ASNE - Understanding Each Other

Finding No. 2

The public perceives that newspapers do not consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and their communities.

Journalists are much less critical of themselves.

By many measures - educational attainment, income levels, interests, circles of friends, working hours - many journalists are in a different class from average Americans.

For instance, half of the U.S. population lives in households with total incomes below $47,000 per year (54 percent of them achieving that income level with two or more full-time workers). Only 34 percent of U.S. adults are college graduates - 39 percent never went beyond high school (Table 53). Journalists tend to be younger and personally affiliate with the Democratic Party more than the public at large.

The data suggest, however, that demography is probably the shallower end of the gulf between journalists and the public (Table 13). Attitudinally, a majority of American adults accept the well-honed "persona" of journalists as people who cater to their editors rather than to readers, are cynical, hard-bitten and smart.

There are some notable differences between journalists' self-perceptions vs. those expressed by the public (Table 13). Some are easily understood, such as journalists seeing themselves as better informed than the public at large. However, journalists are more likely than the public to see themselves as cynical, sharing the ethical/personal values of most Americans, using their power to "protect the underdog," and being willing to tone down a story to avoid hurting people.

Demographics of journalists and the public

The Public Perspective: When the public says they perceive a bias toward "wealthy people," it's not inconceivable many suspect that some individual journalists make a salary more substantial than their own.

When newspaper readers see feature articles about ways to make an elegant presentation of artichoke hearts, many study the photograph to find out what, exactly, an artichoke looks like.

When adjectives like "church-going" or "right-wing" or "suburban" or "radical" appear in print or broadcast news stories, they sense that judgments are being made by folks not very much like themselves.

The Newsroom Perspective: It's not unreasonable to expect to find significant demographic differences when comparing a sample of the American public at large to one of any professional group such as journalists (Table 12).

The best capsulization of prevalent impressions was provided by the woman who said, "You wouldn't be a good reporter if you were a nice person."

There are salient differences, however. In addition to the defining condition that 100 percent of the newsroom sample came from employed adults (vs. the inclusion of 36 percent of American adults who are either retired or unemployed in the national sample), as a whole, the journalists whose responses are described in this report tend to be:

Younger than the public overall (only 9 percent of the journalists surveyed are over 54 years old, vs. 29 percent of the public).
Better educated (89 percent of the journalists have a college degree, vs. only 34 percent of the American public).
More likely to affiliate with or "lean toward" the Democratic party (53 percent of the journalists vs. 35 percent of the public).

The public's view of journalists

The Public Perspective: Fifty-three percent believe the press is "out-of-touch with mainstream Americans." Journalists are viewed as people who are:

Not "free agents" - 78 percent believe that reporters pay more attention to what their editors want than what readers want.
Smart - 75 percent believe they're better informed than average Americans.
Cynical - 67 percent feel journalists are more cynical than other professionals, though most agree that they share the same kinds of ethical and personal values as most Americans.
Hard-bitten - only 28 percent believe that a journalist would "tone down" a story that could hurt the lives of the people they're writing about.

Focus group participants were never asked about journalists per se, nor were they asked to suggest any psychological profiles.

Their conceptions of reporters, however, were clearly enunciated in attempts to explain why there was a credibility problem in the media, or the reasons that they perceived bias, inaccuracy or arrogance in the media:

"They like to see adverse things happen to people."
"They think some people don't deserve success."
"They don't care if they're hurting people."
"It gives them power."
"As soon as someone is a hero, they think it's their duty to show an underside."
"If they're wrong, how do they pay back the people whose lives are ruined?"

Many were particularly concerned that journalists didn't really know, or relate well, to the communities they were covering:

"How long does it take a reporter to get to know a place?"
"Put them in a community for at least a week. You can't come out of Harvard and understand the ghetto. You can't just learn from a book."

Others were alarmed by even the suggestion that the press should use its power to protect the interests of the "underdog" in society:

"I never want them to have that power."
"Maybe the big dog is correct and the underdog is wrong."

The best capsulization of prevalent impressions was provided by the woman who said, "You wouldn't be a good reporter if you were a nice person."

Journalists may be tempted to assume that the public is being sloppy in its judgment by lumping the media together with that of other large or powerful institutions, or that the public tars newspapers with the same brush they use on supermarket tabloids.

The public's responses to the survey, as well as comments made in focus groups, suggest that the people do indeed know the difference.

Journalists' view of themselves

The Newsroom Perspective: There are some notable differences between journalists' self-perceptions vs. those expressed by the public (Table 13). It's not unusual that 91 percent of journalists see themselves as better informed than the public at large (vs. 75 percent of the public believing that to be true).

At a time when newspaper readership is declining and there exist an extraordinary number and variety of competitors eager for the privelege to serve the public's appetite for news, it's critical that the public's perceptions of journalists be heard and understood.

But journalists are even more likely than the public to see themselves as:

More cynical than people in other professions (84 percent of journalists agree, vs. 67 percent of the public).
Sharing the ethical/personal values of most Americans (75 percent of journalists vs. 61 percent of the public).
Legitimately using their power to "protect the underdog" (69 percent of journalists vs. 53 percent of the public, with managing editors and assistant managing editors the strongest advocates of the idea).
Willing to "tone down" a story if they thought it would hurt the lives of people they're reporting about (43 percent of journalists agree they would, vs. only 28 percent of the public believing they're capable of that level of compassion).

Write-in comments on the newsroom questionnaires suggest that some feel journalists have generated a lot of their own bad PR and negative celebrity:

"Well-known journalists seem to wear their political and social beliefs on their sleeves."
"We still want to believe we know what's best for them."
"Joe Six-Pack thinks we are elitist, liberal socialists with nothing nice to say about anyone. We are part of the problem."

Taken in their best light, comments like these suggest that some in the newsroom recognize that the public picks up on the cues - subtle or otherwise - that signal the journalist's opinion that newsroom people are better or smarter than the general public.

Those who recognize there's a problem have taken the first step to being sensitized to the "disconnect" and then, perhaps, bridging it. Other write-in comments, however, suggest that sensitization to the problem is far from ubiquitous.

For example, one copy editor at a large newspaper wrote that he disregards readers' opinions entirely, saying he doesn't think "the Average American" knows what he or she wants to hear, and adding, "Frankly, I think the public is in general stupid, ill-informed and in love with TV."

Other write-in comments are more cautiously worded, but equally provocative:

"People have their own strong opinions and are unwilling to change, and sometimes they are so stubborn they can't see through the truth."
"In general, I believe newspaper reporting is fair, accurate and objective. Often, the readers do not understand that it is their opinions that color their perception of our reporting."
"The public's attention span is shorter and shorter, so they are less receptive when we do offer in-depth analyses and investigative pieces."

At a time when newspaper readership is declining and there exist an extraordinary number and variety of competitors eager for the privilege to serve the public's appetite for news, it's critical that the public's perceptions of journalists be heard and understood.

A copy editor at one large newspaper shot this arrow right at the heart of the press' treatment of its readers, saying, "I see not one story, but a smug attitude of self-righteousness that is almost criminal."