The voices of newspaper readers from all over the world are being heard, according to the media representatives who listen to them. But the messages from readers and viewers — like the performance of the media — are not always consistent.
And dealing with inconsistency requires high quality journalism, accountability from news organizations and a willingness to explain the role of the journalists in a free society.
Those messages were delivered this past week to an international group of reader representatives and ombudsmen meeting here for the annual gathering of the Organization of News Ombudsmen. Thirty journalists from 11 countries were present for the conference, representing readers, viewers and listeners from four continents.
Much of the discussion during three days was about terrorism, war, the efforts of governments to influence news coverage, and what role ombudsmen and reader representatives should play in the complex world of 2002.
Journalists not only need to tell stories accurately and fairly; they need to explain how and where they get information. And they have a basic duty to help readers understand the role of the media.
One speaker put it like this: “Government officials and neighbors alike are asking, ‘Are you an American first, or a journalist?’ But this is a question rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of journalists in a democratic society.”
One message stood out clearly immediately following September’s terrorist attacks on America. “(F)or millions of Americans, timely, accurate and abundant information suddenly became important again,” according to Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists.
Kovach is a former newspaper reporter, editor and curator of the Nieman Foundation program for journalists at Harvard University. He was one of a dozen or so speakers to talk this past week about standards for news gathering and reporting, and the challenges journalists face from readers and from governments.
“After nearly two decades during which Americans turned away from serious news and immersed themselves in a world of babbling voices marinated with advertising and entertainment, suddenly we rediscovered reliable, verified information. In a newly unpredictable and dangerous world, journalism in the public interest was again distinctive, inherently more valuable to help us cope with the unpredictability and understand the nature and sources of danger.
“In a world awash in unlimited forms of communication, what we all reached out for instinctively was information that had been verified, information that had been put into meaningful context.”
But as the initial agony and shock of the terrorist attacks faded, Kovach said, “the government and much of the public is anxious to curb our appetite for independent verified information.”
A concern expressed repeatedly by speakers and participants was the inability of independent journalists to gain access to the scene of events, leaving them reliant upon whichever government happened to control the ground. Evidence of that was provided in news clips from Turkish and CNN television reporters showing zones of action in the West Bank sealed off from everyone but troops. That left reporters totally dependent upon government spokesmen and politicians for versions of events.
The most important question a reader can ask about a story, Kovach said, is, “How do know that?” In a world and a time where every government wants to spin the news, and many individuals want to shape it to fit their ideas, a test for ombudsmen and readers alike is to examine the sources cited. If they are not clearly identified, ask why not.
Apply this test to the news this past month: Who says there was a massacre at a refugee camp? Who provided the body count after a bombing? Were independent journalists allowed to see for themselves? Was there proof of claims by opposing governments or officials? That information should be apparent in stories so readers can exercise independent judgments about credibility.
“The only way — in practice — to level with people about what you know is to reveal as much as possible about sources and methods,” said Kovach. “How direct is their knowledge? What biases might they have? Are there conflicting accounts? What don’t we know?”
Several journalists here said some readers had delivered another message, making it clear they don’t want the media to be persistent about access or details, but to shut up and pass along the government version of events. (A few Sacramento readers have made this suggestion in recent weeks.)
But that is not how a democratic society operates, Kovach said. “We need to make it clear to the public that the journalist best expresses her citizenship by functioning as a committed observer, especially when the community is under stress or undergoing rapid, disorienting change.”
Journalists in a democratic society are “exercising the highest form of citizenship by monitoring events in the community and making the public aware of them and their import; by skeptically examining the behavior of people and institutions of power; by encouraging and informing forums for public debate.”
One problem with the current state of journalism, Kovach said, is that it appears to have become timid. A lesson from history is that when events are finally done, the public will want to know why they were not told the entire story.
Yavuz Baydar, ombudsman for the newspaper Milliyet in Istanbul, Turkey, explained the impact of recent events on the population of his country. The initial reaction was one of stunned silence, he said. And then there was concern triggered by President Bush’s use of the word “crusade” when referring to the war against terrorism.
That has led to increased opposition to the U.S. from the conservative elements in his country, fueled by radical Islamic newspapers that questioned the source of the attacks. The idea of a CIA plot or an Israeli connection to the attacks is still widely circulated. Moderate newspapers such as his are under attack for relying upon western news agencies and in some cases are losing circulation.
“It is a different life now in some ways,” he said about his readers.
Several ombudsmen reported that their news organizations are under organized attack from pressure groups. National Public Radio personnel have been personally attacked in e-mail campaigns accusing them of being pro-Israeli, and supporters at a Boston station have been asked to stop providing funding.
In recent weeks most of the complaints around the U.S. have been that news organizations are too friendly to the Palestinian cause. A journalist from Israel at the meeting said the majority of people in his country perceive the world’s press as anti-Israeli. Most of the European journalists at the meeting indicated that Europeans feel the U.S. media is far too friendly to Israel.
One frustrated journalist listened to several hours of discussion and concluded: “My worry is that organizations will pull their punches unless we figure out how to deal with this … We just have to do the job of journalism the best we can.”
Some newspapers resort to what an American newsman called “police blotter journalism.” That is reflected in victim-oriented features, often with large photographs, but no context. That leads to news stories that are “heartbreaking, but meaningless,” she said.
There is little actual on-the-scene coverage of major events because the governments involved simply won’t let journalists in.
The military rationale for not allowing reporters to witness events on the ground in both Afghanistan and the West Bank usually has been that it is too dangerous for the press. A historian attending the conference pointed out that was not the case in World War II or Vietnam. But press and government representatives at the conference acknowledged that current political leaders, inside and outside the U.S., believe their best interests are served by controlling access and, where possible, the view of events the world is allowed to see.
That, of course, is not a role a journalist in a free society will ever accept comfortably.
Note: The details of some of our discussions will be posted on the Internet as soon as they can be transcribed. You can look further into the topics at www.newsombudsmen.org.
