| Disseminators of information? Watchdogs? Interpreters
of events? Journalists are less certain of the roles newspapers should
play than they were eight years ago. They support the concept of ''civic
journalism.'' They believe that journalists should be involved in their
communities. Yet actual personal participation has dropped.
Our series of survey questions concerned journalists' attitudes about
the function newspapers should serve, in local communities and in society
more broadly. This is an area that researchers have explored in some detail,
but few studies yet have sought opinions about this decade's top controversy:
civic journalism.
Civil Toward Civic Journalism
The concept of ''civic journalism'' (or ''public journalism'') has as
many definitions as it has practitioners. Most would probably agree, however,
that civic journalism is both a philosophy and a set of practices that
require a newspaper to go beyond the mere telling of the news. Rather,
it strives to invigorate the democratic process, usually by seeking out
the concerns of average citizens and motivating them to become involved
in solving civic problems. It requires a more active role than that of
the traditionally uninvolved observer; civic-journalism coverage usually
involves the promotion of public discussion of key issues and the reporting
of positive, solution-oriented stories (rather than ''conflict'' stories).
Civic journalism also usually goes beyond modes of coverage: Papers sometimes
organize communities (or their leaders) with activities intended to spark
movement toward solutions, or at least toward greater civic unity.
The 1996 survey listed four civic-journalism approaches, without labeling
them as such, to measure newspaper journalists' level of approval. None
of the four dealt with the more activist strategies of civic journalism
that a few papers have undertaken recently, such as having staff members
help with voter registration or training staffers in conflict resolution
in order to moderate discussions among feuding community members. Each
approach in the survey represented a relatively moderate departure from
the traditional community role of a newspaper.
And each wins solid approval from a majority of the respondents.
The two most modest approaches - those most like traditional journalism
- receive overwhelming approval. The first was described as: ''A newspaper
reports on alternative solutions to community problems, pointing out trade-offs
that may be involved.'' Ninety-six percent approve (62 percent strongly
approving, and 34 percent approving somewhat). The youngest journalists
are a little more cautious than the 31- to 50-year-olds in their support,
and the over-50s are disproportionately present in the 4 percent who disapprove.
Otherwise, however, approval cuts across all demographic groups.
Another modest approach was: ''A newspaper develops enterprise stories,
supported with editorials, to focus public attention on a community problem
and tries to help the community move toward a solution.'' Here the support
is 88 percent (59 percent strongly approving, 29 percent approving somewhat),
and the support is that high across all demographic groups.
With the two approaches that deviated most from traditional journalism
practice, support is strong but less enthusiastic. One of these was: ''A
newspaper polls the public to determine the most pressing community issues,
then tries to get the candidates to focus on these issues.'' Here 31 percent
approve strongly and 40 approve somewhat, for a 71 percent overall approval.
Again, there are no differences in approval levels by age, gender, job
description or ethnic group.
The greatest departure from the traditional role was: ''A newspaper
conducts town meetings to discover key issues in the community and follows
up with stories focusing on these issues and some possible solutions.''
This approach still wins 68 percent approval (25 percent strongly approving,
43 percent approving somewhat). The only difference among the subgroups
is that black journalists are far more likely to approve strongly of this
approach.
The greatest difference between the first two and second two approaches
is the measure of ''strong'' approval: The first two garner a solid majority,
but the second two capture less than a one-third minority.
A few respondents volunteered comments that help explain the support
for these levels of newspaper involvement. A staffer at an Eastern metro
said, ''Many papers, while remaining objective, led in some way the struggle
for civil rights. Now, we do not lead as much as we try to simply report.
. . . Unless newspapers make people in their communities feel a part of
them, as if they have a stake in them, they will disappear. Papers cannot
be observers and reporters of a community. People no longer want to be
merely observed. People want to be cared about.''
A few others, however, voice caution about the direction civic journalism
may be taking. From a journalist at a small paper in New England: ''A newspaper
and the stories it reports should reflect its surrounding communities and
should always seek out the input of its readers. It is not a paper's role
to 'lead' its readers, but to listen to its readers. There is plenty of
room for our own agenda and suggestions of alternative solutions via the
editorial and op-ed pages.''
Questionnaire recipients were asked their feelings about the following
approaches to journalism.
| Approaches to Civic Journalism |
Strongly approve |
Approve somewhat |
Disapprove somewhat |
Strongly disapprove |
| A newspaper reports on alternative solutions to community problems, pointing
out trade-offs that may be involved. |
62% |
34% |
3% |
1% |
| A newspaper develops enterprise stories, supported with editorials to focus
public attention on a community problem and tries to help the community
move toward a solution. |
59% |
29% |
9% |
3% |
| A newspaper polls the public to determine the most pressing community issues,
then tries to get the candidates to focus on these issues. |
31% |
40% |
20% |
10% |
| A newspaper conducts town meetings to discover key issues in the community
and follows up with sotires focusing on these issues and some possible
solutions. |
25% |
43% |
23% |
8% |
Personal Involvement in the Community
The respondents were also asked their opinions about individual journalists'
involvement in the community. Again, the involvement described did not
represent a dramatic departure from the traditional norms of community
involvement by journalists; the questionnaire did not, for example, ask
if a journalist should spearhead a community cause or become a leader of
a faction in a community conflict. The survey asked how journalists felt
about ''a reporter, photographer or copy editor joining a nonpolitical
community group, so long as the journalist does not cover the group.''
Examples given were the PTA, a neighborhood association, or a group that
helps the disadvantaged.
Only 9 percent of the sample have a problem with that. Sixty-one percent
feel that it is a good idea and that the paper would be improved by such
personal connections in the community. The remaining 31 percent say such
involvement is OK but it would neither improve nor detract from the paper.
But what if it were the top editor joining this kind of group? Here
the approval is less enthusiastic. Nearly 26 percent object, agreeing that
it compromises the newspaper's professionalism and objectivity. Thus the
approval rating on joining community groups drops from 92 percent for rank-and-file
journalists to 74 percent for top editors - still a strong consensus.
Some interesting differences emerge in the breakdown of these results.
Newsroom supervisors are more favorable than any other job category toward
joining community groups, whether the joiners are top editors or rank-and-file.
However, journalists over 50 are more likely than those under 50 to disapprove,
again for both top editors and rank-and-file. And of all the ethnic groups,
including whites, Asian Americans were the most likely to approve of such
personal involvement, again for all newspaper staffers.
In the chapter titled ''The Journalists,'' however, we saw that journalists
don't necessarily act on their approval of community involvement. We reported
a finding that seems slightly to contradict these results. Newsroom people
seem themselves to be falling away from personal participation in their
communities. Survey respondents were asked if they were more (or less)
involved in community life or organizations than other people in their
communities. The ''less involved'' response rose from a 41 percent minority
in 1988 to a 55 percent majority in 1996. Only 13 percent say they are
more involved than others in the community. Apparently most journalists
think that personal involvement in the community in theory is a good idea,
but they cannot or will not find the time to get involved themselves.
Journalists' Role in Society
How do newspaper journalists envision their social role in the broadest
sense? Media researchers for several years have found that journalists
seem to identify with one, two or even all three of these functions: as
disseminators of information; as ''watchdogs'' (in some research called
''adversaries'') of powerful institutions (especially government); and
as interpreters of events. Most studies have found that the interpretive
role is embraced most widely among newspaper journalists, with the least-agreed-upon
being the watchdog role.
A few questions in the 1996 survey monitored these conceptions, and
some interesting changes appeared. The survey presented a list of functions
a newspaper could serve, and asked respondents to rate how important they
felt each function was. Generally speaking, journalists' conceptions of
their societal role has not changed fundamentally, but the salience of
the entire notion of a societal role may be eroding.
Eight years earlier, the ''disseminator'' and ''interpreter'' roles
both were seen as important (either ''extremely'' or ''very'') by at least
95 percent. In 1996, the disseminator item (''Get information to the public
quickly'') dropped to 86 percent, and the interpreter item (''Provide analysis
and interpretation of complex problems'') dropped to 79 percent.
Could it be that the watchdog role is gaining importance in journalists'
conceptions of their function? No: The two watchdog items (''Investigate
claims and statements made by the government and political candidates''
and ''Investigate claims and statements made by business and other institutions'')
are still running third, at 81 and 73 percent approval, respectively. One
staffer at a small New England daily expressed reluctance about this role:
''It is important that newspapers investigate claims by business and
other institutions. However, each issue should be dealt with individually
and with a clear mission of why the public needs to know this. Is it beneficial
to readers, or is it self-glorification for whoever is reporting?''
What's especially interesting is the precipitous drop of the percentage
of journalists who feel that these roles are ''extremely'' important. On
the disseminator statement the ''extremely important'' group dropped from
66 percent to 47 percent over eight years, and the interpreter role fell
nearly as far: from 67 percent to 49 percent. But the ''investigate governmental
claims'' item fell the farthest: from 66 percent ''extremely important''
in 1988 to 39 percent last year.
There seems to be a declining (but still solid) commitment to all three
of these traditional understandings of the purpose newspapers serve. It
could be that journalists are less sure generally about the role newspapers
play, or should play, in the broadest sense.
The survey tested a few other conceptions of newspapers' functions,
to see if other priorities have emerged. Local bread-and-butter coverage
seems to generate a strong response. ''Cover community and neighborhood
news'' garners either ''extremely important'' or ''very important'' ratings
from 78 percent of the sample - about equal to the watchdog items.
The survey also tested support for the idea of segmenting coverage into
news of interest to specific groups within the readership - ''customized''
or ''niche'' reporting. Journalists seem to prefer the traditional, broader
appeal. The item ''Concentrate on information that is of interest to the
widest possible public'' wins ''very important'' or ''extremely important''
ratings from 65 percent. Fifty-four percent would accord those ratings
to ''Provide information that is of interest to specific segments of the
public.''
A Question of Ethics
The survey explored one hypothetical ethics scenario in detail. The
results will be examined, also in detail, elsewhere in a forthcoming report,
but the basic conclusion is that journalists seem to have no qualms about
reporting on a politician's personal past. Here's the scenario:
''As a City Hall reporter, you receive documents indicating that the
mayor was treated for a drug addiction five years ago - before he took
office. You call the mayor, who confirms the story, but asks that you not
write it up. Your source has given the same documents to three other news
outlets in your city. Do you pursue and publish the story?''
Nearly 42 percent say they would definitely go after the story, and
33 percent say they probably would. Only 6 percent say they probably or
definitely would not, and 20 percent say they aren't sure. Photographers
and artists are more likely to be unsure, while copy editors are disproportionately
present in that small group who would not pursue the story. | 
