The reader with a copy of an evening newspaper gripped firmly in hand might find it a bit hard to swallow the concept that 30 cents worth of newsprint and ink might be considered an essential component in some great human endeavor. Yet that newspaper is a cornerstone upon which has been constructed the American system of democracy.
Thomas Jefferson underscored the importance of the press when he wrote, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Our society is fortunate in never having been forced to make such an unpalatable choice, but there is a rising concern among members of the “fourth estate” about growing public hostility to the press, and how this hostility might eventually translate into restrictions that would upset the balance which has enabled our people to remain self-governing for two centuries.
People too often assume that First Amendment guarantees of a free press ensure that there will be a press. But without public good will and financial support, the press cannot exist. First Amendment protections would not keep Newsday in business, for instance, if no one subscribed to the paper.
Perhaps more than any other profession, the press in this country regularly engages in a public self-examination of how its members perform. In most professions, this review would be perceived as a welcome means of openly exposing the successes, as well as the failures, which are common to any human pursuit. But there appears to be a growing public disfavor with press activities anyway.
A recent manifestation of journalistic concern over the public’s dissatisfaction was a recent article by Newsday’s publisher David Laventhol (“The Wrongs and Rights of the Press,” Viewpoints, May 4) which cited convincing evidence that public displeasure has now reached a point where it threatens to infringe on the ability of journalists to freely operate. After examining instances of legitimate complaints about the press, and urging that such abuses be corrected by more stringent application of traditional journalistic standards, Laventhol poses an open question: How can the press do a better job?
As one who deals with the press on a daily basis, I have an unusual vantage point for observing how well reporters do their job. Few people get to witness news before as well as after a story is printed. My personal judgement is that the press generally offers an accurate chronicle of current events.
Why do the few mistakes, to which reporters, like every other human being, are susceptible, make such an impression on the public? Ironically, the reason may be that just as it is the unusual circumstance that makes news - the “man bites dog” principle - it is the unusual instance of a press misstep that makes the strongest impression on the public consciousness.
Maybe it is time for the press to think of the public as more than just readers, subscribers or a target audience for advertising; they are consumers of a product known as the news. In this sense the public might benefit if they knew more about what goes into the product. At a time in which a wealth of information is available about most products offered for sale, consumers know very little about what goes into the production of a news report.
A news story is more than just the presentation of a series of facts. Before being offered to the public, the specific details of a story are also scrutinized against a framework of ethical and philosophical standards.
The ethics of journalism - such questions as protecting sources or affording the targets of accusations an opportunity to respond - are relatively standard. But there is a wide variation in news philosophy - the news organization’s view of what’s important, of what’s newsworthy.
Consistent application of journalistic standards can go a long way toward eliminating the personal biases of individual reporters and insuring the uniform quality of the product offered by each organization. But an even greater might be realized by the consumer, whose understanding of the philosophy and ethics of a particular news gathering organization can provide a frame of reference against which to judge the journalistic product.
What’s the best way to provide the consumer with a mechanism for determining the consistency with which a particular news organization satisfies the demands of its philosophical and ethical policies? A possible solution would be for each news organization to publish a regular review, focusing on how it covered one particular story.
Such a review would include an analysis of how reporters first became aware of the story, how the information was gathered, what steps were taken to verify the information, how the editors reviewed it and why they decided it was important enough for publication, all the way to whether or not the editorial board felt the subject was worthy of an editorial. Ideally, the reader would be left with a sense of having personally attended the internal meetings that considered the story.
This approach would give the public an opportunity to know what each news organization expects of itself, and in turn what they should expect of that organization. It informs, and involves consumers in the process of news reporting, and in so doing just might improve the process as well.
Of greater importance, the public would begin to arrive at a more complete understanding of why the press has its particular ethical and philosophic standards. With such an understanding the public might be more supportive of journalist’s demands for access to government information, such as during the invasion of Grenada, and less tolerant of government and private attempts to restrict the press through legislation, lawsuits and other means of intimidation.
Laventhol compared the situation confronting the press to the dilemma encountered by the messengers of ancient days, who faced the possibility of being beheaded for brining bad news. But the problem is really a crisis of consumer confidence. The public’s disapproval of the press is not so much a problem of hostility to the bearer of bad news as it is a suspicion by consumers that the news has been brought to them badly. If the press will develop a case to persuade the court of public opinion that the evidence against it is largely false, the mercy of the court will be sufficient to stay any execution.
