Last Updated: March 02, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Why newspaper credibility has been dropping
The public sees too many factual errors and spelling
or grammar mistakes in newspapers.
Even seemingly small errors feed public skepticism about a newspaper’s
credibility. Each misspelled word, bad apostrophe, garbled grammatical
construction, weird cutline and mislabeled map erodes public confidence
in a newspaper’s ability to get anything right. One focus group laughed
out loud when asked whether mistakes ever appeared in their paper.
Essentially, readers don’t care whether the reporter was rushed, or
that the staff was down three people, or if the copy editor was too busy
laying out pages to catch misuses of the common language.
More than a third of adults said they see spelling or grammar mistakes
in their newspaper more than once a week (21 percent said they saw them
almost daily), and every focus group had something to say on the topic:
-
“They used to proofread. I don’t know what they do now.”
-
“It seems like the paper’s gotten sloppier in the last 10 years.”
Beyond the typos, however, 23 percent of adults say that they find factual
errors in the news stories of their daily paper at least once a week.
While only 21 percent of those who found errors believe these mistakes
are getting more frequent, 60 percent believe that there are just as many
mistakes as there have always been. Some factual errors appear understandable
because they are errors of knowledge, a point made by several focus group
participants:
-
“If you have expertise (in an area) and you read newspaper coverage, you
find error after error.”
-
“A reporter is a reporter — not a geologist, not a doctor. They’re laymen.
You can’t trust what they say.”
While almost half of the public believes that mistakes and errors occur
in the rush to meet deadlines, 27 percent attribute them to sloppiness,
carelessness, laziness or a lack of caring, and an additional 5 percent
suggest that the journalists just don’t know any better. It’s interesting
to note that older adults report finding errors and mistakes more frequently
than do those under 35.
When they see errors, 19 percent of readers say they always see a correction,
and 40 percent sometimes see one. It’s also clear that admitting mistakes
and errors is not only a wise practice, but a very desirable one among
readers — 63 percent said they felt better about the quality of the news
coverage they get when they see corrections.
On the ubiquitous foundation of public belief that “the major job of
the press is to report the truth, even if it’s painful or shocking to a
lot of people,” it’s discouraging to learn that 73 percent of adults have
become more skeptical about news accuracy, and 68 percent believe that
newspapers run a lot of stories without checking them just because other
papers have published them, not because they know they’re true, and the
degree of skepticism increases with age.
Further, 90 percent of adults have concluded that they would get a higher
quality news report if there was newspaper competition — an attitude that’s
particularly strong in larger markets and among baby boomers ages 35 to
54.
Perceptions of media
Both newspapers and television are widely used sources of news and information,
and each is seen to have specific competitive advantages. Thus, the public’s
complaints about mistakes and errors in their newspapers must be understood
in light of perceptions that newspapers have an advantage over TV as the
medium that does more careful research (a 16 percentage point lead), offers
better explanations and details in news stories (an 8-point lead), and
has higher standards for accuracy (a 5-point lead).
Beyond those — many of which could be considered advantages inherent
in the print format itself — television is clearly perceived by the majority
of adults to have two clear strengths:
-
Immediacy (93 percent of adults feel it is the first to break the news).
-
Expediency (60 percent feel TV offers a better overview of important news)
And two weaknesses:
-
The majority of adults (74 percent) believe that TV puts more emphasis
on the personalities of newsmakers than the issues.
-
More adults believe TV is more worried about profits than public interest
(50 percent vs. 32 percent for newspapers).
Source credibility
Since the public perceives that both TV and newspapers exhibit strengths
appropriate to their physical format, the survey explored any credibility
issues that might be inherent in them. Respondents were presented with
two news situations and asked to choose which news medium they’d trust
more in each circumstance.
First was the inconsistency presented between a newspaper’s report of
a 2-point increase in interest rates, and that evening’s news broadcast
of a 1-point increase. In this situation:
-
31 percent said they’d believe the newspaper (primarily because “they just
trust it more” or “it had later, fresher news.”)
-
40 percent said they’d believe TV (primarily because they had “more time
to investigate” and “just trusted that source more.”)
The second hypothetical presented a conflict in the reported number of
people killed in a bank robbery, with the evening news reporting 5 and
the next day’s paper reporting 3 dead. Here the public’s judgment was more
clear-cut:
-
60 percent said they’d believe the newspaper (overwhelmingly because of
the time it had to investigate).
-
23 percent said they’d believe TV (primarily because they knew the reporter
was there and they could see images).
Perhaps the topic of the interest rate hypothetical compelled a draw, but
from the responses there’s a clue that the public believes whichever news
source has the later report is the medium that might have a perceptual
edge in credibility.
The shooting story, however, makes this conclusion more compelling.
Even in the face of “film at 11” and eyewitness accounts, newspapers win.
This is a big clue to understanding one way to begin correcting the credibility
problem.
While focus group participants were surprisingly understanding of newsroom
deadline constraints, most expressed strong preference that reporters “get
it right” rather than “get it first”:
-
“Hold until you can confirm.”
-
“Very few things are so urgent (that they should keep reporters from) having
to verify a story. I understand the desire to be Number 1, but that’s no
excuse not to be accurate.”
Unnamed sources
Then there’s the issue of unnamed sources. More than three-quarters
of U.S. adults expressed concern about the credibility of news stories
that use anonymous sources, and 45 percent said stories shouldn’t run at
all if no one will go on the record. While it’s the older Americans that
express the deepest suspicions, all of the focus groups confirmed concern
about unnamed sources and suggested that anonymity might be more palatable
if newspapers explained their policies:
-
“Print your policy on unnamed sources. It’s a statement of your quality
control.”
-
“If you’re not sure, don’t trumpet it as fact. Use words like ‘unconfirmed.’
Explain.”
-
“Give explanations and (say) ‘We have investigated and this is what we
know.’ ”
