Last Updated: March 02, 1999
Printer-friendly version
A note
from the president
On credibility day at last April’s convention an overview began: “What
do we know? For starters, the sky is not falling ... By many measures,
things look relatively good for newspapers...”
Well, the sky came tumbling down.
Which is an introductory way of saying ASNE’s credibility effort is
even more important than we originally envisioned.
So what have we learned from our national research, recently announced
at a Washington press conference?
One thing is certain: News credibility is a hot topic of conversation
across the nation. In general, the public views us as disconnected from
our readers and communities. It perceives us as overly sensational, often
inaccurate, disrespectful, biased and unable to explain ourselves. It sees
us as not even willing to acknowledge our commercial motives, which it
plainly sees.
The research reveals a wealth of rich information on these topics, including
much useful data related to practices of journalism in daily newspapers.
When readers see a correction, for example, 78 percent say it makes
them feel better about the quality of the news coverage they are getting.
Another 11 percent have neutral feelings. Only 10 percent feel worse.
To me, this makes a major statement about corrections. We should be
less hesitant about running them, and they should get prominent play. Perhaps
the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times is right with its policy of playing all
corrections on the front of the section that carried the error, including
A section.
The results on unidentified sources also get your attention. Eight out
of 10 readers are concerned or somewhat concerned about them, and half
think we should not use them at all. This should kindle some serious re-thinking.
While I don’t contend there is no place for unnamed sources, particularly
in whistle-blowing stories, I insist that tighter standards are a must.
Anonymity should be limited to fact, not opinion, that is newsworthy and
not available from any source on the record. Period.
The most fundamental expectation of the press is truth-telling. Our
watchdog role is secondary, at least to the public. It values “the facts”
and truth-telling over interpretation and drama-even including holding
stories until both sides can be contacted. As Ben Bradlee said recently,
“When the history of the world is written, no one will know whether you
had it on Saturday or Sunday.”
While 64 percent of the public believes we make biased decisions about
what to publish, more are concerned about advertiser influence than political
bias. Of those who perceive political bias, just over half see us as more
liberal than they are and just under half as more conservative. Four of
five members of the public believe special-interest groups can manipulate
us.
Half our readers find misleading heads once a week. Nearly half
find what they see as errors in stories about which they have personal
knowledge. These numbers may not necessarily surprise you, but they do
say loudly and clearly that we have a great deal to fix.
There is, of course, no silver bullet to solve our problems. Credibility
is about the quality and integrity of our news report. It is about understanding,
articulating and applying high professional standards.
With our formal announcement of the national research results, we made
a clear statement that we know we have problems and we care. We also are
doing something about them.
In fact, this is the most exciting part of the project. Eight newspapers
are using the national research to develop and test real-life solutions
to the credibility problems that we exposed in the research. They have
boiled down the problems to four general subjects: accuracy, sensationalism,
bias and connecting with readers. The actual tests are now being implemented.
We hope to report preliminary results at our April convention in San Francisco.
We also have undertaken a national study of attitudes and perceptions
in newsrooms which, when completed, will be compared to the results from
the survey of the general public. While these results are still being tabulated,
I can tell you that the disconnect between journalists and the public is
significant and, of course, on certain subjects related to news judgment,
unfixable.
We in newspapers have had our share of recent disappointments. For the
most part, our disappointments have been fired. But there’s simply a lot
of work to be done. Part of it is cleaning up our own house, part of it
is inspiring our colleagues to clean up their houses, and part of it is
better telling of the story to the public.
As editors, we have to tighten the reins. We must reshape attitudes
in the newsroom. We have to cut down the errors. We have to cut down the
anonymous quotes, which invariably come from someone with an ax to grind.
We’ve got to rein in the pundits, the “Sabbath gas bags” as Calvin Trillin
calls them. Journalists who go on television should not be saying what
they do not know or giving opinion without restraint. We have to renew
our dedication to truth-telling.
If newspaper journalism longs for greater respect, newspaper editors
must articulate what newspaper journalism stands for and then supply the
discipline of sound journalistic practices.
Seaton, ASNE president, is editor-in-chief of The Manhattan (Kan.)
Mercury.
