|
by Scott Muller
It’s an interesting time to be a journalist. The war in Iraq, peace prospects in the Middle East and a national debate over Social Security are stories dominating the headlines and front pages of today’s newspapers.
But most working journalists will never spend a great deal of time or energy reporting on any of those topics. Why? Because really there are two tiers of journalism in this country.
National journalists and everybody else
You see national journalists on television. They work for the big networks, or large enough newspapers that allow them time to appear on TV from time to time. But few journalists work for publications that are considered national.
Of the roughly 1480 daily newspapers in the United States, just 239 of them (16 percent) have a circulation greater than 50,000 and only a handful have a circulation that would truly be considered national. In New Jersey, only three newspapers (out of 17) have circulation greater than 100,000.
Yet, when you ask the average person about the media, they rarely make any distinction between the big and small, national or local. We’re all just one-big, happy and sometimes biased family.
The everyday viewer or reader sees no difference between the stories that Rush Limbaugh lambastes and the local newspaper, even though most of the time Rush and his peers are discussing topics occurring at the national level. Rush isn’t spending a whole lot of time wondering the biases of the local paper’s coverage of the town council. Social Security reform, welfare, actions of Congress are more in line with his criticisms.
Media critics certainly have every right to be critical and say what they wish. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even when that opinion is sometimes a little biased in itself. But what’s more important to understand is, not necessarily that they’re right or wrong, but that people are listening - listening in droves.
There’s no shortage of people today saying the media is biased. Radio and television pundits and Internet bloggers alike are lining up to take their shots. We need to understand that while they are calling the media biased, it applies to all of us. The local reporter, despite not regularly writing about topics of national interest, can’t escape from the broad sweeps.
People are influenced by what they see, hear and read. If the message they’re receiving is that the media is biased, no matter what the source, they are going to believe it.
And if I’m a reporter these days, I’m not assuming that people are giving me the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Readers and viewers are becoming more critical of what they see, thanks to Fox News and the like. Remember, Fox News was created as an alternative to the big networks newscasts and to CNN. And if ratings are any indication, the alternative is having great success.
No whining allowed
But local journalists can’t whine or complain about Fox News. It isn’t the problem. Neither is Rush or his imitators. Even if they all went off the air tomorrow, recent journalism scandals have only made a local reporter’s life worse.
Jayson Blair wasn’t very well known before April 2003. But he became a nationally-recognized name when it was revealed that the New York Times reporter did what the least-informed media critics have accused reporters of doing for years.
He made parts of his stories up.
Now, he isn’t the first journalist accused of plagiarism, and others followed in his footsteps, but Blair’s disregard for basic ethics and standards is another black eye that all journalists suffer from. You could argue he’s just one reporter working for one paper. Consider this.
A Herald News reader or official has been hearing stories for days about a New York Times reporter who apparently was making stories up. Then a reporter from the Herald News calls seeking comment for a local story.
Can we assume that reader or official is giving the local reporter the benefit of the doubt and say “Well, I’m sure THIS reporter wouldn’t do something like that?” At the very least, a seed of doubt and suspicion has been planted in the official’s brain, making the local reporter’s job to be considered credible that much harder.
Just when people may have started to forget about Jayson Blair and maybe started to trust us again, along comes Dan Rather and “Memogate.” Again, a nationally played story, aired on a major network. But all journalists suffer from the CBS gaffe. The effect is the same as Blair’s.
Don’t think this is a problem? A Feb. 7, 2005, USA Today article reported the results of a media survey among 112,000 high school students. Of those surveyed, 36 percent say newspapers should get government approval before publishing stories. Thirty-two percent say the media enjoy too much freedom.
This in a country where a free press is guaranteed by the Constitution. And, if that’s how the students think, what do you think they’re parents response would be?
So, a number of people think we’re biased or at least when other people say we’re biased, they won’t strongly disagree. Are they right? In the sense that journalists are all on the same page, pushing a particular agenda in an organized and exclusive pattern, I say no. Spend anytime in our nation’s newsrooms and you’ll see excellent example of organized chaos. We have a hard time deciding where to order takeout from, let alone uniformly agree to be pro- or anti- anything.
As Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz once wrote, “We ain’t that organized.”
But we are biased in other ways. We’re biased to follow bad practices. We get lazy and are satisfied by average journalism. We even have formulas to follow when crafting certain stories.
How we can do better
But we can change and do better. In fact we have to do better and the solutions are fairly simple. We need to get back to basics to keep the media critics at bay. We need to follow rules that we either learned early on the job or in journalism school many years ago to restore confidence with our readers. And reporters aren’t the only ones who need to do better. Their editors share responsibility, too.
1. Keep reporting solid
If all facts are double or even triple checked, not only will the risk of mistakes be reduced, but the reporter can ensure his or her story can withstand cries of bias. In a well-reported story, the facts really do speak for themselves. But reporters have to be careful that they aren’t wrapping things up prematurely, rubbing their hands together and shipping the story off. If we’re trying to raise the bar, reporters need to follow some of the best journalism advice I ever received.
Never stop asking questions.
And this doesn’t just apply to the people they interview. It’s equally important for reporters to question themselves. “Have I covered all the bases?” “Did I accurately present all sides to this story.” “Did I forget to talk to anyone?” “Who else could I talk too?” or better yet, “Who else SHOULD I talk to?”
Taking some time to answer those and other questions can go a long way toward presenting a more complete and accurate story.
2. Strive to be truly fair and balanced
Little leaves a writer open to attacks than a poorly reported story, particularly stories about issues where opposing sides are clearly defined. While that may seem like an easy story to write (just get comment from both sides) how often do we see stories that don’t achieve this simple goal?
Think of the last story you read about, say a housing development where problems have popped up.
Did it actually quote a diverse group of people from both sides of the aisle, or did it talk to one, two or a half dozen disgruntled homeowners out for blood and maybe a town official or attorney who said “no comment?”
Or better yet, maybe the other side “couldn’t be reached for comment.” (which of course we let the reader know after vilifying them for 15 inches of copy. Maybe we even ran a big photo of the crack on the wall or a muddy, uncurbed street.)
Now, journalists can sit back and say “Well, we tried to get comment from them.”
But is that an excuse? Regardless of the five phone calls that weren’t returned, the final story appears incomplete. Incomplete stories raise questions with readers, in particular, “Why did they leave that out?”
And if a story is incomplete, what harm would holding the story create?
An extra day (or more) gives the reporter time to find somebody else to comment for the other side. And, an opportunity to report, clearly, what that opposing view is. Too often we hear, “Well, the attorney is the only one who can comment on this, and he’s not calling me back.” We need to be insistent when going after sources. If one is not working, try another. If the second says, “You really have to talk to the attorney,” then a reporter should say “I’ve tried, he’s not calling back and I need a comment from you. The story needs your side.” Reporters must stress that they’re just trying to get the story right.
A reporter wouldn’t want the person who didn’t comment calling back the next day complaining that you got the story wrong. That puts the reporter on the defensive, which is a precarious position to be in.
And it’s OK for reporters to be a little pushy, particularly when a story is coming up short. Reporters can’t be concerned with staying friends with sources. Demanding answers every now and then works and won’t strain as many relationships as they’d think. Good reporting fosters good relationships and earns reporters respect.
Another strategy to ensure fairness is to include or research some basic background information that may help provide another side. In the case of developers, a reporter could point out how many homes there are in the development that haven’t reported problems. A reporter could mention how much money in sales the developer made last year, or how many homes it has sold. If the developer really is as bad as the three or four people say, it should bear out that they wouldn’t be in business very long.
And, if the contrary is true, maybe there’s a bigger story at work here that should be pursued beyond the handful of disgruntled homeowners.
3. Don’t fall for the he-said/she-said trap
A fallout from last year’s presidential race was what I consider the over-polarization of issues. Elections tend to do that to people, but that doesn’t mean journalists have to follow along. I think that most good journalists realize the world isn’t evenly divided among black and white issues, let alone red and blue states. There’s a whole lot of gray that can’t be ignored.
Following the November election, syndicated columnist William Raspberry wrote the following: “It has become routine for reporters to look for prototypical partisans in every fight and to tell our stories through their irreconcilable arguments. It is a tendency that plays us false more often than we care to admit.” ( Nov. 17, 2004)
Let’s continue to use the election as an example. Were 100 percent of the voters in the red states for Bush? Of course not. In fact, all it takes is a simple majority to turn the state for a particular candidate. A reporter should consider when contacting sources, that the three people solidly in one camp versus the three in the other camp may not provide the best picture or even the real story.
Of course it’s a lot easier to do a story that way. Often, the three supporters will meet with you together. But what about the people in the middle? Instead of following the even number from each side formula of crafting a story, I suggest taking some time to ask yourself a few basic questions, and see if you’re really telling the whole story. Always consider whose voice isn’t being heard.
4. Keep your sources diversified
Reporters have a tendency to fall into a rut when dealing with sources. They find several people that they can always go to for a good quote or people they have learned that are willing to talk about any subject. Even if a reporter’s phone list resembles the Manhattan phone book, how many of those people are ever actually quoted in a story? How many have been spoken to once, never to be heard from again? Reporters must resist the urge to return to the same person, time and time again, particularly when writing about the same issue. We know this is the easy way to write a story, particularly when a tight deadline looms. The formula looks like this:
Controversial issue X has been written about 10 times over the past three weeks. Every story quotes Supporter A, Opponent B, maybe some stray person C. Every time the story updates with something new, we go back and talk to A, B and C for their take on the situation. After awhile, their comments all start to sound the same. Indeed, I suspect the questions also start sounding the same. The point is, fresh voices can potentially give you a new take on the issue. But if reporters never look for new voices, they’ll never be heard.
Similarly, our source list must be diverse in background. We shouldn’t be talking to middle-aged white men all the time. At the very least, we need to use more women as sources, and not just the elected officials. In areas with a diverse population such as New Jersey, it’s equally important that our sources reflect the community at large. In Paterson, the heart of my newspaper’s coverage area, more than 50 percent of the population calls themselves Hispanic, according to the most-recent Census data. If our reporters didn’t go out of their way to find Hispanic voices for their stories, we wouldn’t be really relevant to that community.
But, even my paper isn’t doing as good a job as we think. A recent in-house survey found in one week of selected local news sections, we quoted 82 people. Of that 82, 65 were men. Seventeen were women.
Also, of the 82 people quoted, 47 were either officials or celebrities. Twenty-six were considered ordinary people. How can we connect or relate to our readers if we’re not including them in the paper?
5. Deadlines? Computer problems? He won’t return my calls? Readers don’t care
While Clark Kent is a fictional character, readers expect reporters to be Supermen and women. They aren’t concerned with the myriad of hoops a reporter must leap through to get the story to them. They want the news, they want it on their doorstep by 6 a.m., they want it to be thorough, well-written, free of opinion and bias-free. Easier said than done, right?
If readers heard us crying about deadlines, angry city editors, a computer meltdown and what not their reaction would likely be. “That’s too bad. Where’s the story.” Just ask anyone who works in circulation the day after a big snow storm how understanding the readers are.
Keeping that in mind while pursuing a story should help keep a reporter grounded. Yes, problems are going to come up. Not every story will be reported perfectly. Not every story will be as complete as they’d like. But if reporters consider that readers really don’t care about their problems they may be less likely to rely on those excuses as a crutch:
“I was gong to call a few more people, but my computer crashed and I lost some notes, so what have is good enough.”
That’s a common-enough excuse. But it doesn’t hold water. A reporter’s job is to report the story to the best of their ability. It doesn’t matter why they couldn’t do it. So, do they must do the best they can. Always. Whether it’s a two-inch cop brief or the six-month investigative project, the same rules apply.
Don’t cut corners and never settle for something that’s second-rate. Readers sure won’t.
View from the top
I said earlier that reporters aren’t the only ones to blame.
Editors have to insist on quality journalism and not just settle for what is good enough.
They need to ensure that solid reporting practices are being followed for every story in every department. (Features and sports count, too!)
Even if it means holding a story for another day. In an era where head-to-head competition is becoming less common, being first for many stories isn’t as necessary as it once was. But even where intense competition exists, the need to be right always outweighs the need to be first.
Just ask Dan Rather. The independent study looking into “Memogate” essentially determined that if CBS wasn’t so determined to air the story first, it may have avoided the whole mess. Rechecking sources, rechecking the credibility of Lt. Col. Bill Burkett may have aroused enough suspicion to hold the story indefinitely.
Newsrooms have a tendency to get complacent, particularly when short-staffed or working with a relatively inexperienced staff, which is commonplace among smaller newspapers. Complacency opens the door to lazy journalism.
Editors know all the rules about good reporting (or at least they should know them.) But, too often if they recognize a story to be deficient the attitude is, “Well, it’s not perfect, it could use a few more voices, but it’s correct. It’s accurate. So, let’s let it go.”
Letting shoddy stories go is a bad habit to start. Before you know it, your standards are set so low, you’ll let just about any story go, as long as everything is spelled correctly. (and sometimes, even that isn’t a requirement to move it along.)
So, is the solution to hold every story your staff files each night for more reporting? Should we put out a paper filled with only wire news, advertisements and obituaries? Hardly, because the editing process doesn’t begin with the first read.
Editors must set the tone for all desks to follow. All reporters should know what’s expected of them and follow the rules uniformly. There should be no surprises between editors and reporters. Reporters should anticipate questions from their editors based on these rules. This way, reporters will know when their stories aren’t living up to expectations.
And, editors need to be vigilant throughout the day. Progress reports are essential. Just a little, “How’s that story coming? Who did you talk to? What have you found out?” can go a long way toward making a story better. The editor can often suggest new areas to explore based on the answers to those questions further reducing the risk of surprises when that story is filed.
Remember, being short staffed isn’t an excuse to let the rules slip. If a story doesn’t fit the standard, it goes back for more reporting or a rewrite.
In some cases, stories won’t need to be held outright. They’ll just need a little more reporting, or inserting information the reporter may already have. It’s not uncommon for reporters to say, “Oh yeah, I have that information, but I didn’t think that was necessary.”
In an environment when solid reporting, strong fact gathering and checking is encouraged, this will be even more likely.
In conclusion
So I’ve just outlined how we’re all shoddy reporters working for even lazier editors. Is all hope lost? Hardly. Good journalism is being produced at papers both large and small. What we’re lacking, particularly at smaller newspapers, is consistency. We settle too much for the ordinary rather the extraordinary.
People are still reading us and a number of newspapers are certainly turning a profit. But it’s up to us to change the trend from accepting what is just good enough as opposed to what used to be considered good. Readers are tolerant of a lot of things, but poor reporting isn’t one of them. The worse our reporting, the more likely we are to be accused of expressing some kind of bias. And as the Fox News Network has shown, people are more than willing to turn away from what they don’t agree with.
It’s important to remember that no matter how hard we try, there will always be people accusing us of bias. We must accept that as a fact of life.
But we don’t have to make the conclusions any easier to reach. Back-to-basic reporting, solid fact checking, interviewing and seeking a myriad of sources and an editing staff that demands all of this will quiet at least some of the critics.
And the power to do so lies within all newsrooms, both big and small.
|
