I read somewhere once that efforts to foster good police-community relations will inevitably meet with limited success. One, because of the public’s love-hate feelings toward cops; and two, because, ultimately, one’s perceptions will be influenced by one’s experience with law enforcement. Meaning, if the officer who stops you for speeding is surly, you may think ill of police officers in general.
Along those same lines, I recall the words of an African-American presenter at a media seminar who discussed how to win over black readers. The presenter said — half-jokingly, I believe — that the effort is complicated by a black scoring system: A positive story rates a two; a negative, a minus 10. So you’re constantly behind.
Where is all this leading?
Well, I’ve pretty much concluded that the media’s battle to win the public’s trust is hampered by a similar set of factors.
There’s the public’s love-hate relationship with the media — a relationship, like the one with law enforcement, built on need. But it’s also grounded in mistrust because the media — again like law enforcement — enjoy tremendous power over our lives, power we suspect can be (or is) too easily abused.
Let someone break into our home or threaten our safety and we breathe a sigh of relief at the sight of a man or woman in blue. Likewise, we look to the media to keep us abreast of the deeds — or misdeeds — of the federal government, what’s happening at City Hall, crime, you name it.
And yet, there’s mistrust and skepticism.
In the media’s case, it’s based, I believe, on a perception of the media as not only arrogant, but protective of special interests and “biased” in its news coverage and editorials.
The whole ombudsman movement (whether we’re called ombudsmen, public editors or reader representatives) is aimed at countering this public distrust.
By diligently pursuing accuracy, fairness and balance, we seek to enhance our standing with the public.
Publishing timely corrections is a component of that effort, and studies have shown, as I’ve said before, that doing so helps to build public confidence in the media.
But we’ll probably forever be behind the eight ball, so to speak. Because John and Mary Q. Public use a scoring system much like the one the African-American presenter mentioned at the media seminar. It puts us at a distinct disadvantage, forever running behind in our pursuit of Public Trust.
If I had to pinpoint a common public perception of the media that mitigates against trust — and this dovetails with the arrogance charge — it would be the belief that journalists, be they print or broadcast, too often have their minds made up about a story when they begin reporting it.
Regrettably, some do. They “see” a story a certain way, and then set out to gather the “facts” to tell that story. In the process, they may not see or hear facts that detract from the story they have in mind. At times, such reporters, intent on telling a compelling tale, may not realize what they’re doing.
But the individuals who are interviewed and feel that the reporter “tried to get me to say what they wanted me to say,” as I’ve heard some callers complain, realize it. Remember, often these are individuals who already mistrust us.
Similarly, reporters sometimes broach a negative topic and try to get someone to comment on it. If they then write a story that says or implies that the individual raised the issue, the reporters are contributing to media mistrust.
So do journalists who collect information by misrepresenting themselves or by offering favors, monetary or otherwise. Ditto for journalists who take advantage of the naivete of interviewees unaccustomed to dealing with the media.
That’s why the media, The Virginian-Pilot included, have increasingly toughened their ethics policies to ensure against such journalistic behavior. And why we listen to readers, their complaints, their suggestions for stories and improvements to our products.
And still there is, and probably always will be, public distrust to varying degrees.
In a sense, that’s a very depressing thought. Seen another way, however, it’s not an entirely bad thing.
Skepticism can be good; mistrust, in moderation, desirable. If for no other reason than this keeps the media on their toes, ever vigilant, lest we succumb to cheap-shot journalistic tactics or unethical practices.
