Speaker after speaker stepped nervously to the microphone but then spoke with passion.
Their two-minute statements were filled with details about Federal Communications Commission rulings, but what resonated was their devotion to democracy.
Young or old, they spoke of the need for and rights to freedom of expression, to freedom of the press and media. Although the speaking went on for hours, the crowd cheered each statement.
Attending the Future of Media Town Hall Meeting with two FCC commissioners on Thursday night was the perfect way to begin my second year as the public editor of The Oregonian.
A year ago I came into this job thinking that with 25 years of experience, I could single-handedly improve the newspaper. But that arrogantly underestimates the power of readers, readers who surveys show are committed to civic involvement and who at times exhibit the passion of those at the Town Hall.
As I start my second year, I want to tap that passion even more to improve the newspaper. My experience provides me with insight for readers and credibility in the newsroom, but it’s the voice of readers that powers any influence I might wield. That’s why it is so important to hear from you when the newspaper has failed or erred, as well as when it succeeds.
My primary aim as public editor is to help break down the walls between The Oregonian and its readers. I’ve learned in the past year how challenging that can be, but I’ve also seen some chipping away at walls.
I’ve learned that many journalists can be even more thin-skinned than those public officials they hold accountable and that they will invoke readers in the name of their arguments just as easily as they’ll dismiss their views.
But I’ve also found a willingness to learn and change because of reader suggestions, whether it’s restoring dropped late-night TV listings, expanding coverage of soldiers in Iraq or covering budget issues through broader perspectives.
I’ve learned that readers reflect the country’s polarization. That can impede discussions that could make the newspaper stronger. Too many readers see the news only through the prism of their politics, unable to consider that they might learn from another person’s view.
But I’ve also found, after I take time to listen, a willingness among readers to find common understanding, whether it’s learning why the newspaper reports house sales, covers gay marriage or publishes photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse.
In the coming months, with the Iraq war raging and an election looming, the newspaper needs to be as transparent as possible in how it covers those issues. At the same time, readers need to challenge and engage the newspaper to offer the best-informed coverage.
Over the past decade, my predecessors have built many ties to readers. With the help of assistant Helen Shum, I’ve tried to expand those. We’re holding regular reader discussion meetings, and I’ve spoken to a dozen or so classes and groups. We’ve launched a Web log at www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/publiceditor to reach a broader range of people and created a group of reader advisers who discuss via e-mail our key decisions. But much more can be done, and it all begins with readers.
At the annual Organization of News Ombudsmen conference last month I was reminded too much is stake for readers and public editors to shy from holding journalists accountable. As one speaker, Tom Rosenstiel of the Center for Journalism Excellence, wrote in “The Elements of Journalism,” “In the new century, one of the most profound questions for democratic society is whether an independent press survives. The answer will depend on whether journalists have the clarity and conviction to articulate what an independent press means, and whether, as citizens, the rest of us care.”
I thought a similar message echoed through the town hall comments of David Olson, director of the Mount Hood Cable Regulatory Commission. After describing local progress made in serving the public through cable systems, he said, “The angel of public interest doesn’t descend on couch potatoes . . . You have to step up and seek it.”
Let’s work together to make The Oregonian better. Tell me about what the paper can do better. Hold me accountable for holding the paper accountable.
A public editor at The Oregonian only serves three or so years, and I consider it a privilege to work for and with readers. After a year, I feel as if I’ve only just begun to tap their passion.
