ASNE - Experience with the News Process

Finding No. 6

Members of the public who have had actual experience with the news process are the most critical of media credibility.

The same is true of journalists who have been subjects of news stories.

Almost half the public report at some time having had first-hand knowledge of news stories it saw in the newspaper, even though they were not quoted or covered in the story (Table 44). Of that group, only 51 percent said the facts in the story were reported accurately, with others finding errors ranging from misinterpretations (the primary problem) to factual mistakes.

Even closer to the newsgathering process, however, are the 31 percent of adults who said that they've been the subject of a news story or been interviewed by a newspaper reporter (Table 45, Table 46 and Table 47). Of that group:

90 percent then read the story in the paper.
24 percent said they weren't quoted correctly.
31 percent found errors in the story (primarily misinterpretations).
7 percent felt they suffered pain or embarrassment because of the errors.

Journalists who have been news subjects exhibit the same tendencies as do members of the public who've seen the sausage being made. They're more likely to continue noticing errors and mistakes, have harsher opinions of the press and journalists and feel that public discontent with the press is justified.

This is a big group of media credibility "experts" out there, and many of them don't have a positive story to tell.

Being part of the story

The Public Perspective: News- paper editors need to acknowledge the importance of the way the public's experiences with the news process influences their perceptions. For instance, during one of the focus groups a man shared his experience with having become part of the process.

Human nature being what it is, most of the stories about encounters with the news media will be told by people who got burned.

He picked up the newspaper one morning and saw himself quoted in a story for which he had never been interviewed. When he called the reporter to ask how this had happened, the reporter said he didn't have time to call, so he guessed what the man might say. He said the reporter made it up!

Let's acknowledge, of course, that we don't know whether his story is true or not. But before this mortal sin of journalism is cavalierly dismissed as an isolated incident or an exaggeration, it's important to remember that it doesn't really matter: the impact of such word-of-mouth reports on public perceptions of the media is still extraordinarily powerful.

Because that man had first-hand knowledge of the press, he instantly became the resident expert on media credibility for the entire focus group. Nobody sitting in that room will likely ever forget his story. Because anyone with personal experience tends to have high source credibility, he would most likely be believed.

Word of mouth is a powerful persuader, and these are the kinds of anecdotes that can live on for years. Further, human nature being what it is, most of the stories about encounters with the news media will be told by people who got burned.

The Newsroom Perspective: Fifty-seven percent of journalists surveyed reported that they have been the subject of other writers' news stories (Table 45).

As would be expected, more than 90 percent of both the public and journalistic sources for news stories saw the news story in the paper, although a higher percentage of journalists found errors in the articles (48 percent vs. 31 percent). The major errors they noticed, however, were essentially the same as those cited by the public: misinterpretations of the facts or getting names, titles, meaning and context wrong.

The impact of experience

The Public Perspective: As is true of any eyewitness, people who have had direct experience with journalists are not only seen by others as trustworthy sources regarding the news-gathering process. Those experienced individuals are also more vigilant and sensitized to judging the quality of news reports they see ever afterward (Table 48). Adults with experience are more likely to find in the paper more than once a week:

Misleading headlines.
Mistakes in spelling and grammar.
Factual errors.

They're also more critical of journalists and the media. The closer people get to the news-gathering process, the more likely they are to feel that the press chases and over-dramatizes sensational stories, and to be skeptics about the accuracy of news reports (in particular) and journalists (in general).

More telling is the direct relationship between personal experience and formative beliefs about the press in general (Table 49). Adults who have been close to the news process more likely to believe that:

The news media are biased.
Public dissatisfaction with the media is justified.
Some types of people or organizations get overly favorable treatment in the media, while others "don't get a fair shake."

Experience with the news process appears to color overalll perceptions of newspapers in particular.

Finally, experience with the news process appears to color overall perceptions of newspapers in particular (Table 50 and Table 51). Those who have been subjects of news stories (or been interviewed) are more likely than the uninitiated
to believe that newspapers:

Make biased decisions about what to publish.
Are unfair in reporting on groups they disagree with.
Don't respect their readers' intelligence.

In short, the people with the highest source credibility among their peers are newspapers' most severe critics - while those who have never been interviewed, never been written about, and never been witness to a news event they later read about tend to be more forgiving.

Even worse, the focus groups prove that those who've been close to the news process are skillful at telling their stories, and convincing others that newspapers can't get it right. There are also plenty of opportunities to do so, since 80 percent of all adults say they discuss news stories with friends, family or co-workers at least a few times a week - more than half every day. In those conversations, the majority are discussing the credibility of what they read or saw in the news at least some of the time (Table 52). The news, it seems, is news - and the public has a visceral interest it.

When the facilitator for one of the focus groups began the session by saying the participants would be discussing quality and credibility in the media, the entire room erupted in laughter. In 15 of 16 focus groups held in eight communities across the country, the participants included at least one person who had been interviewed or had first-hand knowledge of a newspaper story. Those individuals most cited inaccuracies from sloppiness (like getting addresses or names wrong), to the outrageous (like the reporter who supposedly made up quotes).

One participant became a news subject after he shot an alligator. "They made me out to be a mad killer. The 'gator ate my dog, that's why I shot it."
Another man talked about the pain he felt when his local newspaper got the circumstances of his stepson's death all wrong. The story made his stepson out to be a drug addict, which was not true.

A woman talked about having heard Louis Farrakhan's speech, and not recognizing it in the account in the next day's paper. She judged the story misleading.

The people with the highest source credibility among their peers are newspapers' most severe critics - while those who have never been interviewed, never been written about, and never been witness to a news event they later read about tend to be more forgiving.

From these and other anecdotes, it's clear that many of these individuals have repeated the story of their encounter with journalism often enough to have perfected the timing, the parsing, and the emotive impact of the tale. They make very convincing witnesses.

Of course, some journalists will argue that sources always complain after the fact, just as others will believe that "small" typos shouldn't affect a reader's ability to appreciate the excellence and insight in their story. They might both be right - but the numbers are too big and the public's perceptions too prevalent to write off in the face of a small army of citizens who might be willing to testify differently.