RYAN PITTS / Spokane (Wash.) Spokesman-Review | Posted: Saturday, October 16, 2004 7:00 pm
First of three parts
Three strong themes emerged when a group of newspaper editors asked readers whether the CBS memo scandal had affected their faith in election coverage.
* Yes, because CBS violated the principles of good journalism.
* No, because everyone makes mistakes.
* No, because the media had no credibility left to lose.
Credibility always is a media concern, but the memo story became a flash point for questions over trustworthy political coverage.
Responses to an online survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors' National Credibility Roundtables Project suggested some good news plenty of readers said human error goes with the territory along with the bad: Even more said the media need to put in plenty of work to win back public trust. On this the readers offered advice, listing ways to remind the media of their mission, as well as a few ideas that conflict with journalistic tradition.
But the CBS story was a clear-cut example of everything news consumers complain about. Online critics immediately questioned documents central to a "60 Minutes" piece on President Bush's National Guard service. Traditional journalists joined them the next day. CBS News tried to defend itself even as details of ethical lapses trickled out raising even more questions about its ability to objectively report the news.
Some readers explained they'd always had suspicions of agenda-driven coverage, and the memo story told them they were right. Others said they still felt comfortable trusting the rest of the media, but would be keeping an eye on CBS. Or possibly, not keeping an eye on CBS: Ratings for the evening news broadcast showed a significant drop after criticism of the memo story surfaced.
Other readers were more sympathetic. "These sorts of things happen sometimes, because the media' is actually composed of a large group of human beings, and I haven't met a human being yet who is infallible," said Marge Barber of Beaufort, S.C.
Readers like Barber fell in line with a recent Gallup poll, in which most of the public described CBS' actions as an "honest mistake."
And then there were the readers the media lost long ago.
"I do not know who to trust anymore," said Kay Coffey of Lincoln. "It is very difficult for an average citizen such as I am to really know what is truth and what is spin the first news that is heard often makes the largest impression, so that if it is incorrect or biased, the misinformation network will spread."
Although this group of readers may be unreachable, New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen said, the rest offer a couple of clear lessons. First, don't abuse those willing to forgive. Second, when a breakdown in journalism cuts loose some of the public trust, a display of good principles is the best chance of getting it back.
So how do the media go about repairing credibility with a skeptical readership? More than a few respondents said there's only one way: fire everyone and start from scratch. But most readers say getting the media back on track is simply a matter of getting back to basics. More objectivity, fewer anonymous sources. Be skeptical, but not hostile.
Take time to verify the story, be quick to admit when you're wrong. And please, send those sound bites into the abyss.
"If Kerry is calling Bush a short little shrimp in a speech, or if Bush starts throwing flip-flops into the audience at a rally, there should be ZERO coverage of that kind of nonsense," said Gary Silvers of Spokane, Wash.
The values readers bring to the table, of course, shape their perceptions of what's news and what's not. This can put reporters in a familiar place, where there's no way to convince everyone you've done the job right.
"The press needs to recognize that they are being played for fools by the Republican party," said Eric Keller of Boalsburg, Penn. And Jeff Higley of Nitro, W.V., wants reporters to "hold the president more accountable for his actions instead of softballing him all the time."
John Flatley of Jacksonville, Fla., wants to read a paper that's better at holding the Democrats to the fire. "The main election issue is the shrill, mean campaigns of the Democrats," Flatley said.
But both sides would be happy if they just detected more balance in coverage.
"To be trusted, the media must always present both sides of every story," said Mamoon Chowdry of Salem, N.H. "They should have point/counterpoint reporting. For every bad news' story about Iraq, they should also try to do a good news' story. Every story about Kerry should be followed by a similarly toned story about Bush."
Others, like Patricia Corry of Durham, N.C., caution against too strict a doctrine of balance.
"Realize that being fair and balanced' does NOT mean allowing equal time for each side of the argument," she said. "If there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting one argument, you don't give equal credence to some lone voice making the opposing argument.
Jeanette Pryor of Greeley, Colo., believes the he-said, she-said model of reporting opens the media up for abuse by their sources, which is worse than getting no story at all. "The media owes it to the voting public to correct distortions and report the facts and truth about both candidates and their positions."
Dave Solomon, editor of the Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph, agrees. "We need to do more analysis of truth in campaign advertising, and more input from uninvolved third parties in academia and business, outside of the political spin machines, to challenge assertions and characterizations that are misleading at best, sometimes downright false."
These two requests tell us both sides of the story, but don't feed us two sets of talking points and call it "objectivity" don't have to be at odds, Jay Rosen says. It all comes down to less parroting and more critical thinking.
"Less he-said, she-said may mean: Give us the more substantial disagreements, not the rote ones,'" Rosen said. "Well, that is getting better at telling both sides of the story When I hear a journalist throw up the hands and say: The public wants contradictory things!' that's often someone who would rather not work very hard."
One suggestion for improving credibility was the most pervasive among survey responses, and it's not going to surprise many journalists: Lose the liberal bias. Some readers, like Cal Skinner of Crystal Lake, Ill., assume conservatives are a rare breed in newsrooms.
"It seems to me that more than a little effort should be made to diversify ideology in the newsroom," Skinner said. "Of course, that would mean that liberals would have to admit that conservatives might have useful thoughts."
According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, Skinner isn't straying too far into hyperbole. Most journalists continue to identify themselves as moderates, but at national media outlets, self-professed liberals outnumbered conservatives, 34 percent to 7 percent. At local outlets, 23 percent to 12 percent. And at Web sites, 27 percent to 13 percent.