April 5, 1998

By Sanders LaMont

(Ed. note: Keep this article in mind the next time you write a letter to the editor.)

THE OMBUDSMAN: EDITORS FRET ABOUT RISING PUBLIC DISTRUST OF PRESS

Washington- Hundreds of the nation’s newspaper editors gathered here last week to try to figure out what to do about the distrust they feel from readers everywhere.

By the end of a week devoted to critical self-examination, most seemed to agree with Sandra Mims Rowe, editor of the Portland Oregonian and president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, when she characterized the current era of American journalism as "a time of frighteningly low respect for the newspapers we hold dear."

In a sometimes blistering critique of the performance of the press in recent months, she challenged editors to work to turn around their performance and win back the confidence of readers.

The opening session of the conference began with a District of Columbia high school choir singing inspirational songs, including "The Impossible Dream."

Whether the dream of restoring credibility to newspapers around the country is realized will depend, Rowe told the editors, on the quality of leadership in the future, and learning from mistakes of the past.

"In the face of intensive pressure and in hot pursuit of story, the salient standard in the early Clinton-Lewinsky coverage appears to have been that someone said it, therefore we wrote it; the wire service sent it, therefore we printed it.

"That is not leadership," she said. "It is a sorry squandering of the credibility we have."

The society has undertaken a four-year project to study, understand and presumably turn around what surveys and research almost universally reflect as a declining trust in newspapers and the media. The project was initiated a year ago by Rowe before the current scandal gave impetus to her concerns.

The society met for its annual session in the nation’s capital, and spent most of the week listening to editors, educators and others try to figure out why American newspapers are losing credibility with readers, and what to do about it. (Ed. note: The clueless leading the clueless.)

The next step in the four-year process will include research into specific markets to determine exactly what readers’ concerns are, and development of training materials to help individual newspapers re-establish what seemed last week to be badly battered standards.

Rowe did not let any members of the audience off the hook when she reminded them that one individual editor exercising good judgment and clear leadership can make the difference between proud public service and failure, and it is done one decision at a time. She offered hope in her remarks, but nailed the responsibility for failure or success right on the editor’s door.

Rowe’s call for clear-eyed leadership was met with some defensiveness, though politely stated.

Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of the Washington Post, assured other editors his paper does not have a stake in the current scandals, and is just trying to do a good job. But when he was questioned directly on whether the newspaper’s standards on the use of confidential sources had changed, as some in the audience feel had happened recently, Downie responded with non-specific assurances.

That led a Bremerton, Wash., editor to observe, "The rules seem somewhat different here in Washington [D.C.]."

In an earlier session the Post’s ombudsman, Geneva Overholser, observed during a panel discussion on a hypothetical case that "we have our standards, we just don’t live up to them."

That might have been the theme for the week’s debates, and some fear it could be carved on the gravestone of newspapers.

The discussions on restoring credibility became somewhat entangled in the obviously differing points of view between editors in and around Washington, and those farther away.

Deborah Howell, editor and Washington bureau chief for Newhouse News Service, acknowledged in the introduction of a discussion of the use of confidential sources that "most people I know wanted to talk about nothing else but Clinton-Lewinsky," and then acknowledged that "inside the Beltway [surrounding D.C.] we thought the president was toast. We were wrong."

Also apparent in the discussions in and out of the conference rooms was the concern that local newspapers apply tougher standards to their own reporters than they do to services that provide the majority of national and international news in most American newspapers. Most newspapers get the bulk of their national reports from the Associated Press and the wire services served by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post. McClatchy Newspapers, including The Bee, uses those sources plus reporters based in Washington to watch out for its readers’ interests.

In the question periods and in panel discussions, editors frequently made reference to what they call "the two-source rule" for unidentified sources

in news stories. That "rule," which was a guideline used by the Post during the Watergate era, has never been universally adopted, as a few irate editors pointed out at a session here on Wednesday. In fact, several said that some readers feel sources should always be identified.

In his defense of the Post, Downie said that readers have to trust the newspaper they read based on experience with that newspaper. He argued that the system of unidentified sources exists as created by politicians and officials, not the press, and that the fundamental test for readers is whether they believe their newspaper.

Rowe and others noted that unidentified sources are not the only problem eroding credibility for readers. Among the concerns she and other editors cited were: In the corporatization of newspaper companies, Wall Street often becomes more important than Main Street, and in some companies the quest for profits reduces the ability of the newspaper to pursue the news adequately.

Training and wages for newspaper personnel are rarely adequate, leading to confusion about standards and a brain drain out of the industry.

Newspapers do not have to be dragged along into the mud when other media, recently including Internet sources and broadcast outlets, fail to meet a newspaper’s standards. Newspapers do not have to follow television news in the tendency to "dumb down" in the quest for ratings.

New media, including the Internet Web sites that have grown in the past year, do not adopt newspaper standards and should not be treated as if they do. (Ed. note: No, I do not have newspaper standards. I do not treat the DEA and NIDA as infallible.) And in the discussion in the halls, it became apparent that the view from Washington is not the same as the view from the rest of the country.

One editor pointed out that the farther away from Washington she traveled, the farther back in the local newspaper the stories about accusations over Clinton’s sex life appeared.

TWO EXAMPLES of what newspapers can do to address the problems were cited by Rowe. Some newspapers recognized that the O.J. Simpson trial was not the top news story of the day every day for months, and appropriately moved it inside the newspaper.

And editors at several newspapers—including The Bee -are taking the time to address readers’ concerns through columns written to explain to readers the standards and values the newspaper wants to uphold, which leads to better understanding and accountability.

She praised San Jose Mercury News Editor Jerry Ceppos for being willing to apologize and acknowledge to readers last year that the newspaper had failed to live up to its standards.
See How the Establishment Media Suppresses Coverage of CIA's Hard Drug Trafficking
--Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

"Without saying so directly," she said, "he made clear the Mercury News stands for quality."

The debate last week, Rowe said, is not about what editors have a right to do, "it is about doing the right thing."

Newspapers can regain lost ground by being devoted to believability— which includes accuracy and more -and being open about weaknesses, nurturing journalists with a passion for responsibility and maintaining the character of their newspaper. (Ed. note: the late George Burns used to joke that "Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.")

For the next three years the editors’ society plans to keep the issue of credibility at the top of their agenda, the first time any single subject has dominated discussion by the nation’s top editors for more than one year.

Whether the studies, discussions and projects that result make any difference for newspaper readers remains for the editors to demonstrate over those years.

THE OMBUDSMAN deals with complaints and concerns about The Sacramento Bee’s content. His opinions are his own. You can contact the Ombudsman by mail at P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, 95852. E-mail to ombud@sacbee.com, fax at 556-5690, call directly at 442-8050 or through BeeLine at 552-5252, category 5678.