To Council or Not To Council:
Debunking Common Myths and Fears
About The National News Council
Abstract
Three common assumptions seem to have emerged from speculation about the demise
of the National News Council. These assumptions, coupled with journalists'
concerns about news councils in general, are frequently cited as reasons not to
consider news councils as a viable mechanism of media accountability. This
analysis of the complaints filed with the National News Council finds no
evidence to support these assumptions. It suggests that journalists'
traditional "news council phobia" is just that - an irrational fear.
L. Paul Husselbee, Assistant Professor of Journalism
Lamar University
Department of Communication
P.O. Box 10050
Beaumont, TX 77710
Office: 409/880-8161
Fax: 409/880-8760
[log in to unmask]
News councils have been identified as a valuable tool for the media and the
public.[1] They protect press freedom while providing an avenue of feedback from
news consumers to news providers.[2] They serve as an alternative to the courts
for resolving disputes,[3] as was done in the celebrated WCCO-Northwest Airlines
case that was resolved before the Minnesota News Council in 1996.[4] Their very
existence testifies of journalists' willingness to hold themselves accountable,
a willingness that lends credibility to journalism and journalists.[5]
The National News Council was established in 1973 to serve as an independent
watchdog of the national media. Composed of people from public and private
sectors, it existed to investigate complaints about media performance and to
protect media rights under the First Amendment. Because it was independent and
largely self-appointed, the News Council had no enforcement power other than
negative publicity. Cooperation and compliance were voluntary. Some editors
worked with the Council; others refused.[6] New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal
was particularly antagonistic toward the News Council, and the Times rarely
responded to the NNC's requests for information or cooperation.[7]
During its existence, the National News Council investigated 227 complaints. It
conducted studies on ethics, conflict of interest, press freedom and other
pertinent topics. It issued thirty-four public statements advocating the news
media's First Amendment rights. It heard grievances against all major news
organizations and censured those found to be lacking moral foundation. However,
financial mismanagement hamstrung the Council, and it folded in 1984.[8]
Advocates of media accountability have called for the re-establishment of a
national media watchdog since 1991.[9] However, it wasn't until 1996, when CBS
News correspondent Mike Wallace advocated bringing back the National News
Council, that the idea received significant national attention.[10] Wallace
made the cause his personal crusade for the next two years, delivering public
speeches and writing newspaper and magazine articles in support of a national
media council.[11] Trade magazines dismissed the proposal, calling it "a bad
idea" and suggesting that a new media council would be equally susceptible to
the same problems that killed the National News Council.[12]
In the fifteen years since it folded, much has been written about the National
News Council itself and about news councils in general. However, in addition to
credible attempts to pinpoint the major causes of the NNC's demise,[13] some
observers have engaged in random speculation about the Council and its
activities.[14] Over the years, three common assumptions (two of which are
related) seem to have emerged: First, that the National News Council failed
because the news media would not cooperate in its investigations; [15] second,
that CBS News was dead-set against the News Council and refused to support
it;[16] and third, that the News Council was co-opted into serving as a tool for
special interests.[17] In the case of the latter, the fear was that the news
media would draw unwarranted complaints from extreme advocacy groups.[18]
Meanwhile, editors and columnists have expressed concern about a media council's
susceptibility to manipulation in an attempt to exploit or punish the media.
Particularly in the National News Council's early days, journalists who were
still smarting from Spiro Agnew's tirade about the "nattering nabobs of
negativism" and the so-called liberal bias in the media feared that complainants
would take advantage of any opportunity to complain of biases that existed only
in their minds. Finally, journalists fear that news councils will substitute
the judgment of people who don't fully understand the news media for the
judgment of seasoned editors and reporters. With the mix of "public" and
"media" members on a news council, how could journalists be sure that a news
council would be fair to them?[19]
Research Questions
Based on the common assumptions about the National News Council and concerns
that journalists have expressed about news councils in general, this study will
analyze the complaints filed with the National News Council in search of answers
to these research questions:
y What proportion of the cases that came before the National News Council were
filed by lobbyists and special interests? Who else filed grievances?
y What charges did complainants make in the grievances filed with the National
News Council? In particular, how prevalent were charges of bias?
y To what extent did news providers cooperate in National News Council
investigations? In particular, to what extent did CBS News cooperate with the
Council?
y What proportion of cases that came before the National News Council was
decided in favor of complainants? What proportion was decided in favor of
media?
y What reasons did the National News Council give for dismissing grievances or
finding them unwarranted?
Also, given the fact that the New York Times was perhaps the National News
Council's most vocal and prominent opponent, we might ask this question:
y Did the National News Council treat the New York Times differently than it
treated other media?
We do not suggest that the answers to these research questions will have
significant predictive value. Because of anomalous circumstances, we recognize
that the use of data from the National News Council cannot be generalized to all
other efforts to establish and maintain news councils. On the other hand, we
wonder whether content analysis can poke holes in some of the stock reasons for
rejecting the concept of news councils by demonstrating that common assumptions
about, as well as objections to, the National News Council are false.
Method
To address the research questions, we analyzed each of the cases that came
before the National News Council during its eleven-year history.
The National News Council received approximately 1,200 complaints from 1973 to
1984. The Council staff and grievance committee screened each complaint and
investigated those that they believed fell within the Council's purview and
merited consideration. Each grievance that survived screening was assigned a
case number, investigated and forwarded to the full Council for adjudication.
In all, 227 cases made it to the Council for hearing. A record of each case
appears in a three-volume set titled In the Public Interest, produced by the
National News Council staff. The first volume was printed in 1975, the second
in 1979 and the third in 1983. The University of Minnesota also produced a
supplement to Volume III in 1983. In addition to these records, full files on
each case exist in the National News Council archives, which are housed at the
Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of
Minnesota.
For each case, we collected this information: news organization targeted in the
complaint, the source of the complaint, the nature of the complaint, the level
of cooperation of the news organization, the council's decision, and the
reason(s) given for the council's decision. Categories for these items were
constructed after evaluating every tenth case.
A pilot test of the instrument found that the items in question were reliable.
However, the pilot test also indicated a need to allow for cases in which the
Council considered more than one issue and Council members did not agree on all
issues. Thus, items were added to indicate whether the Council's decision was
unanimous, whether the Council found the complaint to be primarily warranted or
primary unwarranted, or whether the Council was evenly divided on a complaint.
After the new items were added, the instrument was pilot tested a second time.
All items were found to be reliable.
Two coders analyzed cases in the content analysis. The author analyzed all
cases; a second coder analyzed the odd-numbered cases. Intercoder reliability
was .94, using Stempel's percent of agreement formula.[20] Residual differences
were resolved in conference, a method that previous research has demonstrated to
enhance reliability and validity.[21]
The data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows. Findings were computed in two
ways: First, frequency distributions were generated to provide an overall
description of the data. Second, bivariate measures (in the form of contingency
tables) were employed to determine the presence or absence and the extent of
relationships between certain variables. It was expected that these data would
generate responses to the research questions.
Findings
Table 1 (page 13) addresses the first research question: What proportion of the
cases that came before the National News Council were filed by lobbyists and
special interests? Who else filed grievances?
Table 1 shows that U.S.-based lobbying organizations filed seventy-three
complaints (32.2%), and lobbyists representing non-U.S. interests filed nine
complaints (4%). Private individuals filed 110 of the 227 complaints, or 48.5%.
The remaining forty complaints were filed by private businesses, government
representatives, or other organizations.[22]
Overall, then, 36% of all complaints that came before the National News Council
were filed by lobbyists. While that total - one-third - is significant, it is
shows that special interests did not monopolize the Council's time or agenda, as
people such as New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal[23] and Jack Anderson[24]
feared.
Tables 2 and 3 (page 13) address the second research question: What charges did
complainants make in the grievances filed with the National News Council? In
particular, how frequent were charges of bias or stereotyping?
All but 38 of the 227 complainants gave more than one reason for filing a
complaint. Each complaint was characterized by the primary and secondary
complaints cited in the complaint. Complaint categories included bias,
stereotyping, inaccurate reporting, incomplete reporting, unbalanced reporting,
irresponsible reporting and "other." Table 2 demonstrates that grievances cited
inaccurate reporting as the primary complaint 109 times, or in 48% of the cases.
Bias ranked second among primary complaints with 37 citations (16.3%).
Unbalanced reporting drew 28 primary complaints (12.3%), followed by incomplete
reporting with 27 primary complaints (11.9%).
The disparity was not so great in the nature of secondary complaints. According
to Table 3, complainants cited irresponsible reporting as the secondary
complaint in 56 of 189 cases (nearly 30% of the time). Bias was cited as a
secondary complaint in 37 cases (19.7%), followed by unbalanced reporting (32
cases, 16.9%), inaccurate reporting (29 cases, 15.3%) and incomplete reporting
(25 cases, 13.2%).
Together, Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate that complainants to the National News
Council were far more likely to complain of improper or careless journalism than
they were to claim bias.
Tables 4 through 6 (pages 13 and 14) address the third research question: To
what extent did news providers cooperate in National News Council
investigations? In particular, to what extent did CBS News cooperate with the
Council?
The Council's report on each case not only outlined the nature of the complaint
but also reported the extent of cooperation provided by the targeted news
organization. A pilot-test of the instrument revealed that news organizations
reacted in one of three ways: They cooperated fully with the investigation, they
afforded partial cooperation, or they did not cooperate at all. Table 4 (page
13) shows that news organizations provided full cooperation in 155, or nearly
70%, of the 227 cases that came before the National News Council. In addition,
news organizations provided at least partial cooperation in another 26 cases,
meaning news organizations provided some measure of cooperation in 80% of the
cases the News Council considered.
Contingency tables were generated to determine whether the news media's
cooperation seemed to be related to other variables.
Table 5 (page 14) shows that most media afforded full cooperation in News
Council investigations. Wire services and television stations/networks were the
most cooperative media. News syndicates gave full cooperation in 29 of 33 cases
(88%), while television stations/networks gave full cooperation in 80.5% of the
cases (66 of 82). Newspapers were the least cooperative, giving full cooperation
in only 33 of 73 cases (45%) and giving no cooperation at all in 30 cases (41%).
Syndicated columnists fully cooperated in only five of 10 cases.
Table 6 (page 14) is a cross-tabulation of the five media organizations that
were targeted in the most complaints by the media's cooperation with the News
Council. It explains the huge discrepancy in media cooperation present in Table
5. The five primary targets of complaints were CBS News, the New York Times,
ABC News, NBC News and the Associated Press. Table 6 shows that while all three
major networks were reasonably cooperative with the News Council, CBS gave full
cooperation in 92% of the 38 complaints filed against it. (In fact, the network
refused any sort of cooperation in only one case.) Obviously, CBS' cooperation
was the foundation for strong cooperation among all television
stations/networks. Meanwhile, Table 6 also shows that the New York Times, which
was targeted in 23 complaints, refused cooperation in 18 cases, or 78% of the
time. Thus, the Times accounted for 60% of the 30 times newspapers refused to
cooperate with the Council.
Table 7 (page 14) addresses the fourth research question: What proportion of
the cases that came before the National News Council was decided in favor of
complainants? What proportion was decided in favor of media?
Once a case had been presented before the National News Council, Council
members had several alternatives for deciding a case. They could find a
complaint warranted or unwarranted. They could dismiss the complaint. They
could also direct the Council staff to mediate the dispute, without further
action from the Council.
Some cases featured multiple issues, and the Council often identified the
issues, considered them separately and voted on the various issues of the case.
When this happened, a grievance would be found primarily warranted but partially
unwarranted, primarily unwarranted but partially warranted, or half warranted
and half unwarranted.
Table 7 (page 14) shows that the National News Council found approximately half
of the grievances it considered - 114 complaints, or 50.2% - to be unwarranted.
Another 11 cases were "split" decisions found to be primarily unwarranted but
partially warranted. Coupled with 31 complaints that were dismissed, 13 that
were split evenly (wherein half the issues were deemed warranted, the other half
unwarranted) and five grievances that were resolved, these decisions accounted
for 174 of the 227 decisions. Thus, the Council upheld only 53 grievances - 48
complaints founded to be fully warranted and five complaints found primarily
warranted but partially unwarranted.
Table 8 (page 15) addresses the fifth research question: What reasons did the
National News Council give for dismissing grievances or finding them
unwarranted?
Whenever the News Council dismissed a grievance or found it unwarranted, the
Council would give its reasons for the finding. Table 8 shows that the
Council's most-cited reason was that Council members refused to substitute their
own editorial judgment for that of local editors or producers. In 45 of the 156
complaints (28.8%) that the Council either dismissed or found unwarranted,
Council members deemed the decision a matter of editorial judgment. The Council
also rejected 39 complaints (25%) because it deemed the reporting in question to
be an accurate account of the facts.
Table 9 (page 15) addresses the final research question: Did the National News
Council treat the New York Times differently than it treated other media?
Table 9 cross-tabulates the five primary targets of complaints by News Council
decisions. It should tell us whether any of the five news organizations
targeted by 10 or more complaints either were favored or were treated worse than
the others by News Council decisions. In particular, it could tell us whether
the News Council, even subconsciously, punished the New York Times for its
refusal to cooperate with NNC investigations.
In Table 9, we find that the News Council found warranted five of 23 complaints
(22%) against the New York Times. The Council also upheld five complaints
against CBS, but CBS was the primary target of 38 complaints, meaning the
Council founded warranted only 13% of the grievances filed against CBS. This
seems to indicate that either CBS received preferential treatment or that the
Times was not treated fairly. However, two figures emerge from Table 9 that
argue against preferential treatment. First, fewer grievances were found
warranted against both ABC News and the Associated Press than CBS. The Council
upheld a single complaint against ABC; it founded 14 others unwarranted and
dismissed two more. Meanwhile, the Associated Press was targeted in 14
complaints. Nine were found unwarranted, three were dismissed and the other two
resulted in split decisions. Thus, Council decisions seemed to favor ABC and
the Associated Press over CBS, even though CBS showed the Council much greater
cooperation. Second, the News Council upheld six of 17 complaints (35 percent)
against NBC News. Thus, the Council found warranted a greater proportion of
grievances against NBC than against the New York Times, even though NBC gave the
Council far greater cooperation.
Discussion
Public confidence in the news media seems to fluctuate and often depends on such
external factors as historical events and social climate.[25] However, research
has shown that mistrust of journalists and their motives has endured since the
early 1960s.[26] Journalistic credibility continues to suffer in the 1990s.
Public opinion polls have suggested that journalists are perceived as arrogant,
biased and cynical; that they lack compassion; and that they have little or no
respect for individual privacy.[27]
In December 1998, the American Society of Newspaper Editors released results of
a three-year credibility study that showed that public opinion of journalists
continues to slide. Among its conclusions, the study said the public believes
journalists' biases affect story selection and content. It said that media
chase and over-cover "sensational" stories that do not merit the attention they
receive. Respondents who had had experience with the news process were the most
critical of media credibility.[28]
Given the enduring downward spiral in journalistic credibility, one might have
anticipated current trends in journalism toward self-regulation. Among these
trends are adherence to professional standards of behavior and ethics codes,
accountability to ombudsmen, and self-examination in academic and professional
journals.[29] However, whenever anyone mentions a news council, media tend to
run for cover, notwithstanding the fact that 85% of the respondents in a 1996
Harris Poll said they favor the idea of setting up news councils to investigate
complaints about reporting and to issue corrections when necessary.[30]
This study's findings indicate that the assumptions and fears inherent in
media's apparent "news council phobia" are just what the label implies - an
irrational fear. The National News Council did none of the things its
detractors feared. It was not a pawn of special interests, and it did not jump
at the chance to second-guess working journalists. It did not attract charges
of "liberal bias" like iron filings to a magnet. It did not target specific
media outlets for unfair treatment, nor was it vindictive against those media
that did not cooperate in its investigations. It may not have enjoyed the
whole-hearted support of the New York Times, but it did received substantial
cooperation from most media outlets, particularly CBS News. In the end, the
News Council died a dismal death trying to protect the rights of an institution
that spurned its help. Thus, we suggest that it would behoove the nation's mass
media to re-evaluate their traditional suspicion and misgivings of news
councils. We suspect that honest efforts to do so will result in an
appreciation for the role news councils can play in facilitating journalistic
accountability and in restoring public trust in the media. As journalists
support the mission of news councils - whether it be on a national or regional
scale - we believe that they will find, individually and collectively, that
their willingness to be accountable for their work will lend credibility to
their profession.
Table 1 - Source of Complaint
No. Pct.
Private Individual 110 48.5
U.S. Lobby 73 32.2
Private Business 21 9.3
Non-U.S. Lobbyist 9 4.0
Government 5 2.2
Other 9 4.0
Total 227 100.0
Table 2 - Primary Complaint Cited in Grievances
No. Pct.
Inaccurate reporting 109 48.0
Bias 37 16.3
Unbalanced Reporting 28 12.3
Incomplete Reporting 27 11.9
Irresponsible Reporting 15 6.6
Stereotyping 2 .9
Other 9 4.0
Total 227 100.0
Table 3 - Secondary Complaint Cited in Grievances
No. Pct.
Irresponsible Reporting 56 29.6
Bias 37 19.7
Unbalanced Reporting 32 16.9
Inaccurate reporting 29 15.3
Incomplete Reporting 25 13.2
Stereotyping 8 4.2
Other 2 1.1
Total 189 100.0
Table 4 - Cooperation of News Organizations
No. Pct.
Full 155 68.3
Partial 26 11.5
None 46 20.3
Total 227 100.0
Table 5 - Medium of Primary Target by Cooperation
Count Full Partial Refused Row
Row Pct. Cooperation Cooperation Cooperation Total
Television 66 9 7 82
80.5 11.0 8.5
Newspaper 33 10 30 73
45.2 13.7 41.1
Wire 29 1 3 33
Service 87.9 3.0 9.1
Magazine 19 3 4 26
73.1 11.5 15.4
Syndicated 5 3 2 10
Columnist 50.0 30.0 20.0
Radio 3 0 0 3
100.0 0.0 0.0
Column 155 26 46 227
Total 68.3 11.5 20.3
Table 6 - Primary Target of Complaint by Cooperation
Count Full Partial Refused Row
Row Pct. Cooperation Cooperation Cooperation Total
CBS News 35 2 1 38
92.1 5.3 2.6
New York 2 3 18 23
Times 8.7 13.0 78.3
ABC News 11 2 4 17
64.7 11.8 23.5
NBC News 13 3 1 17
76.5 17.6 5.9
Associated 14 0 0 14
Press 100.0 0.0 0.0
All Others 80 16 22 118
67.8 13.6 18.6
Column 155 26 46 227
Total 68.3 11.5 20.3
Table 7 - News Council Decisions on Complaints
No. Pct.
Complaint Unwarranted 114 50.2
Complaint Warranted 48 21.1
Complaint Dismissed 31 13.7
Half Warranted, Half Unwarranted 13 5.7
Complaint Primarily Unwarranted 11 4.8
Complaint Primarily Warranted 5 2.2
Grievance Resolved 5 2.2
Total 227 99.9
Table 8 - Reason for Grievance Unwarranted, Dismissed
No. Pct.
Matter of Editorial Judgment 45 28.8
Reporting Is Accurate 39 25.0
Inconclusive Evidence 18 11.5
No Bias Present 15 9.6
Not Within News Council Purview 12 7.7
Reporting Is Balanced 9 5.8
Reporting Is Complete 6 3.9
Reporting is Responsible 6 3.9
No Evidence of Stereotyping 1 .6
Other 5 3.2
Total 156 100.0
Table 9 - Primary Target by NNC Decision
Count Complaint Complaint Complaint Split Complaint Row
Row Pct. Unwarranted Warranted Dismissed Decision Resolved Total
CBS News 27 5 5 0 1 38
71.1 13.2 13.2 0.0 2.6
NY Times 12 5 4 2 0 23
52.2 21.7 17.4 8.7 0.0
ABC News 14 1 2 0 0 17
82.4 5.9 11.8 0.0 0.0
NBC News 10 6 0 1 0 17
58.8 35.3 0.0 5.9 0.0
A.P. 9 0 3 2 0 14
64.3 0.0 21.4 14.3 0.0
Column 125 53 31 13 5 227
Total 55.1 23.2 13.7 5.7 2.2
[1] Notes
Jennifer L. Lambe, Genelle I. Belmas and William A. Babcock, "Answering the
Critics: Are News Councils Out to Get the Media?" (paper presented at AEJMC
annual meeting, Baltimore, MD, 1998).
[2] Everette E. Dennis and John C. Merrill, Media Debates: Issues in Mass
Communication (New York: Longman, 1991), 166-167.
[3] Louise Williams Hermanson, News Councils As Alternative Dispute Resolution
(Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1990).
[4] Alicia C. Shepard, "Going Public," American Journalism Review, April 1997,
24-29.
[5] L. Paul Husselbee, A Question of Accountability: An Analysis of Grievances
Filed With The National News Council, 1973-84 (Ph.D. diss., Ohio University,
1999).
[6] Robert A. Logan, "Jefferson's and Madison's Legacy: The Death of the
National News Council," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1 (1985-86), 68-77.
[7] "N.Y. Times Won't Work With Press Council," Editor & Publisher, 21 January
1973, 36; "New York Times Still Opposed to News Council Idea," Editor &
Publisher, 29 March 1997, 8.
[8] Patrick Brogan, Spiked: The Short Life and Death of The National News
Council (New York: Priority Press, 1985); Husselbee, A Question of
Accountability.
[9] Everette E. Dennis and John C. Merrill, Media Debates: Issues in Mass
Communication (New York: Longman, 1991), 166-167; Debra Gersh, "Resurrect the
National News Council?" Editor & Publisher, 8 May 1993, 12-13, 41; John Hughes,
"Could a Press Council Improve Journalism?" Christian Science Monitor, 17
February 1994, 19.
[10] Shepard, "Going Public," 27.
[11] See Mike Wallace, "The Press Under Fire," Quill, November/December 1995,
20-23; Mike Wallace, "Remarks at the Goldsmith Awards Ceremony," Speech at the
Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University, 9 March 1995, Cambridge,
Massachusetts; Mike Wallace, "The Press Needs A National Monitor," The Wall
Street Journal, 18 December 1996, A-20; Mike Wallace,"The 19th Annual Frank E.
Gannett Lecture," Speech at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center, 4 December
1996, New York; and Mike Wallace, Telephone Interview, 16 February 1998, Athens,
Ohio.
[12] "A Bad Idea," Editor & Publisher, 5 April 1997, 6; Evan Jenkins, "News
Councils: The Case For _ And Against," Columbia Journalism Review, March/April
1997, 38-39; "New York Times Still Opposed," 8; Shepard, "Going Public," 24-29;
M.L. Stein, "Revive The News Council?" Editor & Publisher, 29 March 1997, 8-9.
[13] Alfred Balk, "The Voluntary Model." In Everette E. Dennis, Donald Gillmor,
and Theodore Glasser (Eds.), Media Freedom and Accountability, (New York:
Greenwood, 1989); Brogan, Spiked, 90-92.
[14] See "End of National News Council," Editor & Publisher, 7 April 1984, 7;
Jonathan Friendly, "NNC Folding," Washington Journalism Review, May 1984, 11-12;
and "The News Council - What Did It In?" Columbia Journalism Review, May/June
1984, 25.
[15] "A Bad Idea," 6; Jonathan Friendly, "NNC Folding," Washington Journalism
Review, May 1984, 11-12.
[16] "New York Times Still Opposed," 8; Stein, "Revive The News Council?" 8-9.
[17] Political columnist Jack Anderson was largely responsible for spreading
this doctrine. Anderson attempted to intimidate the National News Council after
the Council found that a complaint against him, filed by Nicaragua Government
Information Service, was warranted. Anderson chastised the Council for
advancing the cause of a foreign lobby that represented the propaganda interests
of a dictator (Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza). See In The Public
Interest II (New York: National News Council, 1979), 91-98.
[18] Shepard, "Going Public," 28.
[19] Jenkins, "News Councils," 38-39; Shepard, "Going Public," 24-29; "The News
Council - What Did It In?" Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 1984, 25.
[20] Guido H. Stempel III, "Reliability in Content Analysis." Journalism
Quarterly 32 (Summer 1955): 333-334.
[21]
L. Paul Husselbee and Guido H. Stempel III, "Contrast in U.S. Media Coverage of
Two Major Canadian Elections," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74
(Autumn 1997): 591-601.
[22] Among the nine sources in the "other" category were complaints from a high
school, a university, a college journalism faculty, a magazine, a trade journal,
two churches and two citizens groups.
[23] One of the reasons Rosenthal objected to news councils in generation was
that he believed the whole idea of the news councils was that he was convinced
that the very idea was part of a plot to "get" the New York Times. See Norman
E. Isaacs, Untended Gates: The Mismanaged Press (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1986), 116.
[24] In The Public Interest II, 93.
[25] Ralph S. Izard, "Public Confidence in the News Media," Journalism
Quarterly 62 (Summer 1985), 247-255.
[26] See Barry Bingham, "The Case For A National Press Council," Nieman Reports
27 (June 1973), 19-22; Amanda W. Nunamaker, The National News Council: A Study
of Its Concept and Development, 1972-1977 (Ph.D. diss., George Peabody College
for Teachers, Vanderbilt University, 1977); William L. Rivers, "How To Kill A
Watchdog," Progressive (February 1973), 44-48; and Roper Organization, Changing
Public Attitudes Toward Television and Other Mass Media, 1959-1976 (New York:
Television Information Office, 1977).
[27] See Jennifer Harper, "Public Weary of 'Media Elite,' Wants 'News You Can
Use,' " Washington Times, 29 December 1996, p. 1; Eunice Moscoso, "Nationwide
Survey: Journalists Seen As Arrogant, Too Negative," Atlanta Journal and
Constitution, 14 December 1996, sec. C, p. 5; and Newseum and Freedom Forum
Media Studies Center, "News Junkies, News Critics," available at
<http://www.newseum.org/survey/index.html>, January 1997.
[28] American Society of Newspaper Editors, "Editors Group Releases Journalism
Credibility Study," available at <http://www.asne.org/kiosk/news/98jcp.htm>, 15
December 1998.
[29] Lambe et al., "Answering the Critics."
[30] Moscoso, "Nationwide Survey."
|
