AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE NEWS MEDIA: THE IMPACT OF CHANGING PERSPECTIVES IN A TIME OF WAR; MEDIA ETHICAL LAPSES, AND NEWER MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDING THE INTERNET

BY JEROME AUMENTE, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR EMERITUS
AND SPECIAL COUNSELOR TO THE DEAN, SCHOOL OF
COMMUNICATION, INFORMATION AND LIBRARY STUDIES
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, USA

Remarks at Moscow State University (MGU) School of Journalism,
Moscow, Russia, October 29, 2003, Wednesday

American attitudes toward the print and electronic news media in the United States are forever shifting and readjusting. But a) the recent events before and after the Iraqi War, b) a series of ethical lapses within the news media and c) the fundamental transformations caused by newer technologies and the Internet in how people acquire news, share information or discuss news events are all having a profound effect on how the public perceives, values and trusts the print and electronic news media.

The impact is cumulative and difficult to sort out, but each element adds to the powerful waves of change pounding the media shoreline and realigning it--in this case the shoreline traces the broad mass media territory long held by newspapers, television, radio magazines and books, and the newer, emerging terrain of electronically published news and information staked out by the Internet worldwide.

It will be useful to examine each of the elements individually and then to explore ways public attitudes toward the news media can be analyzed comparatively with students, faculty and scholars in Russia and other countries as they assess their own news media and look at the American experience for clues on press performance and reform.

This discussion will be done within the context of public opinion polls in the United States which show a steady erosion of the trust and support people feel toward the news media and which have caused national journalism associations to seek ways to reverse the public criticism. A fundamental concern is that diminished public trust in the news media furthers those who would limit press freedoms embodied in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, or laws protecting reporter’s sources and the ability to vigorously investigate wrong doing through enterprise reporting.

THE IRAQI WAR:

The United States overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003 finds the news media at the center of the current debate as to whether their performance was adequate in the days leading up to the war; the quality of the war coverage itself, and coverage in the aftermath of the war. How informed were Americans on what the invasion entailed and its consequences? The Democratic opposition now accuses the Bush Administration of deceiving the American public about the extent of the threat Iraq posed with weapons of mass destruction.

In the days leading up to the American invasion of Iraq, there also were complaints that those opposed to the war were given insufficient attention in news coverage. And a random observation of coverage, does seem to justify the complaint of the anti-war movement, that their voices were muted in comparison to the overwhelming coverage given to the war mobilization, and the inevitability that the invasion would happen.

Today, there are a number of aspects of coverage that media scholars might analyze:

• Did journalists in this important, prewar period adequately dig into the assertions that there were indeed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)--chemical, biological or nuclear--in Iraq? As the story unfolds in the aftermath of the war, the WMD claims which were the primary justification for the war have not to this date been proven. Some complain that with WMD still unproven, the attempt was made to concoct other postwar justifications--that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the US, or the reason for invading Iraq was to free the Iraqi people. An informed press must sort out competing claims and guide the public through the thicket of positions, giving context to the issues.

• The ongoing story today involves serious questions about the adequacy of the intelligence used to support the war justification, and to move ahead without clear United Nations endorsement. Two elements of this story have enmeshed the news media on both sides of the Atlantic in ethical concerns. In Britain, an arms expert who may have questioned the validity of British intelligence on WMDs was identified by the BBC as the source and committed suicide, causing a crisis in the Blair Administration. In the United States, conservative columnist Robert Novak revealed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative. She was the wife of a former ambassador who himself is an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration claim that nuclear materials were acquired by Iraq in Africa, a central claim used to rally war support. A special governmental investigation is now underway to identify and perhaps criminally prosecute the unnamed “senior administration” sources in the White House who disclosed the agent’s name, endangering her and her sources in the field. The journalism ethical questions revolve around identifying the CIA agent by name--something a number of news agencies declined to do when offered the information by the unnamed senior administration sources, and now as to whether a journalist can be forced to identify the source of the story by the courts or by choice.

This has triggered a much broader debate now underway among media critics and journalists about how much the news media are “used” by unnamed high sources who wish to plant stories that further the source’s own position while undermining their political enemies. Unnamed sources will always be an inevitable (and valuable) part of the investigative and enterprise reporting process. But the question of whether the process is open to abuse, or the public is not sufficiently informed of the implications when deals are made in this odd form of Kabuki theater between unnamed source and reporter could use more scrutiny.

The quality of reporting of the Iraqi war itself by the American news media has been generally perceived as admirable. “Embedded” print and broadcast reporters traveled with individual units in the battlefield, sending back instant, live reports via satellite and gave viewers a real-time sense of the happenings as they sat in their living rooms. In general, the news media were very careful not to reveal information that might be of use to the enemy, and self-censored themselves on these security issues. And once again, brave journalists gave their lives in the pursuit of their stories. The “embedded” journalists concept left both the media and the military satisfied with the arrangement, a contrast with earlier conflicts where the media complained of being shut out of battlefield events , or as in the case of Vietnam, being given misleading or inaccurate figures on war fatalities and progress of the fighting.

If there were any complaints of the Iraqi coverage, it might be that the availability of instant, 24-hour reports, directly from the field--and literally from the rolling tank or fighting vehicle on which the journalist could be seen riding and reporting--provided a patchwork and fragmentary sense of events, and that the big picture of the war’s progress was lost to the individual micro-reporting on the scene. The reliance of the broadcast and cable networks on retired military as expert commentators provided informed commentary by experts, but one sometime wondered if a career military general, now retired, could criticize, full throttle, when the military took a misstep. On the other hand, the Pentagon complained midway in the Iraqi war that some television military commentators were being overly critical when things seemed to go badly.

Overall, the war coverage was technically superior to previous encounters, heavily budgeted and technologically advanced. Satellite-linked video phones were upgraded for more stable instant visual/voice documentation; the near instant reports available on the Internet, and 24-7 coverage by CNN, MSBC and Fox provided the viewers with unparalleled access to war coverage. There were only a few lapses where correspondents were reprimanded for giving away live battle information that might be crucial to an enemy monitoring the broadcasts.

With all this, there is dissatisfaction over press performance. The October/November 2003 cover of American Journalism Review (available at www.ajr.org) pictures President Bush at the lectern and the headline: “Are the News Media Soft on Bush?” The article by Rachel Smolkin reported concern among some national newspaper and broadcast correspondents covering the White House and media experts who felt the news media were not nearly aggressive enough in challenging the Bush Administration in the days leading up to the Iraqi war in the Spring of 2003.

There was not enough press challenge of the central claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Bush claim that Iraq sought to or actually acquired nuclear materials in Africa, a center piece of the State of the Union Address to Congress and the Nation, later retracted as based on erroneous intelligence information, was not seriously challenged by the news media until this past summer. Overall, press critics felt the media had not pursued other key issues of the failing economy, potential business conflicts, corporate scandals and domestic concerns sufficiently, giving the president a free ride on many pressing issues.

It was suggested that following the 9-11 attacks in New York and Washington, the news media covering the administration held back, constrained by the mood of the country and fearing any criticism as being evidence of a “liberal biased media”. The news media were being swept along in a spirit of patriotic nationalism which made it difficult for critical analysis of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks, or of the governmental actions in their aftermath with the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq. A meek and disorganized political opposition by the Democratic minority in Congress also compounded the problems of articulating an opposition response, it was said. The latter has changed significantly as the Democratic candidates in the 2004 presidential race and Democrats in Congress have sharply criticized the handling of post-war reconstruction in Iraq, the costs, and the continued high rate of Americans and Iraqi civilians dying each day. They did this as the president’s popularity ratings continued to fall precipitously in recent months, though then improving somewhat recently.

The Administration’s Media Counter-offensive:

As this paper was being written, the Bush Administration in the Fall of 2003 launched an offensive against the national press in the United States. Months after President Bush in flight gear landed dramatically on an aircraft carrier and, in effect, declared the Iraqi war concluded, the news continues to be bad--regular bombings within Iraq causing chaos in civilian society; American troops systematically being killed in sniper and bombing attacks; factional fighting among Iraqis, and lack of basic services.

The Administration recently orchestrated a series of highly visible speeches by the President and his top foreign policy and defense staff--a primary message being that the national news media were emphasizing only the negative news, and the American people are not hearing the full story. The lament of an unfair press has been sung by every Administration, Democratic or Republican, no more so than with the disgraced Nixon-Agnew Administration which hunted down “enemies” in the press and sought to undermine public confidence in the news media. This is a dangerous exercise. Once a national government succeeds in undermining public confidence in the press, it is harder to restore public trust in the press in a time of crisis and have the public believe the message.

A litany of positive Iraqi achievements--the restoration of electricity to prewar levels, the end of an evil and repressive regime, the reduction in overall attacks, and the movement toward a constitution and democratically elected government by year’s end--were pushed forward. The president made himself available for a round of interviews with local television stations that, it was hoped, would carry more of the positive message and not be as troublesome as the more aggressive, self-assured and powerful national news media that cover the White House and government all the time. The national media did sniffily make note of the complaints, pushed more positive stories to the forefront, but to their credit, continued with the hard news coverage of continued terrorist attacks and loss of life.

Measuring the public’s opinion of the news media and public understanding of key issues:

There are numerous studies of American attitudes toward the news media. In recent years, the overall positive public opinion curve seems to be downward. The public expresses growing impatience with news media performance--calling it too sensational, too liberal, too invasive of privacy, and too negative. Some of this is fed by extremists on the right and the left who accuse the news media of bias. Some of it stems from the public’s reaction to a troubled world of bad news, wishing things could be more positive and attacking the messenger. Some of it is caused by the 24 hour onslaught of news and entertainment mixed together in a broadcast, cable, Internet and print mélange that blurs the line between what is factual news and what is ”infotainment”. In summary, the legitimate media and the associations that speak for them are deeply concerned with the erosion of public support. They see it in lost audience and readership, and in the dangerous inclination of the public to support more restraints on press freedom.

The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) launched a major study in 1998 with follow up tracking studies in 1999. It found 80 percent of adults in eight regions felt newspapers over dramatize stories to sell newspapers when they should just stick to the facts. Two-thirds believed it is easy for special interest groups to “manipulate the press”; believe newspapers pursue stories that fit their own agenda, and that the press is becoming more inaccurate. But 38 percent do feel the press is just an easy target to blame for deeper problems of society.
(See www.asne.org/credibilityhandbook/brt/publicattitudes.htm , Author, Christine Urban, August 12, 2002).

In the ASNE study, “Examining our Credibility” published August 04, 1999 (available at
www.asne.org/kiosk/reports/99reports/1999examiningourcredibility/p27-32) the roots of the perceived bias are examined. Here 78 percent of US adults believe there is bias in the news media; 58 percent believe the dissatisfaction with the media is justified; 78 percent believe the powerful can control stories in or out of the paper, half believe special interest groups get special breaks and 77 percent said newspapers pay more attention to stories that support their own viewpoint. Among those who see the press as biased, 42 percent called television the worst offender, while 23 percent called newspapers the most biased. Still, two thirds of adults say their perception of bias is not a major obstacle in their trusting the press, a puzzling reaction needing further analysis.

While 93 percent of the public prefer their news straight and without interpretation, 68 percent of journalists supported interpretation as one key role. While 79 percent felt it easy for special interest groups to manipulate the press, only 55 percent of journalists thought this was true. Of the three quarters of journalists polled on the reason for public disenchantment with the press, 48 percent blamed sensationalism, inaccuracy, pack reporting and over-reporting of the private lives of public officials. (Remember that these surveys took place during the height of the scandals involving President Bill Clinton).

In the ASNE survey, the public by 78 percent believes reporters pay more attention to what editors want rather than what the readers wish, and 67 percent see journalists as more cynical than other professionals, and only 28 percent of the public believes a journalist would “tone down” a story that might hurt someone’s life.

For yet other perspectives, I reviewed the materials in “Public Perspective, July/August 2002”, of The Roper Center (www.roperweb.ropercenter) which cite a Princeton Survey Research Associates/Pew Research Center study of November 13-19, showing only 35 percent feel the news media help society while 51 percent feel the media “gets in the way” and 14 percent don’t know or refuse to say. The ASNE/ Urban and Associates Study cited earlier shows 58 percent dissatisfied with the press, while 28 percent see it as an easy target, and 5 percent do not know, while 8 percent say it depends on the issues.

Other findings reported by the Roper sources included:

The Princeton Survey Associates/Pew Research Center tracked the public attitude toward news organizations over a longer period and found in 1985 that 55 percent felt the news media got their facts straight while this dropped to a low of 34 percent in 1999 and rose to 46 percent by 2001. As to how many felt the news media were “often inaccurate”, the figure was 34 percent in 1985, as high as 63 percent in 1999 and hovering at 45 percent by 2001.

A Gallup Organization survey of July 2000 showed that only 12 percent of the public had a “great deal” of trust in the news media compared with 18 percent in 1976; 39 percent had a “fair amount” compared with 54 percent in 1976; 37 percent had “not very much” trust compared with 22 percent in 1976, and 12 percent had “none at all” compared with 4 percent in 1976.

When the Gallup Organization asked the public in November of 2000 to rate various professions as to honesty and ethical standards, nurses were highest with 79 percent, followed by veterinarians, 66 percent, funeral directors 35 percent, Congress people 21 percent, and journalists ranked at 21 percent just above lawyers at 17 percent or car salesmen at 7 percent.

Asked by Princeton Survey Research Associates/Pew Research Center in November of 2001 if the news media help or hinder political leaders doing their job, in 1985 67 percent of the public felt the news media keep the leaders from wrongdoing while 17 percent felt news media interfered. These figures steadily declined to 54 percent by November 2001 saying the media stopped wrong doing and 32 percent felt the news media interfered with leaders doing their job.

A 1999 poll by the Princeton Survey group found 24 percent of the public and 45 percent of journalists believing the media are only reporting the news when they cover the ethical and personal behavior of public figures, while 72 percent of the public felt the news media were driving the controversy compared with 49 percent of the journalists.

A Harris survey of 2002 showed 72 percent of the public saying the news media in Washington have “too much” power and influence, 14 percent “too little” and 9 percent “about right”, with 5 percent “unsure”.

A Roper Starch Worldwide/History Channel survey in January of 2000 found the percentage of the public responding “ a great deal or moderate amount” showed 90 percent of the public believing the news media affect who becomes president, 86 percent believing the media affect re-election. Seventy-seven percent see the media affecting how a president behaves in public, 72 percent see media coverage affecting policy decisions and 40 percent of the public saying the media coverage affects how a president behaves in private. Asked who has more influence on the country--the US president or the news media--18 percent said the president, 73 percent said the news media, 7 percent said both equally and 2 percent did not know.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (www.people-press.org/reports) provides a valuable source of opinion polling and interpretation about the news media over time. Measuring journalists’ perceptions of their performance, a March 1999 study shows journalists increasingly concerned over blurred lines between their reporting and commentary, too many factual errors and sloppy reporting . They see the public erosion of trust in their work increasing because of all this.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington, DC provides some helpful materials for the concerns expressed in this paper, as well as ongoing studies of opinion and tools that can help journalists improve their work at www.journalism.org/resources. One content study in 1998 showed a shift in the news media toward life style, celebrity and entertainment news, and a shift away from straight news accounts and toward more people-oriented approaches. In a 2002 study analyzing the coverage of the war on terrorism the Project found good reporting in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, and a positive spike in public attitude toward the news media, but then there was a shift to “punditry, speculation and patriotism” with a decline in news reporting quality according to a January 31, 2001, report in the Toronto Star by Antonia Zerbisias. When bombing of Afghanistan began, analysis and opinion swelled and facutualness declined to “levels lower than those seen in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal”, the report said.

Another useful website to consider in this review of public attitudes toward media performance is “Ponynteronline” which can be accessed at www.poynter.org. The Poynter Institute provides current tools, comment and information on key news performance issues. The morass that Robert Novak fell into by revealing the name of the CIA agent involved in the current controversy over Iraq and its nuclear ambitions in the WMD area, is commented upon, for example, in an October 2003 column by
Aly Colon , an ethics leader and diversity program director. Colon urges journalists to approach such stories by examining their principles, ask more questions that might raise “red flags” and pay more attention to the source when promising confidentiality.

In an article in “American Journalism Review” in the October-November 2003 issue, entitled “Baghdad Urban Legends”, Lori Robertson reviews recent polls on people’s perception of the Iraq war issues and finds news media audiences and readers mistakenly tied Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks; wrongly linked weapons of mass destruction to Iraq or thought they had been used in the battle against American troops when they had not. Interest in coverage was high (as many as 84 percent said they closely followed the news), though the polls showed the high levels of mistaken impressions by significant segments of the public. This leads to soul searching among news media executives--the need to be even more careful in presenting news and being sure to background the events to reduce mis-impressions. Media experts also felt the complexity of events, the competing claims by various political sectors as to what Iraq did and did not do, and the scurrilous reputation of Saddam Hussein himself, all compounded the problem of people incorrectly processing what they hear, see and read.

Other Media Problems:

The American news media were rocked by the events in Spring of 2003 when the The New York Times published its own in-depth investigation of a young and rising reporter, Jayson Blair, who it found in numerous instances had falsified stories, plagiarized from other sources, filed first person accounts from places he had not been. The stories dealt with everything from returning, wounded US troops from Iraq to the sensational series of sniper killings in the Washington, D.C. area.

The New York Times is the “gold standard” when it comes to setting the level of journalistic quality and performance in the United States. The reporter was fired, the editor and managing editor of the paper resigned, an ombudsman has been created for the paper, and a long process of review and soul searching is underway at the paper and in news media throughout the United States to prevent it happening again.

It was the devices of modern technology--the cell phone allowing one to be anywhere and whereabouts untraceable; the laptop computer that provided maximum mobility and access to the Internet and the latest in the newspaper’s databases and photos--that allowed Jayson Blair to hide out in his New York City apartment, pretending to be filing from the scene, and concocting stories. A trusting management failed to double check his whereabouts and expense accounts and did not detect the subterfuge until much of it had taken place.

The damage to the newspaper and its morale was grievous, but not fatal. The erosion of public trust in the news media--if this can happen at the The New York Times then what about other news organizations, the public has asked. The full extent of the damage will not be known for some time but it has certainly dealt a punishing blow to the media’s credibility.

This coming along with the other difficulties the news media encountered in recent months--and as outlined in this paper--the improper identification of a CIA agent that publicly endangered her life; the less then perfect coverage of the causes and justification for the Iraqi war, and the counter attacks on the press for allegedly focusing on only bad news in post-war Iraq justify the public’s limp handshake when it comes to welcoming the press.

The recall of the California governor this summer and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger also provided another press problem. The actor and body builder turned politician, was the subject of a careful, investigative series of stories by the Los Angeles Times, examining allegations by numerous women that, in the past, Schwarzenegger had sexually harassed and physically groped them. The brevity of the recall and election time span made it difficult to report the investigative findings by the paper, and not make it appear to be a last-minute “October” surprise in which the candidate doesn’t have time to refute the allegations. In this case, the news media in general, embarrassed itself by embracing “Arnold mania” and focusing on celebrity. He got a free ride on tough questioning or scrutiny by largely being unavailable for substantive journalistic review. The fact that he announced his candidacy on the “Tonight” show at NBC with Jay Leno, and had the latter introduce him at his victory celebration further blurred the line between a network’s impartiality when it comes to showcasing and commenting on political candidates. Whether or not the “Tonight “ show is just entertainment, or a quasi-news vehicle for ideas, politics and people, as well, needs further debate and discussion.

Making sense of all this in the Age of the Internet:

Mark Twain supposedly said when hearing the music of Wagner--things are not as bad as they sound. The same might be said of some of this concern with the news media, public opinion of the press, and the potential for the future.

The news media in the United States are robust, highly professional and willing to spend much time on the issues of current professional standards and what must be done to improve the quality of future journalists through university education and midcareer training for professional staff. As founding director of the Journalism Resources Institute in the School of Communication, Information and Library Studies at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, I dealt with over 14,000 journalists in programs in the United States and overseas. Over eighty trips overseas since 1989, and programs we conducted in Poland, Bosnia, Russia, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, in other regions of the Balkans including Serbia and Croatia , and in Latin America, show the strong desire of journalists and universities everywhere to contribute toward a better world of news and information.
The entire framework has changed in the last decade with the ascendancy of the Internet as a source of news, information and communication worldwide. With the world wide web rapidly moving toward a billion users intertwined in the network globally, and with newer technologies complementing this through CD storage and distribution; wireless communication; affordable cell phone service, and the introduction of multimedia devices as commonplace household, school and workplace items, the entire information and communication landscape has changed, and will continue to do so.

The traditional mass media have embraced the Internet and newer technologies, and have been transformed by them. They are changing content, distribution and the way they interact with audiences, viewers, readers, listeners and users.

In many cases, young people especially, are creating their own networks of exchange and distribution. Issues such as war news of Iraq and its aftermath; questions of global equity and safety; the quality of the environment; the role of the news media and the trust it deserves, are all issues being affected in the newer media environment. There is no place to hide, if you are an individual or a government seeking to hold back or distort news and information. The information power base is shifting to the people.

It is up to the universities through its students and faculty to analyze all of this systematically, capture a sense of what it is today, and what could be. It means modernizing curriculum, expanding content, using the Internet and newer media to build upon traditional sources. It requires cooperation and exchange with brother and sister institutions globally. It is, in many ways, a very exciting time, though granted, a troubling one as well.

Thank you.

JEROME AUMENTE, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and
Special Counselor to the Dean, School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, USA

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Professor Jerome Aumente,
Long Mountain,
617 Seven Oaks Drive,
Bentonville, Virginia 22610 USA

Telephone: 540/635-6395
e-mail: aumente@scils.rutgers.edu
jeromeaumente@worldnet.att.net