The 26th annual conference of the Organization of News Ombudsman (ONO) and Folha’s Journalism Forum, held last week in So Paulo, focused on a point that should be the main concern of journalists and news media nowadays: credibility.
Various surveys and analyses were presented which prove that the news industry has reasons to worry. Even countries like Brazil, in which the rates of confidence in news media are high (Ibope/Opinion, May 2005) and the press enjoy more prestige than government entities (BBC/Reuters/Media Center Poll, May 2006), there is a tense relationship between a more demanding public and companies involved in stiff competition for market share.
There were many criticisms about journalism that is practiced in various parts of the world. The list of adjectives about the press is immense: boring, unpleasant, sensationalistic, superficial, splitting hairs, distant from the interests of people, badly researched, entertainment and celebrities, commercial, irresponsible and lacking in context. It is curious that what some people see as a virtue others often see as a flaw.
Journalist Andres Oppenheimer of the “Miami Herald,” an expert on Latin America, was the harshest in criticizing newspapers. In his opinion, newspapers are losing readers because they don’t serve them: they are repetitive, predictable and carry old news. “Newspapers (as they are made today) are moribund, they are on the road to death.” He believes that, to confront the speed at which information circulates, they should be more analytical, more investigative and have more rigorous control over what they publish to be more reliable than “the flood of information” that is drowning us.
Transparency
There is no consensus about the future of journalism, but the ombudsmen agree on the necessity for news organizations to get closer to their public and become more transparent.
Transparency, in this case, signifies keeping track of things, clarifying the values that are being defended, the economic and political interests with which these media groups are associated, the way they are run, their sources of income, their economic performance, and the resources available to improve the quality of the product they offer.
Germn Rey, a researcher and former ombudsman at “El Tiempo” in Bogota, called attention, in speaking about the Latin American press, to the incoherence of the media that keep track of governments and demand ethical behavior from politicians, but they are not willing to submit to the same scrutiny they demand nor do they adhere to the same values they demand. News organizations want to oversee politics, Rey comments, but don’t let anyone oversee their work. The issue is clearly not to stop their oversight, but to be more coherent with the principles they choose.
The transparency initiative that impressed me the most was the one at the British daily “The Guardian.” According to its ombudsman, Ian Mayes, president of ONO, the newspaper contracted a company to make a social audit that investigated things such as hiring policy and the origin of paper that the newspaper buys (to know if it is made by companies that cause environmental problems). The audit revealed, for example, that the newspaper does not always pay its creditors on time.
That remains a suggestion.
IN THE UNITED STATES
The connection with readers
Worried about the loss of credibility in the United States, the Associated Press Managing Editors/APME has organized roundtables that bring together journalists, readers and experts since 2001 to discover problems in coverage with the idea of better identifying mistakes in the news. Over these five years, 193 news organizations have participated in the National Credibility Roundtables (www.apme-credibility.org).
Carol Nunnelley, the project’s coordinator, at the ombudsman conference presented some findings from these roundtable discussions. The objective on one of the documents is to stimulate newspapers to listen to their readers more. The headline was: “Connecting with Readers: How and Why.”
While they use newspapers in the United States, which are more devoted to community interests than those in Brazil, as a reference point, I will reproduce part of their recommendations for those who run newsrooms to understand that they can help to better assist our readers and to know from readers what they think about the suggestions:
——————————————————————————–
“Journalists’ pledge to serve the public, and the support that should gain, are hurt by suspicion between journalists and readers.
It is a ‘dirty little secret’ of newsrooms that journalists think readers are ‘a pain,’ in the words of newsroom management coach Edward Miller.
Readers find journalists and news organizations forbidding and hard to reach, whether with a story tip or a complaint about accuracy. Many readers grumble but don’t let journalists know what they’re thinking.
A free press needs support from the public, whether during attacks by public officials or in courtroom libel trials. The public is less likely to support the press if people know little about how journalists work, are suspicious of their goals, and feel rebuffed by news organizations.
Make basic newsroom processes courteous and efficient – answering the phone, responding to e-mail, answering questions, addressing complaints.
Find an exceptional employee to answer the main newsroom phone and greet visitors, someone who is able and willing to be a customer advocate.
Encourage journalists to use interviewing skills with callers. ‘Listen, don’t argue’ is a magic mantra.
Inform newsroom staffers about news decisions, errors and other matters that generate contacts about the news.
Take the initiative to meet readers, in the community and in the newsroom.
Create a speaker’s bureau, promote it with newspaper notices and volunteer to speak if invitations are slow in coming.
Hold workshops to teach people how to get ‘their news’ published.
Let residents lead tours to introduce neighborhoods or institutions.
Invite unhappy readers to attend news meetings. (And other people too.)
Use the Web to expand reader contacts.
Post forms for submitting a story idea or lodging a complaint.
Create a reader e-mail group that can be queried quickly if you are looking for a hard-to-find source or want advice on a journalistic issue.
Post more information about controversial reporting, including additional documents. Offer explanations of the reporting. Invite feedback.”
Translated by John Wright
