Reporters, The Public and Bias:
Some Observations on a Conundrum
Much of the public is convinced that reporters allow their own political ideas
to
shape the news. Many even contend that the news media are trying to win
them over to
liberal social causes. And they are not alone in this appraisal. In
almost every
campaign, politicians have pleaded that the media are biased against them
and print
only news that makes them look bad and their political opponents look
good.
Yet, most reporters are convinced that they are news professionals going about
their
jobs fairly. Many are openly disdainful of those who accuse them of
having a liberal
bias.
How is it possible that so many credible witnesses are willing to testify that
they
have seen biased reporting while at the same time so many reporters
claim they are
innocent? This paper will attempt to provide some observations about
this conundrum
and suggest some things the media might do to defend itself against
some of the
charges of bias.
A Case in Point: The 1992 Presidential Campaign
After successful showings in the primaries in 1991 and early '92, Arkansas
Gov.
Bill Clinton was being declared the front-runner for the Democratic
nomination for
president. Since only months before he was almost completely unknown on
the national
scene, some political writers were calling him the creation of the
media and noted
that he was receiving exceedingly kind treatment by the media.1 But then
things
turned sour for Clinton. Tabloid newspapers began to report tales of
marital
infidelity, leading the mainstream media to jump on the story. Normally
serious-minded newspapers were assigning reporters to the "bimbo
patrol" to search
for more women willing to incriminate the governor. Soon his draft
record, marijuana
use and his wife were under attack. (U.S. News and World Report labeled
Mrs. Clinton
the "overbearing yuppie wife from hell," while Time magazine featured a
cover story
titled "Why voters don't trust Clinton.")
Page , Reporters, The Public and Bias
Yet, many voters indicated they had more trust in Clinton than in the media.
Nearly
half the people in one poll said they thought Clinton's new political
problems were
related principally to the way the press had covered him and not to
Clinton's own
actions.2 Even some reporters thought Clinton was getting the short end
of stick. Six
months before the election, 64 percent of journalists surveyed said the
media were
hurting Clinton's campaign and helping Bush's.3 One journalism trade
magazine printed
an analysis of the coverage that noted that Clinton was being trampled
by the press
but Bush was getting "kinder, gentler treatment." The writer argued
that reporters,
who he said tend to be Democrats, treat Democrats more harshly in order
to avoid
seeming to be unfair.[1]
But by the end of the campaign, neither of the other two presidential
candidates
would agree with that assessment. H. Ross Perot had a running battle with
the media.
When reporters asked Perot to document his charges that the Republicans
were using
dirty tricks against him, Perot called the reporters "jerks." His
relationship with
the press continued to deteriorate to the point that Jim Squires,
Perot's press
adviser and former editor of the Chicago Tribune, called the media
treatment of Perot
"the journalistic equivalent of the police beating of Rodney King,"
referring to the
black man who was videotaped being thrashed by Los Angeles police
officers. Squires
wrote, "Only a few news organizations offered a balanced perspective of
the Perot
campaign, reporting accurately, with traditional fairness and caution. .
. ."[2]
Nor was Republican George Bush pleased with media coverage. He described the
1992
coverage as "the most biased year in the history of presidential
politics" and told a
crowd in Ohio, "Every one of you knows that there has not been
objectivity in the
coverage." Bush got the biggest applause during his campaign appearances
when he held
up a bumper sticker that read "Annoy the Media, Reelect Bush." At one
Bush speech, a
supporter attacked a photographer who was trying to take pictures of
the candidate.[3]
Vendors often sold T-shirts at Bush appearances and other conservative
rallies
imprinted with the CBS Eye and the words "Rather Biased."
Public, Politicians See Lots of Media Bias
With all three candidates claiming that the press is against them, the cynical
journalist might fall back on the adage: "If everyone hates us, we must be
doing
something right."
But many in the public aren't so sure the press is doing right by them. Charges
that
the media preach a liberal doctrine have been around since at least the
early 1970s
when Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon's vice president, called the media
"effete snobs" and
branded them liberal. Accusations that the media are part of the
"liberal Eastern
establishment" have been made from scores of podiums and pulpits
throughout the
nation and by many columnists and self-described media critics of all
political
stripes. (Time magazine even ran an article titled "Are the Media Too
Liberal?"[4], and,
after his first year in office, President Clinton groused to Rolling
Stone that he
had "not gotten one damn bit of credit from the knee-jerk liberal
press.")
Opinion polls have consistently found that the public agrees that the news
media are
biased. A sampling of these findings:
y More than two-thirds of the public believed journalists tended to favor one
side
when reporting political and social issues.[5]
y Almost half don't believe reporters get their facts straight.[6]
y When asked if they thought the media "bent over backward" to tell both sides
of the
story, only 29 percent thought TV newscasts did and 38 percent
said newspapers did.[7]
y About 42 percent told pollsters that they did not think news organizations
were
careful to separate fact from opinion.[8]
y More than two-thirds of the public believed journalists tended to favor one
side
when reporting political and social issues.[9]
y When asked whether the media in general were liberal or conservative, 41
percent of
Americans said liberal while only 19 percent said
conservative.[10]
y More than half believed the media had too much say in picking the Democratic
Party's presidential nominee in 1992.[11]
y 62 percent of California's legislators and their aides believed the
ideological and
personal views of journalists influenced the news. More than half
the legislators
called the media unfair.[12]
And people who argue that the media have a liberal bias have some ammunition to
support their position. Most surveys of journalists confirm that
journalists tend to
be more liberalDor at least less conservativeDthan the general
population on most
political and social issues. A Los Angeles Times poll found newspaper
journalists
were:
y more likely to favor abortion than the general public (82 percent to 51
percent),
y more likely to favor government help for people who are unable to support
themselves (95 percent to 83 percent),
y more likely to support employee rights for homosexuals (89 percent to 57
percent),
y more likely to support affirmative action for blacks and other minorities (81
percent to 57 percent),
y more likely to support stricter handgun controls (78 percent to 50 percent),
y more likely to support government regulation of business (49 percent to 22
percent),
y less likely than the public to support prayers in the public schools (25
percent to
74 percent) and the death penalty (47 percent to 75 percent),
y more likely than the general public to call themselves liberal (55 percent to
23
percent) and less likely to call themselves conservative (17
percent to 29 percent.)
Journalists working in the "media elite"Dthe network news departments and a
handful
of major newspapersDhave been described as even more liberal than the
rest of the
press. One study found that more than 80 percent of these journalists
regularly voted
for Democrats, 90 percent of them were pro-choice on the abortion
issue, and most of
them had a definite anti-business bias. Other surveys also found
journalists at
prestigious publications to be more liberal, but not to this degree.[13]
It seems clear that the people in the newsrooms at newspapers and TV stations
are
probably more liberal than the publics they serve. Yet, these findings
alone do not
prove that the news itself is slanted by reporters to suit their
political leanings.
Despite the Polls, Journalists Say They're Fair
Several studies indicate that journalists themselves dispute the notion that
they
are biased. More than three-fourths of journalists in a poll reported in
Columbia
Journalism Review said they believed the media treated all sides
fairly.[14] In the
California poll, only 19 percent of the reporters agreed with the state's
political
leaders that reporters' personal views shaped the way they covered the
news.
A Los Angeles Times poll of newspaper journalists had similar results. Although
the
journalists were more critical of their own newspapers' overall
performance in
covering the news than the general public was, they did not believe that
bias was an
issue. They were satisfied that papers they worked for were fair and
impartial. More
than half described their papers as "very good" in these areas and only
4 percent
said "bad." These newspaper journalists, however, did not hold TV news in
such high
regard. Only 16 percent thought local TV newsDand 12 percent thought
network newsDdid
a very good job of being fair and impartial. Sixteen percent said local
TV news does
a bad job; 21 percent said the same of network news.
Curiously, journalists agree with the public that the media in general are
liberal,
but they argue that their own papers tend to be politically
conservative. Slightly
more than half the reporters and editors polled by the Los Angeles Times
said the
media in general are liberal, while only 10 percent said conservative.
But when
newspaper staff members were asked about their own newspapers, 42 percent
said the
paper they worked for was conservative and only 28 percent said
liberal.18
Much of the academic research has been unable to find the kinds of consistent
political bias that the majority of the public sees in the media. For
instance, after
Michael Robinson and his colleagues at George Washington University did
studies of
network TV coverage of three presidential campaigns,[15] they concluded:
Ideological bias is one of those mistakes that the network news doesn't make. In
the
1980 primaries CBS treated "liberal" Ted Kennedy worse than it
treated
"middle-of-the-roader" Jimmy Carter, and in the general-election campaign CBS
treated
Carter worse than Reagan.[16]
Robinson's studies concentrated primarily on story content. Other researchers,
like
Doris Graber, have made efforts to include the impact TV's pictures and
graphics
might have on voters. Her research did not find any strong political bias
in the
coverage of the Reagan-Mondale election. She found that the words
reporters spoke
were more favorable to Mondale, but Reagan was presented more positively
in other
ways, including the "facts that Reagan is exceptionally photogenic and
personable,
that he received the lion's share of the coverage, and that a
disproportionate share
of this coverage dealt with traits favoring him, like his
personableness and good
looks."[17]
Robinson anticipated that many would not agree with his findings. He wrote:
"Can
anyone other than a Democrat conclude that political reporting is
unbiased against
Republicans and conservatives? Perhaps not."[18]
That leaves us with this question: Why is that so many in the public sincerely
believe they see bias in the media when journalists themselves tend to
discount the
idea?
Biased Journalists or Biased Readers?
Perhaps the easiest explanation for the disagreement between the public and the
media over bias is that people see bias where there is none. Long-time CBS
newsman
and commentator Eric Sevareid observed that there was plenty of "biased
reading and
hearing." By that he meant that many people see bias in the media when
the facts in a
story do not jibe with the way they would like the world to be.
This may be especially true for true believers in a cause or a candidate. One
researcher found that people who are highly involved in an issue are more
likely to
take a critical or even slanted view of the contents of stories about
that issue.
"Republican and Democratic groups each perceive media coverage that
favors the other
side," he concluded.[19]
Similarly, Los Angeles Times media reporter David Shaw points out that the
prejudices of some critics warp their observations. In a review of two books
critical
of the mediaDone written from a liberal perspective and one from a
conservative
viewpointDhe noted that reading them "is a bit like listening to two
people's
accounts of a football game in which each rooted for the opposite side."[20]
He said that
one book saw liberal bias in the same news accounts that the other book
saw
conservative bias. For instance, both books discussed the shooting down of a
Korean
jetliner by the Soviets. One book said the American media emphasized
Soviet claims
about the incident and downplayed the comments of the U.S. State
Department. The book
said this was proof the media tilted to the left. The authors of the
other book read
the same coverage of the same event, but they complained that the media
parroted the
Reagan and the State Department's position and "virtually ignored"
evidence that the
authors claimed showed that Reagan and the State Department
misrepresented the
incident. From this they concluded that media were tools of the
conservatives.
Sevareid's and Shaw's observations no doubt have merit. The "biased reading" of
true-believers in a party or cause and of writers with axes to grind are
no doubt
part of explanation for why people believe the media are biased. And
since some of
the most strident criticisms of the press have come from conservatives
like Sen.
Jesse Helms and TV ministers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, it is
easy to
assume that conservatives are more dissatisfied with the press than are
liberals.
But the polls indicate that the perception of media bias is not limited
to political
idealogues or to conservatives. Researchers have found that the
intensity of
political affiliation is not the best predictor of whether people see bias in
the
media. Level of education is. The more educated people are the more
likely they are
to see bias. And the polls have found that the public's concern over
bias transcends
their own political leanings or level of political interest. Liberals
and
conservatives were equally critical of the media.[21]
Nor is it always the case that liberals and conservatives will necessarily see
the
same ideological spin in the same stories. As researcher Michael
Robinson pointed
out, some people said that Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory despite
hostile
coverage by network TV. Others said that his campaign received a major
boost from the
TV networks because their "superficial, picture-oriented coverage fit
perfectly with
his masterful media management."[22]
Clearly, the gulf between reporters' and the public's perception of the amount
of
bias in the media cannot be explained entirely by blaming the public for
seeing bias
where there is none.
The Role of the Journalist and the Perception of Bias
In his studies of campaign coverage, Robinson concluded the media was filled
with
negativity. He described the news as a "cacophony of carping and
criticism." His
research found that bad-news messages outnumbered good ones 20 to one,
although most
of the news was neutral. In 100 days of watching all three network news
broadcasts,
his researchers found only 47 positive statements by
correspondents.[23] He concluded
that the national press was "biased against everybody, but in near equal
proportions."[24]
The media's "bias against everybody" may be the result of the institutionalized
news
values in the media. Since the journalistic norms place generally place
greater
importance in bad news, reporters are drawn to the negative. When reporters
consistently report bad news about a political candidate, the public may assume
that
the reporters are biased against the candidate. The media's handling of
Perot
illustrates this concern.
Squires, Perot's press spokesman, did not believe the media attacked Perot
because
reporters disagreed with Perot's politics but because it was the best
way for them to
advance their careers. Squires argued that reporters stoop to
"hit-and-run"
journalism. They know that reporting negative news about a candidate will get
more
play for their stories than reporting positive news. So, Squires said,
journalists
will report rumors and break promises to sources because "simply taking
the story to
a new level and creating controversy does more for a reporter's career
today than the
more mundane truth ever could." He explained, "Without an angle, or an
edge, stories
cannot get in print or on the air." For some reporters, this means the
difference
between a front-page byline or nothing to show for a week's work, between
a 30-second
standup on the evening news or another day without evidence of their
worth to the
financially pressed network news divisions.29
Squires is no Johnny-come-lately critic of many journalists' preference for bad
news. When he was editor of the Chicago Tribune, he criticized young
reporters at
Chicago's city magazines by saying: "They go out of their way to bash the
big
institutions. . . . They're not going to attract any attention if they have a
very
positive kind of story. . . ." He explained:
If you go to Chicago magazine and say, "Boy, the Tribune sure has changed in
the
last seven years; it's a great newspaper now," there's not any
interest. If you go
into them and you say, "You know, I hear there's great
conflict of interest in the
editor's office at the Tribune and he had a temper tantrum the
other day and wet on
his desk," then they say, "Jesus Christ, that's a great
story; let's get that."30
Other journalists have come to the same conclusion. Reluctantly, they have
agreed
with Spiro Agnew, who was Richard Nixon's vice president until he had to
resign amid
a bribery scandal. Agnew once described reporters as "nattering nabobs
of
negativism."
The Los Angeles Times' Shaw said that most people who see bias in the news
just do
not understand "the dynamics of the journalistic process." He
explained, "They don't
understand that good news isn't news, for example, or that the bias
most reporters
have is not political but journalistic: they are biased in favor of a
good story, a
juicy, controversial story that will land them on Page 1 or on the
network evening
news."
Shaw acknowledges that many in the press probably would rather write negative
stories about candidates they disagree with. "But," he wrote, "almost every
reporter
I've ever known would rather break a really juicy story exposing the
wrongdoing of a
politician he agrees with than do a routine story making that same
politician look
good. Does that make us ghouls? Nattering nabobs of negativism? Yes. Is
that good?
Probably not. But it sure as hell doesn't make us ideologues or
cheerleaders for the
left."[25]
Steven Roberts, writing in U.S. News and World Report, said much the same
thing:
"Washington journalists have only two enduring biases: against entrenched
power and
in favor of a good yarn."[26] Syndicated columnist Richard Cohen was
more pointed:
"Liberal or conservative, a reporter is a primitive being who would go after
his own
mother if he thought that was a good story."[27]
Time magazine concluded its article on bias in the media with this observation:
Some of the toughest stories about Clinton have emerged from the liberal New
York
Times and Los Angeles Times. Bush's two most ferocious
critics, syndicated columnists
William Safire of The New York Times and George Will of The
Washington Post, are
staunch members of his own party. That summarizes the deepest
objection most
politicians have to journalistsDnot that they are liberal, nor that
they are
conservative, but that they are stubbornly individualistic and
persistent.[28]
Part of this stubbornnessDand the resulting emphasis on news that is often
negativeDis the result of the role American journalists have traditionally
believed
they should play in society. Even before the Constitution guaranteed
press freedoms,
Colonial editors saw it as their job to watch the activities of the
political leaders
and to comment on them. One South Carolina editor argued that as long
as newspapers
were keeping tabs on Congress, senators could not "betray their trust;
convert
serious matters into jokes; or transfer mountains into molehills."[29]
This notion that it is the job of journalism to keep government in line remains
popular with journalists. For the past 20 years, four large-scale research
projects
have tried to find out what values are important to American
journalists. Each time,
a large majority of journalists said investigating government claims
was among their
top priorities.[30] David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, two Indiana
University
journalism professors who have conducted three of surveys of American
journalists,
divided journalists' attitudes into three groups. The largest group saw
their role as
interpretive, believing they should investigative claims by
politicians, analyze
complex problems, and discuss policy. A second group placed greater
importance on
getting the news out as quickly as possible. Radio journalists, in
particular, were
likely to be in this group. The smallest group was journalists who
believe they
should take an adversarial relationship with government.[31] Most print
journalists saw
their roles as investigating government claims (66.7 percent said this
was very
important) and informing the public quickly (68.6 percent). Considerably
fewer
journalists saw their role as to appeal to the widest audience (20.2
percent) or to
entertain (14 percent).[32]
It seems clear that journalistsDparticularly print journalistsDbelieve that
asking
tough questions and exposing wrongdoing are basic components of their
jobs. What
appears to be their bias toward bad news is probably not the result of
reporters'
preference for bad news; it is a necessary consequence of what they see
as a
journalistic responsibility.
Ellen Hume, executive director of a center that studies press and politics at
Harvard University, believes that this renewed emphasis on exposing the
shortcomings
of political leaders is one reason people have changed the way they
view both
politicians and reporters. "The news was much more upbeat in the 1940s and
1950s when
[the] nation's political leaders were treated by the journalists with
deference and
respect," she told the Los Angeles Times. This deference and respect
resulted in the
public looking upon both journalists and political leaders more
favorably, she
contends.39
Lock-Stepping Reporters
Frequently, people who see bias in the media point to two phenomena to prove
the
validity of their observation. When they see news organizations
committing teams of
reporters to stories like Clinton's marijuana use, it seems that all
reporters are
chasing the same story. And when the stories appear in the media, they
all seem to
have the same political viewpoint. To many in the public, it looks as if
the press in
a very calculated, concerted way is beating up on one candidate and
supporting the
needs of the other.
But there are other less conspiratorial explanations for this tendency,
although
some are not very flattering to the media. One is the intellectual
laziness called
"pack journalism." David Shaw argued in the Los Angeles Times that what
he called
"consensus journalism" is also the result of at least three factors. One
is the
tendency of reporters to spend so much time together that their writings
begin to
reflect the consensus of the press corps itself as much as by their
individual
intellect. Also, he contends that although journalists may like to think of
themselves as iconoclasts and risk-takers, they aren't. They may have been in
an
earlier day, but most contemporary journalists are "more serious, more
formalDboth
more corporate and more conformist," Shaw wrote. "Journalism is now a
Profession,
with codes of ethics, pension plans and newsrooms that look more like
insurance
offices than the cluttered city rooms of generations past." In Shaw's view,
consensus
journalism is reinforced by technology which allows reporters to tie
into databases
and read reports by other reporters covering the same events. Their
editors too can
read the reports and may wonder why their reporter's stories don't jibe
with other
accounts. They may figure that a story similar to what other papers is
running is
less likely to get them in trouble. If they run a story counter to other
accounts,
they will lose the excuse that "everybody got it wrong." He quoted CBS
anchor Dan
Rather as criticizing many of the younger reporters for their willingness
to play it
safe because they lacked the "intestinal fortitude" to go against the
consensus.[33]
But not all the lock-step reporting can be explained by intellectual laziness
and
corporate culture. Some of what the public sees as the press ganging up
on some poor
candidate is the result of conduct journalists find laudable. Print
journalists in
particular often believe that it is their obligation to do beyond the
surface
reporting of events and to try to find causes and significance. This effort
can lead
to strings of stories in which a candidate is portrayed in much the
same way. Editors
and reporters chase what to them is the obvious story of the week. But
to many in the
public, it appears that journalists are marching in some kind of
ideological lock
step.
For instance, when George Bush named James Baker to be his new campaign
manager,
Baker's first remarks were to describe the campaign as being "in
shambles."
Undoubtedly, every editor and every political reporter wanted to nail down the
truth
of his comments. So, reporters began to chase the story of how messed
up the Bush
campaign was and to file stories that reflected negatively on Bush. To
many readers
(and some academics who dwell too much on content analyses), it
appeared the press
was out to get Bush.
This lock-step journalism can also lead to a flood of positive portrayals of
candidates. When the Dukakis campaign squandered a large post-convention lead
in
1988, reporters tried to figure out why. They ran stories indicating that
the Bush
campaign was featuring photo-ops at flag factories and Boston harbor
while Dukakis
was looking foolish as his campaign people had him pretending to drive a
tank while
wearing a crash helmet. These stories emphasized the ability of Bush's
campaign team
and ridiculed Dukakis' and no doubt enhanced Bush's image in the minds
of many
voters.
The political polls have added to the uniformity of story line. As Richard Ben
Cramer, who wrote in a book about the 1988 election, told Washington
Journalism
Review, when the polls indicated Bush was losing the '92 election,
reporters believed
it was their obligation to explain this phenomenon. So they produced
stories
explaining "why this guy was such an irredeemable schlub as to be trailing in
the
polls." When the polls indicated that Bush was catching up with Clinton
in the final
week of the campaign, reporters saw it as their mission "to explain
what sterling
qualities have enabled this sterling character to fight back."[34]
Reporters would argue that this lock-step journalism is the result of
professional
news judgment. When a candidate does well in the polls or when a
campaign manager
makes a striking observation, it is the duty of the press to track down
the "whys" of
these events. They are reporting the story of the day fairly.
But many readers will see biased journalism. They will blame the personal
leanings
of reporters for touching off an avalanche of singular-minded stories.
They will
argue that these one-sided stories are proof that the media are out to
sway the
election by pushing one candidate or demolishing the other.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Public opinion polls constantly remind journalists that a great many Americans
have
grown to believe that reporters let their own biases shape the course
of the news.
Yet many journalists are equally positive that most charges of media
bias are the
rantings of misguided people who, as David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times
and others
have bemoaned, just don't understand the news business.
Much of the blame for this lack of understanding rests on the media themselves.
As
Art Nauman, former Sacramento Bee ombudsman, said, "The press does an
abysmal job of
explaining itself."42
Two arguments are often advanced justifying the media's reticence.
First, some journalists will point out some basic truths: the job of the press
is
not necessarily to be popular and too many people blame the messenger
when they do
not like the message. But journalists who make those statements are
misreading the
problem. It is deeper than not being able to please all the people all
the time. If
journalists cannot earn the respect and trust of the public, they will
face
increasing difficulties in gathering the news and in being believed.
We are seeing signs that this is happening. Many Americans have grown so wary
of the
press that many would like to roll back some of its constitutional
protections. A
poll by the Los Angeles Times found that a third of the public favors
limits on news
media access to government records and files and would allow a
government official to
stop the media from reporting a story that the government official
believes might be
inaccurate.43 A large-scale survey by journalism professor Robert O.
Wyatt found that
Americans would probably not ratify the First Amendment if it were on
the ballot
today. Two-thirds would limit such media practices as endorsing
candidates,
criticizing the government and military, and reporting on politicians' past
mistakes.
About a fourth of the people said the media should not be involved in
these kinds of
activities at all.44 All of this should suggest that media need to take
the concerns
of the public more seriously. While perhaps it is not necessary for
journalists to be
loved, it seems counter-productive for them to become despised.
Second, some journalists will point out that newspapers have tried to answer
reader
criticisms and these efforts have met with only mixed success. They
will note that 25
years ago, the concept of newspaper ombudsmen was advocated as a way
for newspapers t
o respond to the public. But soon after the experiment began, some of
the idea's most
enthusiastic advocates backed away from it. Today, fewer than 40 of
America's 1,600
dailies have ombudsmen, although the concept is more common in
Canada.45 None of the
TV networks had ombudsmen until 1993, when NBC named one.46
Although many of the efforts at establishing ombudsmen failed, often the
failures
were caused by a lack of understanding of what their role was to be.
Norman Isaacs
was the editor who appointed the first ombudsman for the Louisville
papers and later
became a critic of the movement. He complained that at too many papers
the ombudsman
position was given to "an old battle-scarred veteran who would have
been assigned to
the library if he hadn't been named ombudsman" while at other papers
the ombudsmen
became "purely cosmetic; some guy writing a media column in which all he
does is
explain the virtues of the newspaper."47
The ombudsman's role has been equally unsatisfactory at other papers. Miami
Herald
Executive Editor Douglas Clifton said he considered ombudsmen "a
barrier" between
readers and journalists, contending that it is good for editors to "feel
the wrath of
readers" after they have made controversial news decisions.48 Robert
Haiman, former
executive editor of the St. Petersburg Times, argued that having an
ombudsman did
little to improve the quality of his paper. Haiman said that ombudsmen
did not get
involved with a problem until after the story was printed. He compared
them to
coroners, whose job it is "to do the post-mortem on a disaster, to pick
through the
tatters of flesh after a terrible crash."49
These criticisms are no doubt valid if the job of the ombudsman is solely to
serve
as an in-house critic and/or appointed conscience of the newsroom. But
many ombudsman
saw their roles differently. After reading more than 70 columns by
ombudsmen, Richard
Salant, former president of CBS News, praised the work of ombudsmen who
"explain just
how the subject matter complained about happenedDtracing its origins
and reasonsDthus
contributing to public understanding of the news process, and its
fallibility." He a
lso cited other ombudsmen whose columns question media performance and
discuss issues
like objectivity and journalistic conflicts of interest.50 That's the
role the Bee's
Nauman wanted ombudsmen to have. He explained, "Most of the time we
have not been
willing to tell our customers how we reach these decisions that have such
a terrific
impact on so many lives."51
But the answer to the problem of the popular perception of media bias does not
necessarily rest with the appointment of more ombudsmen. There are at least
two ways
that the media can go about explaining themselves to the public that
are easier and
cheaper than hiring a full-time ombudsman and more in keeping with the
nature of
journalism.
The first has to do with including the news media in our news coverage.
American
newspapers throughout the last half of this century have been broadening
their
definition of news. No longer do journalists see politics and crime as the
major
beats. Journalists now detail the workings of business, the health care
system, the
entertainment industries, and other major players in readers' everyday
lives. But
missing from this new realm of coverage are the news media themselves.
Except for an
occasional column lambasting local TV news and for stories exposing the
half-truths
of political advertisements, most news organizations seem to believe
that the news
media aren't worthy of coverage. That creates a certain irony.
Newspapers and TV news
teams want the public to consider the news media an important part of
their everyday
lives and a fundamental part of our democratic society. Yet they don't
consider the
media important enough to cover.
Some might contend that readers and viewers aren't interested in these issues.
Yet,
there are plenty of indications that, if done well, these stories can
be popular.
David Shaw has been writing about media issues for the Los Angeles Times
since 1974
and has often been critical of the Times in his stories. The Wall
Street Journal, The
Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, Newsday, Newsweek
and Time all
regularly cover the media. And most American papers have found that
readers like the
work of movie and TV critics and columnists. It does not seem to be
such a bold
suggestion that critiques of the local news media might also be successful.
Such
media criticism is popular in Britain. Each week the second section of The
Guardian
is devoted to the media, and the BBC newscasts include nightly reviews
of the next
morning's papers.
These news stories and columns can address issues about how journalists decide
what
is news and how they go about covering stories. They can provide
readers to
understand what they canDand cannotDexpect from the media. Now, the American
people
get most of their insights into the work of journalists by watching
fictional
journalists in movies and TV dramas and by trusting their intuition about the
motivations of reporters as they cover the news.
A second suggestion for explaining news judgments to readers would take even
less
effort than these occasional stories and columns. Reporters and editors
often talk of
"nut graphs," paragraphs that appear high in the story that state the
main idea of
the story. The notion behind these paragraphs is that they explain to
the reader what
the point of the story is.
These nut graphs could also be used in some stories to explain why the
reporters and
editors believed the story was news. These need not be lame sentences
that
self-servingly tell the reader how important the story is, but honest
statements
about how the story came about. If the reason the reporter is chasing
stories about
the faltering Bush campaign is because of his campaign director's
remarks, explain
that.
A trend in the early '90s at newspapers like the Portland (Maine) Press Herald
and
The Orlando Sentinel to invite readers to sit in on its editorial
meetings may be
another way for newspapers to get across to the public how they go about
making
decisions. The public is also invited to offer opinions or listen to the
discussions
as the editorial writers map out upcoming editorial pages.
My final suggestion will be even less popular in the minds of some reporters
and
editors. But it seems clear that it is time for journalists to reconsider
the
profession's bias toward bad news. Too often journalists have rejected this
argument
by trotting out the old saw that planes landing safely at the airport
are not news,
planes crashing are. But that argument begs the question. If reporters
see their duty
only as to chase negative stories, then negative stories are all they
are likely to
find. They will fail to serve their readers in at least two ways.
First, a journalism
of cynicism will no doubt lead to cynical readers who will not care
about the events
of the day and therefore have little need for news media. Second,
readers who do care
may conclude that they cannot find the information they are seeking in
the media.
Peter Jennings, anchor of ABC's evening news show, told the Los Angeles
Times he
believed that happened early in the '92 election. "While we were all
trying to run
Bill Clinton into the ground on the subject of Gennifer Flowers, the
voters in New
Hampshire wanted to know about the economy. We got in their way," he
said.52
As news media organizations fret over declines in readership and viewership and
as
the public becomes more and more disenchanted with journalists, it is
time for
journalists to reconsider what may be their most fundamental duty in a free
society:
finding ways to inform voters of the candidates, the issues and the
workings of the
political system. They will not accomplish this goal if the news is
perceived as
biased and therefore not believable.
Endnotes
[1] Todd Gitlin, "Media Lemmings Run Amok," Washington Journalism Review, A
pril
1992, p. 28.
[2] Jim Squires, "How the Press Savaged Perot," Niem
an Reports, Fall 1992, p. 3.
[3] Debra Gersh, "Press Bashing is For Naught," Editor
& Publisher, Nov. 14, 1992,
p. 11, describes Perot's and Bush's reaction
s to the press during the 1992 campaign.
[4] William A. Henry III, "Are the Media T
oo Liberal?" Time, Oct. 19, 1992, pp.
46-47.
[5] Times Mirror poll, se
e "How Are We Doing?" Columbia Journalism Review,
January/February 1992,
p. 15., and Peter A. Brown, "Squires is right we are out of
touch with vo
ters and their concerns," ASNE Bulletin, November 1992, p. 8. Earlier
Tim
es Mirror polls had found 53 percent thought the media favored one side. See
Times
Mirror, The People & The Press, Los Angeles: Times Mirror, 1986, p. 29.
[6]
Brown, p. 8.
[7] Poll cited in David Gergen, "The Message to the Media," Public Op
inion,
April/May 1984, pp. 5-8.
[8] Poll done by MORI Research for the
American Society of Newspaper Editors cited
by William Schneider and I.A.
Lewis, "Views on the News," Public Opinion,
August/September 1985, p. 10
[9] Times Mirror poll, see "How Are We Doing?" Columbia Journalism Review,
January/February 1992, p. 15., and Brown, "Squires is right."
[10] Times Mirror,
The Public & The Press, p. 30.
[11] Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press
.
[12] "Perceptions: 'Media vs. Government,'" Quill, March 1992, p. 15. Survey
done
by
Josephson Institute of Ethics.
[13] See S. Robert Lichter, Stanley R
othman and Linda S. Lichter, The Media Elite.
Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1
986. Weaver and Wilhoit in The American Journalist: Second
Edition compa
re their findings to those in this book. They found journalists at
prest
igious organizations to be more liberal, but not to the extent that Lichter,
Rothman and Lichter reported.
[14] "How Are We Doing?" p. 16.
[15] His findin
gs can be found in Michael Robinson, "Just How Liberal Is The News?
1980
Revisited," Public Opinion, Feb./March 1983, pp. 55-60; Michael Robinson and
Maura Clancey, "The Media in Campaign '84: General Election Coverage,"
Public
Opinion, December/January 1985; Michael Robinson and Maura Clancey, "The M
edia in
Campaign '84: Part Two," Public Opinion, February/March 1985; M
ichael Robinson and
Maura Clancey, "Network News, 15 Years After Agnew,"
Channels, January/February
1985, pp. 34-39; and Michael J. Robinson, "N
ews Media Myths and Realities: What
Network News Did and Didn't Do in th
e 1984 General Campaign," in Kay Schlozman,
editor, Elections in America
. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987, pp. 143-171.
[16] Robinson and Clancey, p. 34.
[17]
Doris A. Graber, "Kind Pictures and Harsh Words: How Television Presents the
Candidates," in Kay Schlozman, Elections in America, Boston: Allen and
Unwin, 19
87,
pp. 115-141.
[18] Robinson, "Just How Liberal is the News?"
[19]
Albert C. Gunther, "Biased Press or Biased Public," Public Opinion Quarterly,
Summer 1992, pp. 147-167.
[20] David Shaw, "Of Isms and Prisms," Columbia Jo
urnalism Review, January/February
1991, pp. 56-57.
[21] Schneider and
Lewis, pp. 6-11, 58-59.
[22] Robinson and Clancey "Network News, 15 Years After Agne
w," p. 34.
[23] Robinson and Clancey, p. 38.
[24] Robinson, "Just How Liberal Is T
he News? 1980 Revisited."
[25] Shaw, "Isms and Prisms."
[26] Steven V. Roberts, "W
here's The Cheering Press?" U.S. News and World Report,
March 21, 1984,
p. 8.
[27] Quoted in Henry, p. 47.
[28] Henry.
[29] Wm. David Sloan, James G. St
ovall, and James D. Startt, editors, The Media in
America: A History, Wo
rthington, Ohio: Publishing Horizons, 1989, p. 71.
[30] The first is reported in Joh
n W.C. Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski and William W.
Bowman, The News Peop
le: A Sociological Profile of American Journalists and Their
Work, Urban
a: University of Illinois Press, 1976. David H. Weaver and Cleveland
Wil
hoit have replicated and expanded on their research three times. See their books
The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work,
Bloom
ington:
Indiana University Press, First Edition, 1986, and Second Editio
n, 1991, and their
report,"The American Journalist in the 1990s: A Preli
minary Report of Key Findings
From a 1992 National Survey of U.S. Journa
lists," Arlington: Freedom Forum, 1992.
[31] Weaver and Wilhoit, second edition, pp.
112-127.
[32] Weaver and Wilhoit, "The American Journalist in the 1990s." Also see
their
book. The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and
Their Work: Second
Edition, p. 114.
[33] Shaw, "How Media Gives Storie
s Same 'Spin'."
[34] Jeffrey L. Katz, "Tilt?" Washington Journalism Review, pp. 23-2
7.
|
