Posted by
J.P. Farris on Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:41:13 PM
When I was a kid I loved to write which made it only natural for me to turn to journalism in high school and photojournalism in college, but what turned me off was journalists and the media depicted as lacking heart or compassion, doing anything to get a story. Countless are the times I saw journalists on TV acting like a mob, lacking compassion as they converged on grieving families or crime victims on the court house steps with cameras and microphones. I believe in journalistic integrity and compassion, qualities that are often overlooked in the rush to get a story. I have seen the ugly face of bias rise up in journalistic reporting, bias that gives way to “yellow journalism”, my biggest pet peeve. It is such bias that has caused many to lose trust in journalism and the media.
The American Society of Newspaper Editors conducted a survey, embarking on a one million dollar project to improve the credibility of newspapers and journalism. The study identified several areas where newspapers need to develop strategic initiatives intended to make measurable progress to improve credibility.
The study was based on telephone interviews with 3,000 Americans followed up with 16 focus groups. The research was designed, conducted and analyzed by Urban & Associates, Inc. of Sharon, Mass., under the direction of Christine Urban.
Among the findings:
Inaccuracy: More than a third of adults said they see spelling or grammar mistakes in their newspaper more than once a week, and 21 percent said they see them almost daily. “It seems like the paper’s gotten sloppier in the last 10 years,” said one focus group participant.
Sensationalism: More than 80 percent of Americans believe that sensational stories get lots of news coverage simply because they’re exciting, not because they’re important. The motivation is to sell newspapers and attract news audiences, a similar number of Americans believe.
Bias: While 78 percent of U.S. adults believe there’s bias in the news media there is no consensus definition of what “bias” means. Almost one-third (30 percent) see bias as “not being open-minded and neutral about the facts”; almost another third (29 percent) believe bias is “having an agenda and shaping the news to report it”; another third (29 percent) define bias as “favoritism to a particular social or political group.” Eight percent said that bias is “all of these.” The public is also split on liberal vs. conservative, with 47 percent saying their local paper tends to be more politically liberal than themselves, and 34 percent saying it tends to be more politically conservative than they are.
Manipulation of the press: 78 percent of the public believes that powerful people or organizations can influence a newspaper to “spike or spin” a story. The most frequently cited groups the public thinks influence news decisions are politicians or government officials, big business and wealthy individuals. Half (50 percent) believe that advertisers’ interests influence decisions. A big criticism (felt by 59 percent of the public) is that newspapers are concerned mainly with making profits, rather than serving the public interest.
Corrections: When they see errors, 19 percent of readers say they “always” see a correction, and 40 percent say they “sometimes” see one. Some 63 percent say they “feel better” about the quality of the news coverage they get when they see corrections. “If there’s a mistake, admit it,” said a focus group participant. “People are more likely to believe you. Don’t hide it in small print. Let them know you want them to know your mistakes.”
Television and newspapers: The study asked a number of questions about television and newspapers, in order to draw some comparisons. For example, when asked which is the worst offender in terms of bias, 42 percent said television, while 23 percent said newspapers. Television is overwhelmingly seen as the dominant source of national and world news, while a majority (54 percent) say newspapers are their primary source of local news. When there are conflicting factual accounts in one medium or another, the public tends to believe the news medium that had more time to collect and study the facts.
Unnamed sources: More than three-quarters of U.S. adults expressed concern about the credibility of news stories that use anonymous sources, and 45 percent say the story shouldn’t run at all if no one will go “on the record.” At the very least, newspapers should explain why they use unnamed sources when they feel they have to, focus group participants said.
Urban has listed six major conclusions discovered by the study:
The public sees too many factual errors and spelling or grammar mistakes in newspapers.
The public perceives that newspapers don’t consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and their communities.
The public suspects that the points of view and biases of journalists influence what stories are covered and how they are covered.
The public believes that newspapers chase and over-cover sensational stories because they’re exciting and they sell papers. They don’t believe these stories deserve the attention and play they get.
The public feels that newsroom values and practices are sometimes in conflict with their own priorities for their newspapers.
I have got into the habit of reading multiple newspapers and going to more than one news source in order to keep more up to date with current world events. I have aligned myself with media watchdog groups in the belief that journalistic integrity, compassion and credibility still exist…and it’s making a comeback. There is still bias in some areas of the media, but the truth is out there.