Content-Type: text/html
Sensationalism, Cynicism, and Sensitivity:
The Role of Public Journalism in Reestablishing the Press's Credibility
Tom Dickson and Wanda Brandon,
Southwest Missouri State University
Phone 417 836-5423
FAX 417 836-4774
Email: [log in to unmask]
Paper submitted to the Newspaper Division
For the AEJMC Convention,
Phoenix AZ, August 2000
Abstract
The authors surveyed members of the AEJMC Newspaper Division and editors of daily newspapers to find out whether the educators and the editors were equally concerned about media credibility and the public's mistrust of the media, whether they agreed on what the outcomes of the public journalism process are, and whether they agreed on the importance of the practices of public journalism. The authors concluded that the two groups were equally concerned about media credibility and agreed on the outcomes of the public journalism process; however, they did not agree on the practices of public journalism.
Sensationalism, Cynicism, and Sensitivity:
The Role of Public Journalism in Reestablishing the Press's Credibility
Many Americans today - and apparently a number of journalists - hold the journalistic professions in low esteem because they see journalists as insensitive, biased, inaccurate, unfair and cynical - to name a few epithets. The public's lack of trust in the media is mirrored by the public's lack of trust in government. Some media critics see a link between the two, and some journalism educators as well as journalists at the close of the 20th century were questioning the basic tenets of journalism as they searched for answers to the dilemma.
"So Many Choices, So Little Time," a study sponsored by the Newspaper Association of America and the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, reported that consumers rate "credibility" - which it defined as "an amalgam of accuracy, believability, and fairness" - as the media's biggest weakness. In response to that report, members of the news industry and allied foundations began three efforts to find ways to improve media performance and support, at the cost of millions of dollars (Hess, 1998).
The American Society of Newspaper Editors launched the "Journalism Credibility Project," primarily funded by the Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation, which had the support of the then current and the three following ASNE presidents. The purpose of the study was building "consensus among editors on action we should take in our newsrooms that may help improve our credibility...[and providing] materials and training to accomplish that goal" (Hess, 1998).
Another effort, The Free Press/Fair Press project of the Freedom Forum in Arlington, Va., aimed to increase understanding between the public and the press about the role and responsibilities of journalism. The effort was assisted by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies and CNN. The third effort was the Committee of Concerned Journalists in Washington, D.C., funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which set up The Project for Excellence in Journalism, described as "an effort by journalists to help fellow professionals think about and clarify core principles and standards" (Hess, 1998). Members of that organization began working on ways to improve the quality of local TV news programs. They also developed a series of articles by prominent writers examining the condition of U.S. newspapers at the end of the 20th century, and they undertook studies on a variety of issues affecting media credibility.
As part of the Journalism Credibility Project, the American Society of Newspaper Editors released a report in December 1998 titled "Why Newspaper Credibility Has Been Dropping." It found that members of the public who had had actual experience with the news media were the most critical of media credibility. The report had six major findings:
* 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 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 journalists' own priorities for their newspapers. (ASNE, 1998)
The Committee of Concerned Journalists and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press jointly undertook a national survey on journalistic values and principles of journalists. They surveyed newsroom staff, news managers, and executives. In their report, released March 30, 1999, they found that journalists were becoming considerably more critical of their profession. They concluded that neither journalists nor media executives understood their audience well (Kovick, Rosenstiel, & Mitchell, 1999).
According to Kovick and others (1999), "In short, a large majority of news professionals sense a degradation of the culture of news - from one that was steeped in verification and a steadfast respect for the facts, toward one that favors argument, opinion-mongering, haste, and infotainment." The study concluded that a large majority of journalists (70 percent) think "the news media have blurred the lines between news and entertainment and that the culture of argument is overwhelming the culture of reporting." However, the study found that journalism professions "still share a deep sense of common purpose about what journalism should be" (Kovick and others, 1999).
The media's credibility problem in the 1990s was worse than in the previous decade, according to a study undertaken by the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press, which compared public opinion polls from August 1985 and March 1995. The author of the study found that the news media's "negative rating" rose from 51.8 percent in 1985 to 60.3 percent in 1995, a 16 percent increase. By contrast, the negative rating for organized religion rose 9 percent, the Supreme Court 12 percent, and Congress 18 percent. Similarly, the "respect rating" fell 7.3 percent for newspapers, 7.2 percent for local TV news, and 11.2 for the network evening news (Hess, 1996).
A 1998 Gallup poll found that Americans had more confidence in TV news than print news, that they trusted the evening newsmagazines more than the network newscast and the print news magazines, and believed CNN, but they didn't rely on the Internet for news. More Americans perceived the media to be biased than perceived them to be fair and impartial - around 55 percent to 45 percent across the various media. The plurality who did sense a bias tended to think that news was too liberal rather than too conservative, although the tendency was too great, according to the study (Newport & Saad, 1998).
The 1998 Gallup poll found that CNN, public television news, local television news, and prime time TV newsmagazines all had a "net trust'' level (trust minus distrust) above 50 percent. About 70 percent of the public overall stated that they trusted the accuracy of those media, compared to about 15 percent who said they didn't. On the other hand, the nightly network news had a net trust rating of 43 percent. The perceived credibility of other traditional sources of news - local and national newspapers and weekly news magazines - was significantly lower, with the national print news magazines coming in lowest. Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. received lower scores for accuracy than various types of TV news and also scored among the lowest on trust (Newport & Saad, 1998).
The rise in the public's disconnection from the media has paralleled a rise in broadcast voices, a decrease in the number of newspaper voices and a decline in public participation in the political system. In 1988, for the first time since 1924, only half the registered voters actually voted in the presidential election. The number who voted decreased further in 1996, when 48.8 percent of people of voting age cast a ballot (Medill, 1999). Leo Bogart said of the possible connection between changes in the media and the decrease in people's interest in public affairs:
...The steady decline of newspaper competition in the United States, and the (partly resultant) attrition in newspaper readership, have meant diminished exposure to the clash of ideas, to differing viewpoints about local events. This has serious consequences for citizens' interest in government, since local television and radio news, preoccupied with recitations and innumerable minor crimes and disasters, hardly even address real civic issues. ... (Bogart, 1995, 7)
Research has given support for the notion that journalists not only have become divorced from the public they serves but also feel more at home with the policy-makers they cover in their stories. For example, David Protess and others studied investigative reporting during the 1980s and concluded that journalists' exposés on wrongdoing resulted in changes in policy-making and in policy but that the public was hardly involved in those outcomes. The researchers concluded: "Muckraking is most likely to matter, it seems, when journalists form coalitions with policy makers ... " (Protess and others, 1991, 250).
Annenberg Senior Fellow Stephen Bates sees some irony in the path that the media have taken since the Hutchins Commission 50 years ago, which called for the government to step in if the media did not live up to their responsibility to society. He wrote:
Journalists of the 1990s, trying, as journalists always have tried, to make a difference with their reporting, are becoming what journalists of the 1940s reviled: backstage activists, professional experts, undemocratic elitists - or, one might say, democratic realists. The men of the Hutchins Commission would be pleased. (Bates 1995, 31)
Davis "Buzz" Merritt, editor of the Wichita (Kansas) Eagle, determined that the press should do something about people's disconnection with public life. Disgusted with the news coverage of the 1988 presidential election, he decided to change the way his newspaper covered the 1990 state and local elections. He stated that the news media did not fulfill their First Amendment mandate when they "ignored our truer and far more valuable franchise: The essential nexus between democracy and journalism, the vital connection with community and our role in promoting useful discourse rather than merely echoing discontent" (Merritt, 1998, 14).
James K. Batten, chief executive officer for Knight-Ridder Inc., which owned the Eagle, saw what he called community connectedness as a means of increasing newspaper readership and citizenship while using the journalistic tradition of public service and began to promote the movement (Rosen, 1996). In 1993, Batten persuaded the Knight Foundation to donate $513,000 to set up the Project on Public Life and the Press with Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, as director, to promote public journalism (Shepard, 1996).
The movement received a major boost in 1993 in addition to the Knight Foundation grant when the Pew Charitable Trusts decided to become involved by providing an initial grant of $3.6 million to establish the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, which would provide money to news media to promote citizen involvement in community affairs (Shepard, 1996).
The Debate Over Public Journalism
Lambeth and Aucoin (1993) noted that journalism education had risen to meet the challenge of producing journalists skilled in public service. They wrote that a "new standard of excellence in public affairs reporting" was emerging in newsrooms, a movement they called the new community journalism. They said it has four key elements: (a) enterprise reporting based on a more deliberate assessment of community needs and interests; (b) commitment of significant newsroom resources; (c) mastery of story content at the level of an expert; and (d) virtually assured connection and impact within a community.
The two educators suggested that this new community journalism would help preserve journalism's public service values and would help journalism educators prepare students for the profession. They stated, "Perhaps the success with which we help students understand and report on communities will be the best measure of the leadership journalism educators are able to exert from the classroom" (Lambeth and Aucoin, 1993, p. 12). They added, "Unlike some other disciplines, journalism education has good reason to be directly connected with not only professional but with community life. By teaching students how to understand communities, we can keep not only students but ourselves abreast of the news media and the society they serve" (p. 18).
Likely because the term community journalism had been used for years to mean reporting on the small community, several other names began to be used in the early 1990s to refer to the concept outlined by Lambeth and Aucoin (1993): public journalism, civic journalism, and communitarian journalism. Public journalism began as a movement within the media industries to actively promote efforts to strengthen citizenship and improve the quality of public debate in order to revive public life and, in the process, increase circulation.
Merritt (1998) and Bybee (1999) laid part of the blame for journalism's disconnection with the public to the media's following the elitist path proposed by Walter Lippmann in his book Public Opinion rather than the populist one proposed by John Dewey in his work. In his book, Lippmann wrote: "For the troubles of the press, like the troubles of representative government . . . go back to a common source: to the failure of self-governing people to transcend their casual experience and their prejudice, by inventing, creating, and organizing a machinery of knowledge" (Lippmann, 1922, pp. 364-365). Lippmann also stated about sensationalism in the press in his day:
We do not, for example, know how to imagine what the consequences will be of attempting to conduct popular government with an electorate which is subjected to a series of disconnected, but all in their moments absolutely absorbing hullabaloos. ... It means the turning away of popular interest from a continuing interest in public affairs. ... I am inclined to ask myself whether in view of the technical complexity of almost all great public questions, it is really possible any longer for the mass of voters to form significant public opinions. ... (quoted in Bogart, 1995, p. 8)
Taking an opposing view was John Dewey. In The Public and Its Problems, Dewey (1927) wrote about the elite: "It is impossible for high-brows to secure a monopoly of such knowledge as must be used for the regulation of common affairs. In the degree in which they become a specialized class, they are shut off from knowledge of the needs which they are supposed to serve" (p. 206). Bybee (1999) suggested that public journalism follows the path suggested by educator John Dewey, "although the term public journalism as it is being used today contains much less than what Dewey was calling for" (p. 32).
The movement evolved during the 1990s into a major movement of educators and media practitioners aimed at revitalizing journalism as well as democracy and public life by setting the agenda for public debate. In doing so, the proponents admitted that the media were major players in the disintegration of public trust in the political system.
Whereas some supporters of public journalism, such as Merritt (1998), say public journalism is just an extension of what journalists have always done, others suggest it goes well beyond that. Opponents argue that it threatens to replace journalistic objectivity with a political agenda. In a talk to the 1995 convention of the Investigative Reporters and Editors in Miami, Jay Rosen, director of the Project on Public Life and the Press, defined public journalism's mission:
Traditional journalism believes that people need to be informed so that they can participate effectively. In public journalism, we believe that people have to participate effectively so they'll want to become informed. Traditional journalism assures that democracy is what we have, and information is what we need; in public journalism, we think that the reverse is true, information is what we have-we live in a sea of information. Democracy is what we need. Public journalism is about forming the public, as much as informing the public. The assumption that the public exists, and always will, is a complacent one. (Corrigan, 1995, p. 9)
The movement soon gained the lukewarm support of some media educators. For example, Dennis (1995) wrote: "If public journalism is truly an effort to improve information and news reaching the public, it deserves the highest commendation. If, on the other hand, it pushes the media toward a quasi-governmental role, one more appropriate for the community organizer, people should know it" (p. 36). He added, however, that "[i]n the end, if the effort inspires greater public awareness about the content of all of our media, it will have served a noble public purpose" (p. 36).
The response from journalists also was mixed. Public journalism was soon to draw criticism from such journalists as Leonard Downie, editor of The Washington Post; Max Frankel, former executive editor of the The New York Times; and Tony Marro, editor of Newsday. One journalist wrote about the critics: "Any good thing that does come out of a civic journalism initiative, they can be counted on to contend, is plain old traditional journalism, nothing new. Proponents, meanwhile, complain bitterly that the critics erect and bash straw men, skewering examples that are aberrations or arguing against tenets that civic journalism just doesn't hold" (Hoyt, 1995, p. 28).
Max Frankel, former executive editor of the New York Times, stated about the movement: "I've never understood it." He added: "I've read all the theory on it. Some of it sounds like good old fashioned reporting. Some of it sounds like getting in bed with the promotion department, and that's unfortunate. Some of it sounds downright political" (Shepard, 1996, p. 28). Journalist David Broder said he welcomed the public journalism experiment "because frankly, the nightmare of my life is that it will be written at some future point about my generation of political reporters that we covered everything, but we didn't notice that support for representative government and democracy was collapsing" (Hoyt, 1995, p. 32).
Whether public journalism is the solution depends to some extent on determining that a problem exists as well as deciding what the problem is. McMasters (1997) noted that two fundamental assumptions behind public journalism are that "democracy is disintegrating" and that "the press is in peril of extinction." He questioned whether either was the case and whether the situation at the end of the 20th century was worse than it had been at other times in the past. He wrote, "To concede that the press has problems is not to say that those problems are unprecedented or even unequaled" (p. 189). He added:
But, for the moment, let's accept these assumptions at face value and ignore other factors possibly contributing to the decline of both public life and the press - changing society, changing technology, or changing cycles. We still must confront a third issue: whether the problems of democracy and journalism are inextricably - or even materially - entwined. (p. 189)
McMasters (1997) argued that the ambiguity used in defining the concept "provides an opening for those who see public journalism as a vehicle for separate agendas, some of which may not be all that friendly to good journalism" (pp. 189-190). In response to the comment by Rosen (1995) that "Public journalism is about forming as much as informing a public" (p. 7), McMasters responded that the "First Amendment adventurism implicit in such statements sounds a warning for proponents and critics alike to proceed carefully" (p. 191) and concluded that "the value of the press rests largely on its independence, its detachment, its need to report from a vantage point above and beyond the fray . . . in order to inform the citizenry" (p. 194).
Public journalism projects continued to spread around the country throughout the late 1990s and remained a topic of discussion among educators, as well. Though newspaper editors had begun to ask readers for feedback in an effort to increase circulation before the advent of public journalism, some editors experimenting with public journalism began to asking readers and potential readers what the news was. Gil Thelen, executive editor of the Tampa Tribune in Tampa, FL, stated about the process, "This is a very threatening process for journalists. It's throwing the robes off and letting the people into the clergy" (Harper, 1999, p. B4). Marshall Lobe, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, challenged the experiment, stating: "This is not a popularity contest. The primary role of the journalist is to report on subjects that the audience didn't know they wanted to learn about" (Harper, 1999, p. B4). Reese Cleghorn, dean of the College of Journalism at the University of Maryland, said that editors "can learn something from people without it swaying [their] decisions." However, Michael Delli Carpini, chairman of the political science department at Barnard College in New York, countered: "Sometimes this is all just a public-relations tool. Readers either have no power or lack the professional judgment necessary to make real decisions" (Harper, 1999, p. B4).
Possibly the harshest insult was hurled at public journalism in 1997 by journalist Bruce Gellerman, who called it "an intellectual circle jerk" (Waddell, 1997). The St. Louis Journalism Review repeated the epithet in a March 1998 article. The Review's article was criticized during a panel discussion at the 1999 convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. John Pauley, a St. Louis University professor, defended public journalism at the forum and said its supporters were upset at not only the article but the inability of journalists to accept criticism from outsiders (Corrigan, 1999).
Some academic research has looked at attitudes of media professionals about public journalism. Ketchum Public Relations (Ketchum, 1997) undertook a study of print and broadcast journalism executive (news managers, publishers, editors, and radio and television executive producers) about, among other things, civic/public journalism for Virginia Commonwealth University's School of Mass Communications and the Associate Press Managing Editors (APME) in the summer of 1997. It received responses from 554 executives from a mailing to 2,335 (24%). The study found substantial support for civic/public journalism.
A total of 56 percent of respondents agreed with the following statement: "For many news organizations, 'civic journalism' has become an important means of enabling them to 'reconnect' with their alienated communities by paying much more attention than they have in the past to what people think." One hallmark of public journalism has been the use of focus groups to determine what the public sees the issues are. A total of 51 percent of media executives agreed that "Having newspapers sponsor and conduct 'citizens' forums,' at which those in the community can discuss issues of importance to the public, usually results in better reporting of community issues." In addition, 24 percent of respondents agreed that " 'Public journalism' is little more than boosterism; it's a gimmick to make publishers feel better about themselves." Also, 29 percent agreed that "Those who practice 'civic' or 'public' journalism unfortunately cross the line between reporting and advocacy - putting journalism's ebbing credibility in further peril" (p. 7).
Method
The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which journalism educators were teaching public journalism practices and whether educators who teach print journalism courses agreed with newspaper editors about issues relating to media credibility and the role of public journalism. Because no list of educators involved in journalism education was available, members of the Newspaper Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication were chosen to be surveyed because they were seen to be the educators who were most knowledgeable about newspaper journalism education. Because it seemed likely that not all members of the division would be involved in journalism education, the survey asked respondents who did not teach journalism courses or were not sufficiently knowledgeable about journalism education to return the survey after putting a check in the appropriate blank.
We sent surveys to random samples of 383 AEJMC Newspaper Division members and 501 daily newspaper editors for a total of 884 surveys. Follow-up letters were sent to try to obtain the best response rate. As of the cutoff date, we had received responses from 167 AEJMC Newspaper Division members (44 percent) - of which 142 submitted a completed survey and 25 noted that they did not teach journalism-related courses or were not sufficiently knowledgeable to respond - and from 149 newspaper editors (30 percent).
The survey asked questions concerning respondents' attitude about media credibility and public trust of the media, questions concerning public journalism and community connectedness, and questions concerning the importance of various public journalism-related activities to a newspaper. It asked AEJMC members questions about the extent to which public journalism was taught at their institution and asked editors how many public journalism projects had been conducted at the news paper in the previous five years.
We proposed three research questions:
RQ1: Are AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors equally concerned about media credibility and the public's mistrust of the media?
RQ2: Do AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors agree on what the outcomes of the public journalism process are?
RQ3: Do AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors agree on the importance of the practices of public journalism?"
For questions related to the first two research questions, respondents used a 1-to-5 scale with 1 meaning disagree strongly and 5 meaning agree strongly. For questions related to the third research question, respondents used a 1-to-5 scale with 1 meaning not important at all and 5 meaning essential. Statistical analysis was by t-tests for independent samples, used to find significant differences between two groups. As Kerlinger (1973) noted, even though most types of scales are basically ordinal, "we can with considerable assurance often assume equality of interval" (p. 440). The 95% confidence level was selected as the measure of statistical significance.
Findings
Most AEJMC Newspaper Division members (69 percent) stated that public journalism was a topic for discussion in one or more courses, 15 percent stated that it is taught as a journalistic technique in one or more courses, and 16 percent stated that it wasn't discussed. Overall, 12 percent of educators stated that their journalism program had a specific course whose major focus is civic or public journalism.
Almost three fourths (73 percent) of the editors stated that their newspaper had participated in a public journalism project or activity within the previous five years. Almost one third of the editors (31 percent) reported that the newspaper had participated in two or three public journalism projects, and one third reported participation in four or more.
Findings related to the first research question ("Are AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors equally concerned about media credibility and the public's mistrust of the media?") are shown in Table 1, which lists mean rating for each groups. Each group agreed strongly (rating of 4.51-5.0) that the level of public mistrust should be of concern to the media. Each group agreed somewhat (rating of 3.51-4.50) for four of the eight statements: that criticisms of the mainstream news media for stressing the sensational over more important news (or "tabloidization") are valid, that the responsibility shown by TV news was worse than five years before, that the news media should be more responsible in their reporting, and that the loss of media credibility is reducing public trust in the media. Each group was undecided (rating of 2.51-3.50) about one statement (that the level of responsibility shown by daily newspapers was worse than five year before). For two statements (that the news media were contributing to the public's mistrust of government and that the media were not sensitive enough to people's privacy) editors were undecided and educators agreed somewhat.
As Table 1 shows, however, responses of editors and educators differed significantly on four of the eight questions related to their level of concern about media credibility and public trust. Educators were significantly more likely than editors to state that criticism of the mainstream news media for stressing the sensational over more important news ("tabloidization") are valid, that the level of responsibility displayed by daily newspapers is worse than it was five years before; that the news media are contributing to the public's mistrust of the government and government officials; and that the media aren't sensitive enough to privacy concerns of people in the news.
The responses were not significantly different, and almost identical, on four other statements: that the level of responsibility shown by TV news is worse than it was five years before, that the news media need to be more responsible in their news-gathering and reporting practices, that the level of public mistrust of the news media is something that should be of concern to the media, and that loss of media credibility is having a negative effect on public trust in the media.
Findings related to the second research question ("Do AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors agree on what the outcomes of the public journalism process are?") are show in Table 2, which lists mean ratings. Neither group agreed strongly (rating of 4.51-5.0) with any of the four statements about public journalism. Each group agreed somewhat (3.51-4.50) that public journalism increases readers' interest in the news media. Each group was undecided (2.51-3.50) about two statements: whether news should be a co-creation of journalists and the community and whether public journalism reduces a media organization's objectivity. Editors agreed somewhat that public journalism was a good means for media to improve credibility, but educators were undecided.
As Table 2 shows, however, responses of the two groups were significantly different for one of the four questions. Editors were significantly more likely to state and that what the news should not be the determination of journalists only but should be a co-creation of journalists and the people of the community. As Table 2 also shows, neither group was significantly more likely to state that civic/public journalism reduces a media organization's objectivity, that civic/public journalism is a good means for news media to improve their credibility in the community, and that civic/public journalism provides a means for increasing reader interest in the news media.
Findings related to the third research question ("Do AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors agree on the importance of the practices of public journalism?") are shown on Table 3, which lists the mean ratings. For this research question, responses ranged from 1 to 5 with 1 meaning not important at all and 5 meaning essential. Editors rated none of the practices as essential but rated three as very important (rating of 3.51-4.50): engaging citizens in community issues, initiating dialogue in the community about public problems and solutions, and listening to members of the community through small-group conversations. They rated the other six practices as important (rating of 2.5-3.5). Educators, on the other hand, rated none of the nine practices as essential or very important, rated six as important, and rated three as somewhat important (rating of 1.51-2.50).
As Table 3 shows, responses of the two groups were significantly different for seven of the nine public journalism practices. In each case, editors rated them as more important. Editors were more likely than educators to state that having staff members become involved in community life by joining local organizations, trying to bring consensus in the community on community problems, participating in the development of solutions to public problems, engaging citizens in community issues, setting the local public agenda, initiating dialogue in the community about public problems and solutions, and listening to members of the community through small-group conversations were important. The groups were equally likely to state that bringing about a conversation in the community on journalism itself and seeking to improve citizenship in the community were important.
Discussion and Conclusions
The answer to the first research question ("Are AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors equally concerned about media credibility and the public's mistrust of the media?") is "yes." Even though educators were significantly more likely than the editors to be critical of the role of newspapers in particular and the media in general in contributing to the public's lack of trust in the media and government, each group was equally concerned about media credibility and public trust. They also were equally critical of TV news, media's lack of responsibility in reporting, the level of public trust of the media, and the harm being done by the media's lack of credibility.
The answer to the second research question ("Do AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors agree on what the outcomes of the public journalism process are?") is also "yes." Though editors were more likely to agree with the public journalism process (providing community input into determining what the news is), editors and Newspaper Division members agreed about what public journalism actually does. Both were undecided about whether it reduces objectivity, and both tended to agree that it improves media credibility and increases interest in the news media.
The answer to the third research question ("Do AEJMC Newspaper Division members and daily newspaper editors agree on the importance of the practices of public journalism?") is "no." Although editors and educators agreed on the importance of two outcomes of public journalism (the importance of bringing about a public conversation on journalism itself and seeking to improve citizenship in the community), educators were significant less likely to think the processes used in public journalism were important.
This study found consensus among editors and educators surveyed that public mistrust should be of concern to the media and found fairly strong support for several practices used in public journalism. However, it found little support for the idea that public journalism will increase the media's credibility and considerable concern that it reduces the news media's objectivity. It also found considerable areas of agreement between daily newspaper editors and members of the AEJMC Newspaper Division as well as some important differences. Perhaps the most intriguing findings were their agreement as to their concern about the news media's loss of credibility and public trust and their disagreement over whether the practices employed by public journalists are important.
Public journalism is a concept that started with the media professions, and the editors surveyed appear to be more comfortable with it than the newspaper journalism educators surveyed are. That seems to be the case despite attempts by a number of educators to take the lead in refining the concept. Perhaps educators and professionals should work together on those things this study suggests they can agree on - seeking to improve media credibility and public trust - by developing a different approach that has the objectives of public journalism but without its baggage.
It is, of course, an important role of journalism education to seek to improve media practices. This study suggests that the debate over public journalism offers journalism educators an opportunity to play an important role in improving journalistic practices. They can lead the way in improving journalists' sensitivity while at the same time educating young journalists intent on reducing media sensationalism and overcoming the public's cynicism about the media and government. The cornerstone of the media's mission in this country has always been public service, and journalism educators have an obligation in seeing that that mission is carried out.
References
American Society of Newspaper Editors (1998, December). Examining our credibility: Perspectives of the public and the press. Retrieved March 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asne.org/works/jcp/credibility2.htm Accessed March 27, 2000
Bates, S. (1995). Realigning journalism with democracy: The Hutchins Commission, its times, and ours. Washington, D.C.: The Annenberg Washington Program in Communication Policy Studies of Northwestern University.
Bogart, L. (1995). Media and democracy. Media Studies Journal, 9(3), 1-10.
Bybee, C. (1999). Can democracy survive in the post-factual age?: A return to the Lippmann-Dewey debate about the politics of news. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 1(1). 27-66.
Corrigan, D. (1995, July/August). Does "public journalism" serve the public or the publishers? St. Louis Journalism Review, 9.
Corrigan, D. (1999, September). SJR causes stir at AEJMC. St. Louis Journalism Review, pp. 1, 12.
Dennis, E. E. (1995, July 29). Raising questions about civic or public journalism. Editor & Publisher, 48, 36.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Denver: Alan Swallow.
Harper, L. (1999, February 9). Can "public journalism" help newspapers win readers? Wall Street Journal, p. B4.
Heiss, S. (1996). The public and the media: The credibility gap revisited, 1985-1995. Presstime. Retrieved March 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.naa.org/presstime/96/PTIME/novhess.html
Hess, S. (1998, July/August). Credibility: Does it drive the bottom line? Presstime. Retrieved March 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.naa.org/presstime/9807/cred.html
Hoyt, M. (1995, September/October). Are you now, or will you ever be, a civic journalist? Columbia Journalism Review, 27-33.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. (Rev. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ketchum Public Relations Research and Measurement Department. (1997, October). Views of print and broadcast media executives toward journalism education. New York: Author.
Kovick, B., Rosenstiel, T., and Mitchell, A. (March 30, 1999). A first step to change:
A commentary on the findings. American Journalism Review. Retrieved March 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.journalism.org/surveycomment.html
Lambeth, E. B., & Aucoin, J. (1993). Understanding communities: The journalist as leader. Journalism Educator, 48(1), 12-19.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: The Macmillan Company
McMasters, P. (1997). A first amendment perspective on public journalism. In J. Black (Ed.), Mixed News: The public/civic/communitarian journalism debate (pp. 188-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Medill School of Journalism (1999, July 22). Why don't Americans vote? Retrieved March 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.medill.nwu.edu/inside/nonvoters.html
Merritt, D. (1998). Public journalism and public life: Why telling the news is not enough. (Rev. ed..). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Newport, F., & Saad, Lydia. (July/August, 1998). A matter of trust. American Journalism Review. Retrieved March 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://ajr.newslink.org/ajrgallup98.html.
Protess, D.L., Cook, F.L., Doppelt, J.C., Ettema, J.S., Gordon, M.T., Leff, D.R., & Miller, P. (1991). The journalism of outrage: Investigative reporting and agenda building in America. New York: Guilford.
Rosen, J. (1995, November-December). What should we be doing? IRE Journal, p. 7.
Rosen, J. (1996). Getting the connections right: Public journalism and the troubles in the press. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press.
Shepard, A. C. (1996, April). The Pew connection. American Journalism Review, 25-29.
Waddell, L. (1997). The sound of discontent. In J. Black (Ed.), Mixed News: The public/civic/communitarian journalism debate (pp. 70-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Table 1
Respondents' level of concern about media credibility and public trust
Editors AEJMC t p
____________________________________________________________________________________
Criticisms of media for "tabloidization" of news are valid 3.58 4.12 -4.63 <.0001***
Responsibility shown by daily papers worse than 5 yrs. ago 2.73 3.17 -3.08 .002**
Media contributing to public's mistrust of government 3.42 3.83 -2.94 .004**
Media are not sensitive enough to people's privacy 3.39 3.76 -2.84 .005**
Responsibility shown by TV news worse than 5 yrs. ago 4.12 4.07 0.43 .670
Media should be more responsible in reporting 4.02 4.05 -0.26 .793
Level of public mistrust should be of concern to media 4.60 4.58 0.24 .810
Loss of media credibility is reducing public trust in media 4.44 4.43 0.12 .901
____________________________________________________________________________________
**Significant at .01 ***Significant at .001 or better
Table 2
Respondents' Opinions About Issues Related to Outcomes of Public Journalism
Editors AEJMC t p
____________________________________________________________________________________
News should be co-creation of journalists & community 3.10 2.59 3.30 .001**
Public journalism reduces media organization's objectivity 2.68 2.96 -1.81 .072
Public journalism a good means for media to improve credibility 3.60 3.41 1.50 .135
Public journalism increases reader interest in news media 3.75 3.58 1.36 .176
____________________________________________________________________________________
**Significant at .01 ***Significant at .001 or better
Table 3
Respondents' Opinions About the Importance of Various Public Journalism-Related Practices
____________________________________________________________________________________
Editors AEJMC t p
Having staff become involved by joining local organizations 2.65 2.07 4.34 <.0001***
Trying to bring consensus on community problems 2.89 2.27 4.06 <.0001***
Participating in development of solutions to public problems 3.23 2.71 3.53 <.0001***
Engaging citizens in community issues 3.83 3.37 3.23 .001**
Setting the local public agenda is important 2.72 2.28 2.99 .003**
Initiating dialogue about community problems and solutions 3.58 3.16 2.97 .003**
Listening to community through small-group conversations 3.54 3.18 2.84 .005**
Bringing about a public conversation on journalism itself 2.71 2.97 -1.89 .060
Seeking to improve citizenship in the community 3.27 3.01 1.76 .080
____________________________________________________________________________________
**Significant at .01 ***Significant at .001 or better
Sensationalism, Cynicism, and Sensitivity 1