Nowhere is impact of today’s quickly changing, highly interactive world of communications more evident than in the news about the New York Times’ panel’s proposals to increase the paper’s credibility with readers — proposals that seem impacted by weblogs’ growing role and the growth of overall intensified media criticism in recent years.
There was a moment in U.S. history when the Times was the undisputed “paper of record,” with its word journalist gold — when other newspapers, the then-three only broadcast network news divisions, and other opinion shapers each day waited with bated breath to see what the Times covered and how it covered it. Newspaper assignment sheets throughout the country were influenced by it. So was a certain segment of the power elite, which adjusted its conventional wisdom by it.
No more. The numbers and kinds of competing information outlets have increased. And in recent years the paper has had to deal with several embarrassing controversies, such as the reporting fabrication scandal surrounding Jayson Blair, a Times reporter who later resigned…taking two editors with him in his wake. As weblogs have multiplied, and media criticism overall has increased as an actual journalistic art form (in newspapers, broadcast and through organizations such as Media Bloggers Association), the Times has come under increasing fire at various moments for its news judgment, alleged arrogance of some of its editors towards smaller paper’ criticism of it, and impartiality.
So how does this paper aim to correct real and perceived ills? With specifics — by a policy decision that it will no longer sit back and expect its history and reputation are enough:
In order to build readers’ confidence, an internal committee at The New York Times has recommended taking a variety of steps, including having senior editors write more regularly about the workings of the paper, tracking errors in a systematic way and responding more assertively to the paper’s critics.
The committee also recommended that the paper “increase our coverage of religion in America” and “cover the country in a fuller way,” with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues.
That’s a good start. What has changed in America is for any media outlet (or blog) to just assume silence is enough to answer specific criticism. It is no longer acceptable for an outlet to take the stance: “We stand by it. Let them prove otherwise.” They need to at the least show what thinking led to a conclusion.
Why? Weblogs do it all the time. So does talk radio. So does cable with rapid airing of viewer comments via email flashed on the screen. The EXPECTATIONS of what is legitimate in terms of interaction and news decisions have changed. More:
The committee, which was charged last fall by Bill Keller, the executive editor, with examining how the paper could increase readers’ trust, said there was “an immense amount that we can do to improve our journalism.”
YES. Because just assuming that the populace still believes The Times is the “paper of record” is not enough.
What if some readers have begun to feel the “record” is inaccurate, poorly put together or biased?
The paper needs to lay out its case — by sharing some of its reasoning behind news judgments and quickly answering good-faith questions (see below) raised — that it still deserves its longtime reputation. And then there’s this:
As examples, the report cited limiting anonymous sources, reducing factual errors and making a clearer distinction between news and opinion. It also said The Times should make the paper’s operations and decisions more transparent to readers through methods like making transcripts of interviews available on its Web site.
Anonymous source usage has gotten out of hand throughout the media in recent years. (When I was on newspapers editors insisted on knowing who the source was and whether it was necessary or not to leave the source anonymous). Posting interview transcripts is not a bad idea, although there could be some ticklish issues about parts of interviews not used, whether unused portions of interviews should be published, and even whether whole transcripts that could be promised to be posted in full are indeed fully posted (remember this is a polarized century).
The report also said The Times should make it easier for readers to send e-mail to reporters and editors. “The Times makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a responsible human being,” the report said.
Sometimes it isn’t possible to respond. Then an automated message could go out promising a quick response. OR the Times can assign an intern to handle responses. There are ways it can increase interaction with readers.
The Internet clearly played a role in this report:
One area of particular concern to Mr. Keller at the outset was the relentless public criticism of the paper, amplified by both the left and right on the Internet, that peaked during last year’s presidential campaign. The paper was largely silent during those attacks, and Mr. Keller asked the committee to consider whether it was “any longer possible to stand silent and stoic under fire.”
The committee asserted that The Times must respond to its critics. The report said it was hard for the paper to resist being in a “defensive crouch” during the election but now urged The Times to explain itself “actively and earnestly” to critics and to readers who are often left confused when charges go unanswered.
“We strongly believe it is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself,” the report stated. “In today’s media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility,” it added. As a result, the committee said, the newsroom should develop a strategy for evaluating public attacks on The Times and determining whether and how to respond to them. “We need to be more assertive about explaining ourselves – our decisions, our methods, our values, how we operate,” the committee said, acknowledging that “there are those who love to hate The Times”‘ and suggesting a focus instead on people who do not have “fixed” opinions about the paper. A parallel goal of this strategy, the committee said, was to assure reporters “that they will be defended when they are subjected to unfair attack.” The defense should be led by journalists in the newsroom, the report said, “with support and advice from our corporate communications, marketing and legal departments.”
YES. Just as the Times’ critics feel it should not be immune to criticism and the need to confront controversy, the accuracy of the Time’s critics must also be solid and undergo the truth test: if its unfounded and based solely on an ideological hatred for the paper because it isn’t running p.r. pieces for their favorite causes or candidates, then the paper must use all of its resources to make that clear to the public.The report also called for the paper to “devise a strategy governing when and where it makes sense for us to be on TV and radio,” and recommended that reporters be given television training.
Talk show radio training won’t hurt, either.
THE BOTTOM LINE: As the information age continues to race into a period where opinions and facts move at mega-second speed, the Times has to be ready to interact with readers faster and respond to its critics comprehensively and quickly if it wants to keep its longtime reputation.
But it also has the responsibility in the interest of truth to point out instances where criticism of its work is not actually about truth, reporting quality, or news judgement but an attempt to go after it for ideological reasons (on the left or right) to neutralize it. The way to combat that? Quick response and increased interaction with readers and those pointing out flaws in the quality of its informational product.
In this new age, newspapers may find that standing by your work is not enough. It also means standing up FOR it.
MUST READ: Jeff Jarvis’ point by point analysis of some points raised by this report.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.