About APME
The Associated Press Managing Editors (APME) is an organization of U.S. and Canadian editors whose newspapers are members of the Associated Press (AP) and whose purpose is to help editors improve news coverage and newsroom operations. The AP itself is a not-for-profit cooperative and is the world’s largest news organization. As newspapers around the country complete APME Roundtable projects, they are posting reports at the APME Web site at www.apme.com/credibility/index.html
In Tucson, Ariz., they talked about guns.
In Indianapolis the issue was city schools.
In Providence, R.I., it was how to identify people in the news.
In Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, we discussed issues and events often uncovered (“Voices Outside the Mainstream”).
It sounds like a conspiracy. It is, of sorts — a cooperative effort of more than 50 newspapers and readers to examine and improve newspaper credibility.
Known as the National Credibility Roundtables, the project is sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME). Participating newspapers represent more than 40 states. The Gazette is the lone Iowa entry.
Representatives of the newspapers, whose circulations range from 30,000 to 200,000, will meet at the APME’s annual conference Oct. 10-13 in Milwaukee to share findings. More information about the project is available at www.apme.com/credibility/index.html
Although analysis of the Iowa City and Cedar Rapids roundtables awaits completion, I want to report briefly what happened. As Gazette ombudsman, I served as roundtable facilitator.
The Gazette invited a panel of readers to assess coverage they perceive as inaccurate, unfair or not reflective of their communities.
Questions included: Are some community “voices” not being heard? Are non-mainstream views (those considered extreme or on the fringe) under- or overrepresented? Discussions flowed into other areas, such as news values, stereotyping, objectivity.
Roundtables took place May 14 in Iowa City and May 16 in Cedar Rapids. About 20 persons active in the communities and representing an array of interests were invited as participants. In Iowa City, 15 attended; in Cedar Rapids, 18.
Each session ran about two hours. Afterward, nearly all participants said more time was needed. All indicated the sessions were worth- while, and they would participate again if asked.
About eight Gazette staff members attended each roundtable. They listened from the sidelines. Apart from Gazette Executive Editor Mark Bowden, who opened and closed the meetings, only one staff member spoke during each meeting. Assistant Opinion Page Editor Kurt Rogahn responded to a question about whether the opinion page staff verified factual information in letters or opinion articles. (As much as possible, he said.)
In general, comments were cordial, even laudatory. The reasons for this are not clear: Presence of staff members? Skewed representation on the roundtable?
This is not to say there was lack of criticism or suggestions. Here are a few:
- Among voices missing or under- represented are youth (e.g., high school academic activities), immigrants, Hispanics, women (especially in sports).
- Seek out more minorities as information sources.
- Recognize there are usually more than two sides to any story.
- In referring to gays and lesbians, don’t use “homosexuals.” (“It’s so ’80s.”)
- The answer to offensive or hurtful speech is more speech.
- One standard of credibility is respect for others.
- Representation of diverse views in the community is essential; “equal” attention in terms of space is not.
- The demise last January of the alternative, free-distribution weekly, the Icon, left a gap that hasn’t been filled.
Here is a sampling of comments on participants’ evaluation forms:
- More such meetings are necessary, but invite participants who want to discuss broader issues rather than their own agenda.
- Smaller groups might encourage more active and candid discussion.
- More interaction with staff members would be useful.
- Suggested headline for the session: “Interesting conversation: Will it make a difference?”
Were the roundtables worth the effort? That question remains to be answered. There were some immediate payoffs: story ideas, new news sources. Other ideas are worth considering: increasing diversity of news sources, re-examining coverage of minority groups, making the news process more transparent.
One lesson emerges clearly: Journalism is people talking.
