A recent poll of more than 1,000 adults indicates that public confidence in the media had slipped and is still slipping.
The study, done by USA Today, CNN and Gallup Poll shows 36 percent believe news organizations can be trusted to get the facts right. That’s significantly down from mid-1989 when 54 percent did.
For news organizations, that is bad news. Terrible news.
The decline began before Jayson Blair was discovered to have lied and plagiarized regularly while a reporter for The New York Times.
It began before the spate of books about media bias.
It has caused news organizations to try some corrective measures.
A Post and Courier poll conducted in spring 2002 showed that 78 percent of our readers gave positive responses (very well or somewhat well) to a question on whether the newspaper provides fair coverage. The newspaper continues to be interested in knowing what readers think.
Some 40 newspapers across the country have established positions like the one I fill as public editor. Readers are encouraged to voice concerns about accuracy and fairness, and the public editors, also called ombudsmen and reader advocates, are charged with answering their concerns and correcting mistakes.
Another move being made by a number of newspapers is to survey sources who have been quoted in the paper. They are sent a list of questions about their contact with the newspaper and are given a stamped envelope to return the forms.
The idea is a good one. While some readers are not shy about pointing out errors or apparent bias, others are. Maybe they don’t know whom to call. Maybe they think no one at the paper cares anyway. The questionnaire makes it easy for them to be heard.
It is a good idea for newspapers too. They learn about what readers think they are doing wrong and what they think they are doing right. It makes sense that the process would be beneficial to both the newspaper and the readers.
Beginning this week, I will send people who have been quoted in Post and Courier news and feature stories questionnaires. It won’t be everyone. I will try to include people from different geographic, age, race and gender brackets.
These are the questions they will be asked:
1. Were you correctly quoted in the story?
2. Do you think the story is a fair representation of the event or issue being covered?
3. Do you think the headline accurately reflected the story content?
4. If you had contact with a reporter on this story, how would you describe the reporter’s conduct?
5. If you had contact with a photographer on this story, how would you describe the photographer’s conduct?
6. Do you have any other observations you would like to make about this story?
7. What is your overall impression of The Post and Courier?
8. Do you have any recommendations as to how we can make this a better newspaper?
When other newspapers have initiated similar programs, some reporters, editors and photographers have been offended. It appeared to them to be aimed at embarrassing them. Those newspapers report that their fears lessened when they realized that the program’s purpose was to improve accuracy.
I would expect positive comments to be posted on the newsroom bulletin board and to give negative comments to the executive editor so he can consider the situation with his staff and publish corrections as necessary. I also expect to report some significant results and important trends to readers through this column.
Today’s column doesn’t come with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, but it does come with an invitation. If you have been quoted by or cited in a recent story in The Post and Courier, please consider answering the questions posed above and sending them to me.
