|
 Previous
| Next
| Home
Intro | Content Analysis | Audience | Economics | Ownership | News Investment | Public Attitudes | Conclusion | Charts & Tables
| Guest
Essay
Intro
By the Project for Excellence in
Journalism and Rick Edmonds of The Poynter Institute
When it comes to attitudes about the press, 2003 painted
a pretty grim picture of low and declining trust in the media
over all and especially in newspapers. Over the last year,
those trends have only been reinforced. And one positive sign,
that people tended to wander back to print as major breaking
news subsides, no longer holds true.
In 2004 just half of those surveyed, according to Pew Research
Center data, ranked the newspaper they are most familiar with
as being believable (1 or 2 on a scale of 1 to 4). This is
down nine percentage points from 2002, and 13 points from
1998. A scant 17% gave their newspaper the highest believability
rating, a 1 on the scale, down from 27% in 1998.
National newspapers, despite their size and resources, rated
no better than local. Believability ratings for The New York
Times, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal were all below
50%. Believability for most network and cable outlets is on
the decline as well, but still falls somewhere between 54%
and 65%.
The most significant shift over the last year is that newspapers
are losing more readers during major news events and are not
pulling them back when events subside. What we have seen in
the past is a predilection for television during big news
stories but then a return to newspapers once the big news
event dies down. The 2004 data suggest not only an increased
gravitation to television for the big story but a suggestion
that the draw may remain even for everyday news.
In March 2003, newspapers were the primary source of news
about the war in Iraq
for 24% of respondents. In March of 2004, the big story was
the presidential election. Just 17% named newspapers as their
primary source for news. Television, on the other hand, was
named by close to half of respondents (47%). Two in ten (21%)
respondents did volunteer that they got most of their news
from a "combination" of outlets, which could include
some newspaper reading.
And the implications forthe fondness for television in election
coverage may be even more significant, since elections are
not as naturally tied to video as are stories like the Iraq
war.
In addition, Americans displayed a desire for pictures over
words. Most (55%) said they prefer pictures over words while
just 40% prefer reading or hearing about events.
Additional data from Arbitron/Edison Media Research adds
fuel to the sense that newspapers are second fiddle to television
for news. When asked which medium a is "MOST essential"
to their lives, only 11% of survey respondents said newspapers,
compared to 39% for TV, 26% for radio and 20% for the Internet.
What's more, the picture doesn't look much better among the
more highly educated. Among those with a college degree, 13%
report newspapers as the most essential medium, not much higher
than the 11% overall.
The only positive sign for newspapers may be that people
want more than headlines. Four in ten want thoughtful analysis,
something that the condensed time frame of network television
and the format of cable often do not accommodate. Another
37% want headlines plus some facts. Just 18% say they want
only headlines.
As on-demand news, images and audio become more a part of
everyday news consumption, newspaper companies may have a
difficult time convincing people to choose their publications
over other media - especially during breaking news. In the
end, quality, consistency and depth of coverage may be newspapers'
best selling points.
While many newspapers pride themselves on the depth of their
information, recent scandals at leading newspapers have challenged
the industry's credibility.
The Credibility Conundrum
Credibility has been the subject of much study and hand-wringing
within the industry for several decades now. It was the topic
of a major research project of the American Society of Newspaper
Editors (ASNE), beginning in 1997 and concluding with publication
of a credibility handbook in 2001. More recently the Associated
Press Managing Editors persuaded 50 of its member papers to
hold "credibility roundtables" with citizens in
their communities.
The somewhat abstract problem got a human face in 2003 when
The New York Times found that a reporter, Jayson Blair, had
frequently plagiarized or fabricated material for his stories.
Another Times reporter, Rick Bragg, was asked to resign over
so-called "toe-touch" datelines - passing quickly
through a town but constructing a story from an uncredited
stringer's file.
In 2004, The Times got company when USA Today found that
its star roving foreign correspondent, Jack Kelley, had fabricated
some of his most dramatic stories, notably a first-person
account of a café bombing in Israel. More than a dozen
reporters around the country had been fired for lesser instances
of plagiarism.
As newspapers set about writing more detailed ethics codes
and smoking out offenders, they could take some cold comfort
from surveys, which suggested that the Blair and Kelley incidents
didn't seem to move the needle.
Of course, credibility was abysmal in the first place.
Perhaps a more material consideration is that the majority
in surveys who say they don't find newspapers believable represent
a coalition of complaints - everything from thinking many
stories are inaccurate or incomplete to claiming a paper is
politically biased or too negative to business, government
or a given town.
The ASNE credibility handbook adds additional criticisms:
a sense that the paper is inaccessible or out of touch with
its community, and not seeing one's concerns - especially
those of minorities and young people - represented in print.
Academic studies of credibility treat it as a "multidimensional"
concept including at least believability, accuracy, trustworthiness,
bias and completeness.
Some amplify the list to include sensationalism and a half-dozen
additional items.
Add it up, and the surveys probably DON'T mean readers think
their paper will misreport the results of the Super Bowl.
But looking at the picture over all, there is a one-two-three
punch of bad news for newspapers:
- Newspapers continue to lag behind television as a believable
source and are not closing the gap.
- Newspapers now seem to have lost readers in what used
to be their strong point - offering after-the-fact analysis
in times when news events have slowed down.
- Credibility is on a steady downward track, with online
enthusiasts rating the Internet a more credible news source
than either newspapers or TV.
Click
here to view footnotes for this section.
Previous
| Next
| Home
Intro | Content Analysis | Audience | Economics | Ownership | News Investment | Public Attitudes | Conclusion | Charts & Tables
| Guest
Essay
|
Go to Journalism.org | View 2004 Edition 
Print
this page