Listening to Readers

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s decision to create a reader advisory committee for the editorial board sparked several reactions. I fielded many of them as the newspaper’s Editorial Page Editor.

One reader wanted assurances that there were equal numbers of Democrats to Republicans, true liberals to true conservatives. Others asked questions that, no doubt, indicated lingering feelings from their candidate losing the recent election.

Another person noted that there was an abundance of people on the 10-member committee who identified themselves as Christians. Others wanted more explanation of what the committee members really meant in the bios we had them write. We published their bios in our expanded Sunday opinion section.

In general, people both inside and outside the newspaper thought listening to readers was a good thing. Some would say that it’s even overdue.

Newspapers, of course, listen to readers in many ways. And a reader advisory committee is not an idea original to me, or the Journal Sentinel. Other newspapers have formed them for both newsrooms and for editorial boards.

But I found the initial reaction of the few naysayers, perhaps I should call them doubters, instructive. While those questioning the committee’s formation were few, it’s pretty clear to me by now that there are legions of doubters out there.

Which is to say that there are legions of readers who believe we don’t want to listen to them. That’s just another way of saying that we don’t care about them.

And they really, really, really want us to listen. This was evidenced by the number of people — about 150 — who applied for committee spots though I explained in a column that they’d be working for cookies.

In the essays they submitted for the committee assignments, they explained they wanted their views reflected on the editorial pages. Again, another way of saying, “Listen to me,” even as some, undoubtedly, are also saying “agree with me.”
 
But the fact that readers really want us to listen to them was brought home to me recently in another way. I sat on a panel and the topic was whether Wisconsin’s print and broadcast news organizations serve the public interest.

A loaded question, I know, with myriad answers depending on whether a reader’s interest is truly public, or special — as in special interest.

It is a question, however, that every journalist should go through the exercise of trying to answer. It is both a humbling and invigorating experience. It brings us to the inevitable notion that, though we do a whole lot of good stuff, we can always do better.

Distressingly, we find out when we pose this question to non-journalists, that a good number of them have a none-too-flattering answer at the ready. If there’s a PR battle out there for the hearts and minds of readers, we’re losing. The recent travails of CBS News and Dan Rather haven’t helped.

… there are legions of readers who believe we don’t want to listen to them.But this notion that we don’t listen bubbled up from various questions posed by the panel’s audience. Aside from a theme that I run too many conservative columnists (a refreshing departure from claims from the other side that our columnists are too liberal) was an assumption. That assumption is that we, as an industry, are actively listening — but not to readers. In fact, they see us in thrall to our corporate masters; purposely not running stories that will upset establishment apple carts. It explains our timidity, they say.

I told the audience that though there may be some flaws to corporate ownership, having headquarters dictate what stories and editorials we run generally isn’t among them. Of course, Sinclair television stations might beg to differ. Sometimes newsrooms suffer when profits and expenses clash in investor-owned companies. But corporate censorship is relatively rare, at least in my experience.

Yes, I know such gatherings always produce expressions that we are slanted this way or that — that we cover this too much and that too little. Conspiracy theories abound. But I detected a hunger from the audience to tell us everything on their minds. And this, too, is an indication that readers don’t believe we listen.

We could stand to listen more. Even when we disagree. Even when we know what they’re saying isn’t absolutely true.

Often, however, we prefer to simply label the complainers as partisans, or representing some other niche interest. And I suspect this hesitancy to listen is also about indignation, about having to explain ourselves. While public perception that the media is arrogant is overblown, it isn’t without some glimmer of truth.

The other benefit of listening is that we also get to explain. Unlike us, readers are, by and large, willing to listen. Eager to listen. They want to understand.

It’s why I think I’m on the right track with this reader advisory committee.

We had our first meeting recently (Jan. 13). I wasn’t disappointed. The committee members didn’t just make comments. They asked questions.

The committee’s purpose is to be our fiercest critic and to advise us about issues from various communities, or areas of interest. The committee can identify issues that we are not writing about. Or ones we’ve written about, but from their perspective, wrongly. We will bounce other issues off of them to better understand opinions not always present during editorial board meetings.

Choosing 10 readers from the 150 applicants was tough. We were looking for diversity — politically, by community, by age, by gender, by race and ethnicity.

We will, I’m certain, learn as much from the experience as will the committee.

I’ll keep you posted. But right now, out the chute, it seems clear to me that listening is far better than circling the wagons.