- 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 flashpoint for questions over trustworthy political coverage. “My choice of networks has been CBS for years,” said Jeff Clark of Janesville, Wis. “This event/controversy has really damaged my trust of the media as a whole.”
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 needs to put in plenty of work to win back the public trust. On this the readers offered advice, listing ways to remind the media of its 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 that 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 a long time ago. “I didn’t trust the mainstream media to begin with. This just confirms my belief that they are biased,” said Gayle Mesec of Woodbine, Ga. “Too bad more people aren’t turning away from them.”
Although this group of readers may be unreachable, New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen said, the rest offer a couple of clear lessons as the media moves forward. First, don’t abuse those who are willing to forgive. “This is why many critics of CBS have drawn attention to the response from Sept. 9 to Sept. 20, when CBS finally admitted to having made a mistake,” Rosen said.
And second, when a breakdown in journalism cuts loose some of the public trust, a display of good principles gives media the best chance of getting it back.
So how does the media go about repairing credibility with a skeptical readership? More than a few survey 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. “If you don’t give them exposure, maybe they’ll talk issues instead.”
“Stop trying to interpret everything,” said Sally Drumm of Beaufort, S.C. “Show some respect for the audience. Stop judging and just report. Bring me the news and quit telling me how to think.”
The values that 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 that 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. “The Democrats seem to have lost touch with the people.”
But both sides of the readership would be happy if they just detected more balance in coverage. For some, that means always hearing both sides so they can make up their own minds.
“To be trusted, the media must always present both sides of every story,” said Mamoon Chowdry of Salem, N.H. “They should have point/counter-point 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 its sources, which is worse than getting no story at all. “Do not let politicians and parties use the media as outlets to distort and lie about their competition. 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 Telegraph (N.H.) , 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 that conservatives are a rare breed in newsrooms these days.
“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. My guess is that many newsrooms don’t even have anyone willing to identify themselves as a Republican or a conservative.”
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 websites, 27 percent to 13 percent.
Greg Alford of Rockford, Ill., cited his experience as a reporter in his APME survey response. “I can honestly say I never worked for a Republican editor. I don’t think my experience was unique. The lack of political diversity in the editor class is stunning. Perhaps initiatives should be launched to hire and promote those with diverse political opinions to leadership positions.”
Other readers offered an alternative solution, one that wouldn’t rely on hiring campaigns but would require a titanic shift from the traditional sense of objectivity: Be open about the process of journalism, and be upfront about your background and perspectives.
“Don’t say you’re bipartisan when it clearly is not true. It destroys trust,” said Larry Simpson of Rochester, N.Y.
Matt Albrecht of Spokane said it’s time to “abandon the silly pipe-dream of objectivity.”
“We will respect you more if you have a point of view but admit it. No one believes that a person caring enough about current events to enter news as a profession can really do so with total neutrality anyway, so you aren’t really abandoning all that much — just the dream in your own minds that people really believed you.”
About This Series
This Readers Speak survey was sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editor’s National Credibility Roundtables Project through its Reader Interactive initiative. A total of 39 news organizations sent email to 16,575 regular readers, and 2,543 responses were received from 49 states and the District of Columbia, a response rate of 15 percent.
The results are not scientific; those who responded are likely to be among the more wired and interactive readers that newspapers have. They were polled because they had given their email address to their local newspaper, and comments were taken only online.
The National Credibility Roundtables Project is funded through a grant from the Ford Foundation, and is intended to help the media address the credibility crisis that exists with the public. The Reader Interactive initiative, as part of that project, has assisted newsrooms around the country in setting up reader email networks so that editors can be in better touch with readers. On occasion, the newsrooms involved in that initiative work together on a national Readers Speak survey such as this one.
There are three parts to this series.
Part 1: The latest credibility crisis involving a CBS “60 Minutes” report stains all media; readers suggest ways to solve the problems they see. Also, readers say they get their national election coverage from a wide variety of sources, but most say that coverage has had little or no effect on their decision.
Part 2: Despite the recent surge in interest regarding online Web logs, four of five readers surveyed say they don’t read Web logs, or “blogs.” Those who do read blogs urge caution but suggest the new medium offers great potential as a watchdog of mainstream media.
Part 3: Readers rely on a small number of media sources for coverage of local elections, and are much more trusting of that coverage than of national election coverage. Newspapers still play a vital role.
