Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version
On credibility
Hypothetical situation pits anchor Dan Rather against
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, but comes into its own as nitty-gritty editorial
decisions are discussed and analyzed
Winning the trust of the American public is the immediate challenge
for newspaper editors.
This premise in a five-minute video kicked off a lively two-hour "Credibility
Conversation" at the ASNE convention that featured two U.S. representatives,
a network anchor, an ombudsman, a Harvard Law School professor, several
editors and other journalists.
The panel achieved President Sandy Rowe’s stated goal of helping "generate
robust discussion about credibility." This focus isn’t born of despair
or discouragement, she noted, but "is designed to help us better understand
the factors that influence credibility and determine what we can do about
it."
As depicted in the video, credibility has been weakened by a declining
public trust in newspapers (ranked near the bottom in public opinion polls
along with Congress); a lack of accuracy on names, numbers and dates; high-profile
stories that may in fact be non-stories; an unwillingness to apologize
when wrong; burying corrections; and needless intrusiveness.
Law professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr. led a spirited discussion with
the 11 panel members. The presentation included a Socratic dialogue with
role-playing on whether to publish or not publish a news story — based
on anonymous sources — accusing a popular mayor of taking kickbacks
CBS News Anchor Dan Rather started the discussion by equating credibility
with trust. "I see the two words as virtually interchangeable. The readers,
the viewers, the listeners believe that we do and will continue to report
honestly, fairly and accurately. It’s the bedrock of that, and without
credibility, then we’re wasting our time."
But Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sees the problem as a choice of what journalists
say. "If I were doing a word association test and the first word was journalism,
credibility would not be the second. Negativism would be."
Frank believes that journalists on the whole have decided that their
appropriate posture is to "be negative, to be skeptical, to be critical."
And, therefore, there is a negative bias. He also said egos get involved
and if journalists think someone else might have the story, speed always
seems to beat credibility as a value for journalists.
"But it’s the selection of the negative as opposed to more neutral that
bothers me," he said.
Frank and Rather took exception to each other’s remarks several times.
Rather labeled Frank’s remarks about negativity as unfair criticism. "Those
of us in journalism have been under almost constant assault from the political
establishment. It is exactly this kind of criticism that has helped erode"
confidence in journalists.
Rather said he and other journalists are responsible for their own credibility,
and that Frank is not to blame, "but he and others have contributed to
the loss of credibility."
Believability as credibility
Sissela Bok, a distinguished fellow at the Harvard Center for Population
and Development Studies, said that in the public’s view, credibility has
to do with believability. "That’s very easy when you have an immediate
way of checking what you hear. But, of course, the reading public, or the
public that looks at television has no way of checking. So they have to
then say, ‘How believable is this person who is speaking?’ ‘How believable
is this newspaper?’ That’s where the trouble comes in for the public."
Washington Post Ombudsman Geneva Overholser said credibility has many
different elements, and she agreed with Frank’s assertion that negativism
is one of them. She also agreed with Bok that it’s a broader look at whether
or not newspapers are believable. "In other words, do we present the whole
picture of something? I think we want to question, but that’s different
from smearing. And I think that many people in the public feel that we
presuppose a situation."
Moderator Ogletree asked Rich Oppel, editor of the Austin (Texas) American-Statesman,
what values are important to establish, restore and create credibility
for journalists.
"One is accuracy of all kinds, including accuracy in detail. I think
one of the things we fail to do as editors as much as we should is edit
story by story, page by page, edition by edition. And that requires the
top editors’ engagement," Oppel said.
A second value, he said, is fairness in a very broad way. "If, in our
community, the perception is that we cover one side of an ongoing debate,
(such as) environmentalists vs. developers, but one side is overlooked,
that will count us down in the sense of credibility.
"The third thing I think is the lack of capacity of editors and newspapers
today to say what I think are the three most powerful words that a person
can say, and those are ‘I was wrong,’ and take it, lead with the chin in
a sense, and say, ‘We screwed up last week. Let me tell you how that happened
and what I think about it.’ And, also — if you believe this, say ‘I’m sorry,
I apologize.’ We don’t do much of that."
Speed vs. accuracy
Speed vs. accuracy in news coverage elicited much comment, and the consensus
was that accuracy and fairness are a higher priority than speed, though
it is preferable to have all three.
"We’re kidding ourselves if we say, ‘Well, speed doesn’t matter,’ "
Rather said. "Accuracy is first, but speed is right over its shoulder.
But, also, if you get a reputation of being a day behind all the time,
then you are a newspaper in trouble."
But Frank disputed Rather’s comment. "You’re certainly confusing speed
and omission," he said. "We’re not saying you never do it. But what’s a
couple of hours ahead to people? It’s one thing to be the one who brought
out a story that would otherwise not have come to light. It’s another to
be a few hours or a half a day ahead of somebody about a story that was
going to come out any way."
Jerry Ceppos, executive editor of the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury
News, said it is important what message is sent to the newsroom on speed
vs. accuracy. "I’d rather that they have very, very clearly in their minds
— crystal clear — that I’ll be more angry if there’s a problem with (the
story) and that the value is in the fairness and accuracy. If that message
isn’t very clear, the wrong value is going to be the one that prevails."
Executive Editor Judy Pace Christie of Florida Today, Melbourne,
agreed that the timeliness issue is a huge part of credibility, but she
disagreed with Frank that it’s an ego thing. "I think we all would agree
that we want both. We want to get it first, and we want to get it right."
Karla Garrett Harshaw, editor of the Springfield (Ohio) News-Sun, expressed
the view that credibility is not just accuracy and getting names, dates
and places right, but the way a newspaper covers its community. "We should
be able to reflect a range and dimension of views, perspectives and the
fabric of life in the community. And sometimes I think that’s where we
fall short, and that’s where credibility comes into question."
But John Leo, U.S. News & World Report columnist, said bias, not
accuracy, is the heart of the press’ credibility problem. "The public just
doesn’t believe that we do a good job separating opinion and fact. As news
has gotten more and more complicated, analysis has crept in over the old
tradition of just telling the basic story."
Leo said, "There are articles on the front pages of major newspapers
that are demolition jobs on either politicians or social theorists of some
movement, and no editor takes them out and says ‘This is not a news article.
This is an editorial.’ And that’s why the public doesn’t believe us."
Correcting errors
U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), a former collegiate football star who
got his degree in journalism, said that in the effort to break the story
first, "the press, in many respects, has gotten somewhat complacent with
not checking the facts and making sure the facts are accurate."
Watts said he has had a fairly good relationship with the press, but
95 percent of the time when stories about him were wrong and he would take
tangible evidence to prove the error, the publication refused to retract
the story. "Well, I think that hurts. That gives everybody a skeptical
view of the press."
Ceppos and Jack Fuller, president of Tribune Publishing Co., agreed
that credibility has to be built on the smaller things. Ceppos said, "It
seems to be if we go around our newsrooms and say, ‘Hey, we want more corrections
in the newspaper rather than fewer,’ sort of reverse what we’ve traditionally
done, that that’s one way to build credibility too ... the narrow way."
Fuller said, "My impression is that the rush to judgment more than rush
to a fact is our problem. We typically socialize our reporters into knowing
that it’s better not to write it if you’re in doubt than to publish a name
that you haven’t checked. I’m not sure we’ve taught them the same thing
about publishing a view or an analysis, or leaping to the malign assumption
about somebody’s motives, which I think is implicit in a lot of the things
people are saying here."
Frank suggested that newspapers put the correction where the mistake
was made, a practice followed by some newspapers. "Wherever you put the
mistake, put the correction," Frank said. "Now if you were trying to fix
it, that’s how you do it. If you’re trying to minimize it, you hide it
down at the bottom of the inside page."
Watts agreed with Frank about journalists’ egos hurting the credibility.
"It’s just human nature. The older we get the more sophisticated we become
and the more educated we become, the more grown-up we become, the more
difficult it is for us to say, ‘I’m sorry, I’m wrong.’ "
Fuller made the point that human curiosity is relentless. "It wants
to know something and it wants to know it now. It likes to know things
first. And that doesn’t excuse knowing something and making it wrong, but
it certainly explains a lot of what newspapers do, and a lot of what people
expect us to do, at least on certain kinds of stories.
"It also explains why we not only give Pulitzer Prizes to people who
get something right first, but we give Nobel Prizes to people who get something
right first. It’s something very deep in the human spirit."
Rather warned against reporters getting into an "attack dog mode" and
getting a reputation for going for the throat on every story. But he said
a greater danger is the "lap dog mode," in which some papers and some magazines
give approval rights on a story.
Reaction
The lengthy Socratic dialogue on whether to publish the story, using
anonymous sources, about the well-liked mayor accused of kickbacks was
entertaining and informative. But in the end, none of the panelists — save
one — would have published the story. Rather was the only one who would
have published it without sources being named.
However, once the story was broken by an alternative newspaper, all
of the panelists agreed some form of news coverage should be given to it.
There was no agreement on how it should be covered in that case.
In response to a question from the audience about whether restoration
of the National News Council would help restore credibility, none of the
panelists thought that was a solution.
Another questioner asked if the changed role of the copy editor — more
toward production, layout and graphics and less toward checking facts,
checking the meaning of words and checking whether assertions are supported
by the facts in the story — is a major factor in the credibility problem.
"Absolutely," responded Christie of Florida Today. She said some of
the technological advances have helped copy editors do their jobs better,
but in the process attention to detail has been eroded.
"When we have a typographical error in the newspaper, we begin eroding
our credibility," she said. "I think the copy desk is an absolutely critical
part" of the credibility process.
Moderator Ogletree concluded the discussion by commending ASNE for making
credibility the centerpiece of its convention. "You are having outsiders
come in and tell you all the problems that they might associate with journalism.
You are expressing a willingness to say that we are not perfect, in fact
we fail in some significant areas and we’re willing to discuss it. That’s
unique."
Tinsley is vice president/community affairs for the Fort Worth (Texas)
Star-Telegram.
