often depend on who is being
polled. A paper with a high credibility rating on the issues of fairness,
accuracy and objectivity can blow its reputation with one picture, the
insensitive coverage of a tragedy or a sensational headline.
A review of more than 50 years of literature on newspaper credibility
failed to find evidence of the public’s high regard, outside of Watergate,
which the media itself helped promote through congratulatory articles about
the Washington Post.
But the Post, says journalism historian Rodger Streitmatter, was virtually
the only news organization that committed its investigative resources in
the first six months following the Watergate break-in. "Indeed, many of
the nation’s leading newspapers, news magazines, and television networks
not only did not follow the story themselves but accused the Post of overplaying
the story," he writes in his book, "Mightier Than the Sword: How the News
Media Have Shaped American History." When the work was vindicated, polls
found that the public felt new respect for reporters and schools of journalism
began bursting at the seams.
In the days following Nixon’s resignation, public opinion polls showed
that 68 percent had "trust and confidence" in the news media. By 1995 those
numbers were in the 20s. Was it the story that drove the public’s trust
or had we lost credibility through the public perception of reporters as
arrogant, irresponsible, self-centered careerists out to make the stockholders
happy? Or are we suffering from a cycle of distrust for all institutions
that is based all we have reported since the end of World War II?
The work now under way by ASNE, the Media Studies Center and the Project
for Journalism Excellence attempts to find some specific answers to these
questions and, it is hoped, how they connect to success in the marketplace.
But is the media really perceived as less credible now than it was earlier
in this century?
A look at media credibility of U.S. periodicals between 1900-1939 written
by Linda Weiner Hausman described almost 500 articles that gauged newspapers
on social responsibility, business dealings and examples of improper ethics,
yellow journalism, coverage of crime, tabloid exploits and just general
bad behavior. Here are some tidbits:
-
In 1926, Outlook magazine said that the press was "not as vigilant a watchdog
as it once was because it was too well fed."
-
During the days of the New Deal, The Nation urged the press to adjust to
changing times, while criticizing editors who opposed FDR administration
policies of falsifying news.
-
Conflicts about the industry’s need to make money were as visible at the
beginning of the century as they are today.
-
In 1902, The Nation lamented that the "counting room" had taken control
of the newspaper and urged editors to check against innocuous and dull
writing, which it saw as bad for business.
-
In 1926, the American Mercury said that industry improvements of the past
25 years had been material, not spiritual. "They used to spread ideas.
Now they only make profits."
The pre-World War II period also boasted its share of Princess Diana-type
celebrities. The press hounded Charles Lindbergh from the minute he stepped
off his famous flight through the abduction of his baby and subsequent
trial of the kidnapper.
Newspaper performance, the subject of incessant criticism for a century,
has been scrutinized by two major commissions since World War II. One,
commonly called the Hutchins Commission, was an attempt to head off further
government restrictions on the press that were in force during the war.
Chaired by Robert M. Hutchins, then-chancellor of the University of Chicago,
the 139-page report, issued in 1947, warned that the media were in danger
of losing their freedoms because they had failed "to accept the full measure
of their responsibility to the public."
Composed mostly of academics and no journalists, the commission recommended
that the media should:
-
Provide a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s
events in a context which gives them meaning.
-
Be a forum for exchange of comment and criticism on matters of public importance.
Present a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society.
-
Undertake the presentation and clarification of the goals and values of
society.
-
Provide to the public full access to the day’s intelligence.
With few exceptions the Hutchins recommendations were repudiated. Then-ASNE
president Wilbur Forrest said he doubted that one in 10 on the 13-member
commission "could run a newspaper and stay out of bankruptcy over 12 months."
The report was left for journalism educators and historians to ponder.
Yet its aftermath did produce efforts to separate fact from opinion. Journalists
were taught to label commentary and analysis pieces. Ethics discussions
helped move newsrooms to a more professional standard by the time the first
baby boomers hit college classrooms.
The second set of recommendations, included in the 1968 Kerner Commission
report, met with more lasting consequences. Convened in the face of the
1960s racial riots, the commission specifically targeted the media’s role
in reporting about constituent groups in society. Kerner saw the coverage
of blacks as largely negative and reactionary. It described the media —
with few exceptions — as treating "Negroes as if Negroes do not read newspapers
or watch television, give birth, marry, die or go to PTA meetings." The
press, said Kerner, was failing to communicate to "both their black and
white audiences a sense of the problems America faces and the sources of
potential solutions."
If we look at newspapers and the various charges of distrust and bias
over the years, there is little evidence to support that editors will embrace
the financial and philosophical changes that would make their papers more
credible to the public. To the contrary, the industry has operated on a
defensive posture based on the rights granted by the First Amendment. Current
attempts to meet and understand reader concerns in various advisory and
community forums have no historical parallels. Imagine if you will, William
Randolph Hearst or Joseph Pulitzer conducting a town meeting or a focus
group.
The changing social climate and the competitive forces may require new
types of public interactions and editorial leadership if we are to continue
to serve the democratic process and civic well being. Pulitzer and Hearst
only had each other to worry about. Their readers were a captive audience
with little else to do with their leisure hours. The trust and attention
of today’s readers cannot be taken for granted.
While no significant studies conclusively link reader departures to
specific issues of credibility, the lack of time people cite for their
failure to read newspapers must play into our overall view of what makes
our work credible. Some readers who abhor editorial stands on abortion,
political candidates and welfare reform would probably not miss an edition,
for the very reason that they enjoy the debate. Others accept bias as a
fact of a newspaper’s existence with little complaint. Regrettably, we
don’t know the answers to many of these questions because past studies
have rarely gone beyond the superficial.
Past self-examinations did lead to some reforms and to an increased
professionalism that produced stronger, less biased papers than those reviewed
by the two commissions. As part of their social responsibility, newspaper
exposes have led to significant changes in health care, prisons, environmental
practices, and campaign and election practices. Still, the public tells
the pollsters it wants more — maybe more than we can give. These studies,
warn the marketing researchers, may not help us with our readership and
circulation initiatives, especially if based on past practices. Their value,
it would seem, are the templates they can create for the industry to adopt
a quality improvement program hinged to what we, as journalists, all have
a stake in — being believed.
The current studies are intended to produce the specifics behind the
public’s long-held but little-heeded feelings of distrust. They may result
in programs to use commas correctly, write more accurate headlines and
get the titles and names right. They may also lead us to check facts more
vigorously and explain ourselves better from a variety of perspectives
on the rights and responsibilities of the First Amendment.
Some say we must do a better job of marketing ourselves to ensure that
the value of newspapers are not lost on society. Before we do that, let’s
make sure that our newspapers are something of value and worth the effort.
The latest rash of credibility studies should focus on making history,
not repeating it.
Morgan is assistant to editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer. She is
currently working on a journalism text, "What Planet Do You Think You're
Covering?"
