The public brings to their reading of a newspaper a set of values and
priorities that are not always in sync with newsroom traditions. Key gaps
include public perceptions that newspapers sometimes sacrifice accuracy
for speed, and that newspapers go after and publish information without
enough attention to the potential harm that could be caused by its publication.
The majority of journalists and the public agree on two choices that
they would make for newspapers:
-
More than 80 percent of each group says that newspapers should provide
only facts that have been double-checked, even if that means people have
to wait longer to hear about a story.
-
68 percent of the public and 93 percent of journalists want newspapers
to present both facts and explanations that give people better insight
into the news, instead of "only factual coverage of news events."
The strongest areas of conflict between the public and journalists are
underscored in their responses to six hypothetical news stories that called
for making tough news judgment calls. The responses from the two groups
contrast how the public and journalists define news and would handle painful,
embarrassing or delicate situations. The public contends that avoiding
"harm to the innocent" is more important than their "need to know."
Many journalists said it would depend on the situation, giving detailed
examples and explanations of why one technique or another might be employed.
Perhaps the public would have greater understanding of what journalists
do and why they do it if they had the same level of detail.
Consistency in news values
The Public Perspective: Since it's logical to assume that readers
come to the newspaper armed with their own life experiences and values,
the public was asked two sets of questions to understand the news values
and judgments of the public, and then compare them to those of the newsroom.
First, the public was asked what direction it would like newspapers
to take (Table 36). Respondents
were read sets of phrases, and asked to choose which one better reflected
their own preferences for newspaper coverage. Their responses were remarkably
consistent with the views and values they expressed elsewhere in the research,
including:
-
The pre-eminent value of accuracy, with 87 percent saying they'd rather
see a paper hold a story until facts could be double-checked.
-
The desire for context, with 68 percent selecting "facts and explanations"
that provide insight over "just the facts."
When earned with consistent execution of the above, a slight majority of
the public - 57 percent - is willing to permit newspapers to get involved
in helping solve community problems rather than only reporting on them.
On both of the latter two dimensions, it's the younger adults that drive
the overall scale. Adults over 45 are significantly more likely to want
"just the facts, please" on both.
The Newsroom Perspective: Nearly a third of the public - 29 percent
- prefers "just the facts," and this is not a proportion that is inconsequential
or easily dismissed. One top editor at a small paper proffers an important
caution regarding explanations: "If our explanation is our opinion, we
should state that."
A number of trade-off questions were offered to the journalists that
were not included in the study of the public (Table
37). On these, there's less agreement among the journalists surveyed:
-
57 percent prefer that newspapers increase detail in news stories rather
than increase story count. Reporters and photographers make this choice
much more frequently than do top editors - 64 percent vs. 45 percent.
-
56 percent would devote more space to hard local, national and world news
rather than to softer content like features and human interest stories.
-
64 percent would regularly run features and "reader interest" stories on
A-1, rather than confine A-1 to only the top stories of the day.
-
55 percent would choose to integrate their own knowledge or insight into
stories rather than being confined only to the facts. Reporters and photographers
are more in favor of this than are top editors - 62 percent vs. 49 percent.
The write-in comments offer important qualifications. For instance, a reporter
for a major metropolitan newspaper noted: "Once one's insight is used to
color a story, then it becomes analysis and should be marked as such."
Another added: "Reporters should tap their knowledge and insight, but
should avoid introducing their biases."
Conflict in news values
The Public Perspective: A second set of questions asked the public
what it would do if asked to make some of the tough judgment calls that
editors are frequently called upon to decide. Six hypothetical situations
were presented to respondents, designed to add a realistic degree of difficulty
to the expression of the public's own news judgments (Table
38, Table 39, Table
40, Table 41, and Table
42).
Of the six news judgments they were asked to make, four appeared to
be easy choices:
-
80 percent of the public approves of the news media engaging in investigative
reporting.
-
86 percent believe that the names of suspects should not be published until
formal charges are filed.
-
68 percent say that a newspaper's withholding of information on a candidate's
extramarital affair of 10 years ago is the right decision.
-
75 percent would respect a family's wish to keep the story of a child's
fatal accident out of the paper.
What's particularly interesting is the near-absence of any variation in
these responses: young and old, rich and poor, "heavy" and "light" news
consumers all gave essentially the same survey responses. Younger adults,
it should be noted, are the most sensitized to seeing privacy as a civil
right. There don't appear to be complicated "situation ethics" that muddy
the public's steadfast adherence to seeing respect for personal privacy
and compassion for news sources as both valuable and valued journalist
traits.
For instance, when the question about the child's death was posed to
almost 100 focus group participants in eight different cities, only a few
people said they would run that story with the child's name and refuse
the mother's pleas. Some said:
-
"It wasn't a crime and it (the name) does not add anything to the story."
-
"(Using the name) is cold, tacky, insensitive. It's irrelevant to the story,
and 99.9 percent of people don't know the person anyway."
-
"It's the microphone guys showing up that's the real imposition on the
family."
Others offered empathetic arguments, such as: "My ex-girlfriend's kid was
murdered, and people are still reminding her of it because they read about
it. It's hard for her."
And some likened the situation to printing the name of a rape victim.
This topic, however, did stimulate spirited debate in all groups - and
some participants even changed their minds after debating the pros and
cons of publishing the story or the child's name. All participants, however,
agreed that newspapers should explain why they're using (or not using)
the name in the story - with some pointing out that the child's name would
end up in the newspaper anyway, in an obituary.
Across the country, though, most focus group participants thought the
child's name just simply wasn't relevant. Even if there was a "want to
know" they saw no "need to know" and, therefore, no need to harm.
| It's essential for journalists to understand the compassion
that readers feel for distraught survivors is far greater than their desire
to know relevant or irrelevant details. |
The Newsroom Perspective: Journalists were also asked a series
of similar, more detailed hypotheticals. In the situation where allegations
have been leveled against a public official but no formal charges have
been filed (
Table 38), 37 percent
said they'd wait until charges were filed, but more said "it depends,"
with some offering these kinds of qualifications:
-
"It depends on whether I can get anything on the record."
-
"Only if the attorney general's office confirms the investigation."
Since 86 percent of the public is overwhelmingly in favor of waiting for
formal charges, this could be a situation where explaining the rationale
for publication might be called for.
Two other hypotheticals probed privacy issues. One asked about a confirmed
report that the mayor was treated for drug addiction before he took office,
with the documents having been distributed to three other news outlets
in the city (Table 39). In this
case, 77 percent of the journalists said they'd publish the story.
The second privacy hypothetical was about a politician's extramarital
affair before he took office (Table 40).
It's interesting to see that if that candidate was a front-runner in the
campaign, 37 percent of the journalists said they'd pursue and publish
the story. If the candidate had no realistic chance of winning, however,
25 percent would publish - suggesting application of a level of judgment
probably beyond stated policy of the newspaper. In either situation, however,
it seems important to explain to readers why the story was relevant or
newsworthy, especially knowing that 68 percent of the public believes that
if an affair has nothing to do with a candidate's qualifications or current
behavior, that information should not be published.
In a hypothetical asked only in the newsroom survey, 54 percent of journalists
said they would include "off-the-cuff racist and obscene statements" even
though they had nothing to do with a story (Table
41). Again, explanations of the news judgment and decisions here
would likely be warranted, and this is probably a situation where that
explanation would make most interesting reading.
Nowhere is the gap between the public's and journalists' news judgments
and values wider than in the hypothetical story about a child's drowning
in a gravel pit (Table 42). While
75 percent of the public would respect the family's wish to keep the story
out of the paper:
-
Only 1 percent of journalists said they'd withhold publication.
-
62 percent said they'd publish the story without naming the victim.
-
31 percent said they'd publish the story including mention of the mother's
plea.
One editor even suggested that he'd include the mother's pleas in the story
because, "Well, that's all she wanted to tell us." It's also very likely
that at that tragic moment, she didn't want to talk to reporters at all.
Marginal comments in the newsroom questionnaire suggest that many journalists
have a rationale for their choice (e.g., they'd publish the story to warn
others of the danger of swimming in gravel pits), or feel that they should
explain to family members why the name had to be printed. One writer for
a mid-size daily paper asked, "What's the harm [in publishing the name]?"
The data suggests that this journalist might be hard-pressed to explain
to 75 percent of average Americans why that name needed to be published.
It's essential for journalists to understand the compassion that readers
feel for distraught survivors is far greater than their desire to know
relevant or irrelevant details. In fact, repeated use of the phrase "we'll
withhold the name of the victim until the family has been notified" by
TV reporters covering the same story in real-time could be earning them
(perhaps undeserved) points for compassion in the eyes of the public.
This is yet another situation where there's fundamental conflict between
the news values that journalists consider "second nature" and the values
held by the majority of the public - the most fundamental of which is "do
no harm to the innocent." Clearly, it's also another case in which careful
explanation of the news decisions involved (best done, says the public,
in an editor's note adjacent to the story) could help build bridges across
that values gap.
When this research finding was presented to a number of newsroom groups
across the country, there was sometimes tangible discomfort when the group
was asked to relate precisely how it would word the explanation they'd
offer. Perhaps one of the most important outcomes of this research will
not be the outcome of journalists starting to explain their news decisions
to readers, but the deliberative process by which those explanations are
discussed and written.
| This is yet another situatioin where there's fundamental
conflict between the news values that journalists consider "second nature"
and the values held by the majority of the public. |
Investigative reporting techniques
The Newsroom Perspective: While they want journalists to "do
no harm to the innocent," 80 percent of the public approves of investigative
reporting designed to uncover and report on corruption and wrongdoing in
business and government. In the newsroom questionnaire, various investigative
techniques were presented and only one obtained approval from a (slight)
majority of journalists (Table 43):
-
52 percent approve of using long-distance camera lens to get photos without
the subject's knowledge.
-
45 percent disapprove of hidden cameras and microphones.
-
48 percent disapprove of going through someone's trash to find records
or documents.
-
71 percent disapprove of reporters being allowed to hide that fact.
-
94 percent disapprove of paying for information or testimony.
In most cases, top editors are less enthusiastic about these methods than
are their staffs. Here's what some of the journalists had to say:
-
"Except for paying for information, which I completely disagree with, all
other techniques I would keep available as last-ditch ways to get information
on only those stories that are of the most extreme public interest in term
of health, safety, etc."
-
[Would use long-distance lens] "only if it involved potential criminal
activity, not to catch a celebrity with his pants down."
-
"If it's the only way to get the truth, sometimes it's a necessity."
