In short, the newsroom just doesn't see the paper the way their readers
do.
| Many journalists appear to agree with the majority of
Americans that have had it with wall-to-wall coverage of the national stories
that have often benn similarly overplayed in other media. |
Presumed motives
The Public Perspective: Americans say they're tired of having
sensational stories crammed down their throats, and most think that underlying
newspaper excesses is a commercial motive, to "sell more papers"(Table
32). More than 80 percent believes that:
-
Sensational stories get lots of news coverage simply because they're exciting,
not because they're important.
-
Newspapers over-dramatize just to sell newspapers.
-
Journalists chase sensational stories because they think it'll sell papers,
not because it's an important story.
These are clear indictments of press credibility. They're not unreasonable
viewpoints, given the fact that the public has reduced its own cognitive
dissonance by ascribing a commercial motive to much of what they don't
like in the media. The viewpoints represent a pervasive accusation that
newspapers are not employing journalistic judgment exclusively to build
the news report, but allowing personal or corporate objectives to shape
or flavor it.
Another, perhaps more insidious, contributor to these beliefs is the
public's perception that newspapers overplay otherwise "normal" news stories
(Table 33):
-
48 percent say they find misleading headlines in their paper more than
once a week.
-
78 percent of the public (Table 16)
think journalists enjoy reporting on the personal failings of private officials.
The Newsroom Perspective: No matter what excuse is offered for over-covering
sensational stories - including the "we're just giving them what they want"
rationalization - many journalists appear to agree with the majority of
Americans that have had it with wall-to-wall coverage of the national stories
that have often been similarly overplayed in other media. As a religion
writer at a mid-size paper described the situation: "Zippergate, Filegate,
Travelgate, you-name-it gate, we've written it."
Some of the write-in comments regarding sensationalism in newspaper
coverage point to its genesis in TV:
-
"We take a small amount of information and twist it into a story, particularly
if there is pressure from an editor or if TV has it."
-
"In an effort to compete with TV and supermarket tabloids, we've adopted
their methods and print anything! Nothing's too sleazy to omit."
-
"Sensationalism a la Jerry Springer my-wife-is-in-love-with-our-neighbor's-dog
stories."
Whatever its source, on the issue of sensationalism the public sees a significantly
different reality than do journalists (
Table
32).
'Hot' stories
The Public Perspective: Clearly, a powerful driver of public
perceptions of sensationalism is the unfortunate confluence of a number
of inherently "hot" stories within the past three years - including O.J.
Simpson, Paula Jones, Princess Diana, Jon Benet Ramsey, Richard Jewell
and Monica Lewinsky. Newspaper editors' judgments about if and how and
where to play these kinds of inherently sensational stories on the pages
of the newspaper must always be carefully made, with full realization that
they've likely already had heavy television coverage.
The gap between the amount of media coverage of the Clinton sex scandal
and the public's interest in it underscores the problem (Table
34 and Table 35). Even
in April and May of 1998, long before the Starr report, almost every adult
(96 percent) was aware of the Clinton/Lewinsky story, and:
-
82 percent believed the news reports contained inaccuracies or omissions.
-
85 percent said TV had too much coverage (66 percentage said newspapers
had too much).
-
67 percent said they were "not at all interested" in the story.
| Clearly, a powerful driver of public perceptions of sensationalism
is the unfortunate confluence of a number of inherently "hot" stories within
the past three years. |
Most important is the public's charge of over-covering inherently sensational
stories is often in direct conflict with their overwhelming demand for
newspapers to focus on local news.
-
74 percent of U.S. adults tell us that they want local news every day.
-
54 percent report that newspapers are their primary source of local news
(the only content area in which newspapers still maintain a competitive
advantage vs. TV or any other medium).
-
Television is overwhelmingly seen as the dominant source of national and
world news.
-
Television is almost universally accepted as the news medium that
"gets it first."
In a time when daily newspapers are still hanging on to their local news
franchise - but just barely - the public is demanding a serious reexamination
of the energy and space spent on sensational national stories.
Other comments suggest that many journalists also agree that resources
spent on sensational national stories that the public doesn't want in their
newspaper could be redirected to giving them what they do want - local
news.
-
"Over the past six years or so, coverage of local issues has suffered dramatically,
both in quality and quantity."
-
"I'm not sure whether the paper knows what readers want."
-
"The success of all dailies - except USA Today, The Washington Post and
The New York Times - is providing good, accurate, enterprising 'local-local'
news."
-
"I am dismayed to see our staff traveling the globe to cover potentially
award-winning issues while local news suffers."
It appears that both professionals and the public recognize that there
are costs associated with sensational stories.
