Last Updated: November 29, 1996
Printer-friendly version
The criteria editors use to rate editorial quality differ sometimes markedly from the criteria readers use to judge newspaper quality. That's according to a provocative study in the Summer 1996 issue of Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly.
Researcher George Albert Gladney reports that readers aren't particularly enamored of enterprise reporting or visual appeal. However, they rate decency and lack of sensationalism as much more important than editors do.
Gladney drew on a solid sample of 257 papers, with responses split pretty evenly among large (over 140,000 circulation), medium (30,000-139,000), small dailies (under 30,000) and weeklies (average circulation 6,500). He then asked circulation directors to randomly draw names and addresses of home-delivery subscribers. He got 291 reader responses, spread across the four sizes.
When asked to rank the relative importance of various measures, readers and editors agreed on many things. In what Gladney termed "organizational standards," or what might be thought of as the newspaper's editorial philosophy, readers and editors agreed that integrity (professional ethics) is No. 1, impartiality is No. 2 and editorial independence is No 3. However, readers placed decency (a sense of morals) as No. 4, and editors gave it No. 8 out of 9. Readers rated staff enterprise (aggressive, original reporting) as No. 8, whereas editors gave it No. 4.
The two groups were closer on other measures, ranking editorial courage (willingness to fight against wrong) as No. 5, community leadership (willingness to take an active role in the betterment and welfare of the community) as No. 6, and staff professionalism (hiring and retaining top personnel) as No. 7. Both groups put influence (being highly regarded by community opinion leaders) as dead last.
Editors and readers were also asked to prioritize what Gladney termed "content standards." They agreed strong local coverage is No. 1, accuracy is No. 2 and good writing is No. 3. But readers picked lack of sensationalism as No. 4, whereas editors ranked it No. 8. Readers gave No. 9, last place, to visual appeal (effective, attractive presentation of news through use of visual tools such as typography, photography, graphics, color, layout and design). Meanwhile, editors rated visual appeal as No. 4. The two groups were close on "community press" (defined by the researchers as emphasis on news coverage that focuses on common community values and helps give readers a sense of individual existence and worth). Readers gave it No. 5 and editors said No. 6. A strong editorial page won No. 5 from editors and No. 6 from readers. News interpretation (analysis and backgrounders got 7 from editors, and 8 from readers. Comprehensive coverage (coverage of news from beyond the newspaper's immediate distribution area) was No. 7 for readers and dead last for editors.
The study also showed editors and readers of smaller papers were closer in their relative rankings than those at larger papers.
Gladney noted that there may be an "incipient reader backlash to the newspaper industry's megatrend (for) reader friendly content/format, dazzling color and graphics and snazzy news packaging." Meanwhile, "Readers' sentiment against content that violates a sense of morals and cleanliness may reflect public distaste for the media's prolonged obsession with tawdry and unimportant stories that offer mostly the allure of intrigue and titillating gossip."
He noted, "While the relative rankings indicate that all editors should consider valuing decency more and staff enterprise less, this appears to be especially true for editors of big city papers. Furthermore, while the relative rankings indicate reader-editor agreement about the importance of staff professionalism and the community press standard, editors of big metro papers should consider reducing emphasis on staff professionalism (hiring and retaining top personnel) and paying more attention to emphasis on news coverage that focuses on common community values and helps give readers a sense of individual existence and worth."
Gladney cautioned, "Readers of this study should be careful not to interpret these results as a call for lowering of professional standards, but rather that something is awry in how editors and readers perceive professionalism and its results."
He noted that readers may be reacting to what they perceive as a sense of journalists' elitism and pushiness, and a feeling that journalists too often intrude on individuals' privacy and go to any length to get the story first.
This is a fascinating study, worth some serious newsroom discussion. 
Miller, editor and president of the Monterey (Calif.) County Herald, is interested in good journalism articles others might not see. Write to P.O. Box 271, Monterey, CA 93942
