The Road to Accountability

Professor Mike Berlin has traversed the USA discussing accountability issues with journalists and editors. John Morgan and Jack R Herman summarise his findings.

This article is based on, and largely extracted from, an internet series by Professor Michael J Berlin, associate professor of journalism at Boston University College of Communication. He spent much of his sabbatical leave last year driving across the US from Boston to Seattle and Los Angeles talking to editors and reporters engaged in local, middle-sized and big-time journalism about the problems of credibility and accountability. Mike has been teaching journalism at Boston University since 1990. Before that he practiced it for almost 30 years as a reporter and editor for several American newspapers, specialising in diplomatic coverage for much of that time, during which he covered the United Nations for the Washington Post. He was a Fulbright lecturer at the China School of Journalism in Beijing in 1988-89 and in 1995 he was a Fulbright lecturer in Moscow.

The series of articles is on the web in several chapters, starting at: http://www.bu.edu/com/jo/accountability1.html.

Mike would welcome any response readers care to make to mjberlin@bu.edu

Can Australian newspapers learn anything from the current debates on credibility, accountability and civic journalism being conducted in the US? Over there, there is concern in the print media about the 'credibility gap' between newspapers and their readers.

The question being asked is how can American newspapers connect more effectively with their audiences? A similar question is raised in Australia by falling circulations and the inability to expand circulations into younger demographics.

In his internet series Professor Berlin explains his trek across the US in search of The Road to Accountability: "In recent years, the public disgust with the media, and some of the reasons for it (plagiarism, the coverage of the Clinton scandals and the difficulty the audience has found in drawing a line between the journalism of unreliable opinion-mongers or online gossips and the journalism of mainstream reporters who are trying to play it straight) have become the focus of discussion in my classes on media ethics."

In his introduction he says: "Everyone knows that American news media have lost credibility in the last few years. The reasons are pretty clear:

His basic assumptions included that "news organizations must become more accountable to their audiences. They must find better ways to listen, not just to report, but to grasp what it is that the public wants from them, and to explain to the readers how and why they do what they do, even if what they do grates on some customers. It's no longer enough to listen to sources and then just talk to the public; there must be a dialogue with the audience as well."

He recognises that the danger that such dialogue could lead to a pandering to the audience, rather than following news values but asks whether newspapers can balance good journalism with engagement of the reader.

In the general absence in the US of the independent self-regulatory Press Council (there are community councils in Minnesota, Washington state and Honolulu), other accountability systems have to be relied on. These include corrections, letters to the editor, reader forums, overt invitations to readers to provide feedback on stories by phone or email, or appointing a visible "reader representative," often called an ombudsman, whose job it is to listen to the public and handle gripes. Online technology allows for new feedback mechanisms which provide another level of accountability. Berlin discusses many of these mechanisms with journalist subjects.

In the US, there has been an on-going debate about whether newspapers should explain their reasons for running controversial material. Many editors now run sidebars to major stories, giving the readers an explanation for printing the story, or reporting it in the way it's reported. Another way to connect, says Glenn Ritt, editor at the Cape Codder, a small twice weekly community newspaper (one of Berlin's interviewees), is that "editors must write." His weekly column often explains to readers why the newspaper does what it does.

Barrie Hartman, editorial page editor at the Boulder Camera, another small community newspaper, like most newspapers its size, does not have an ombudsman or reader representative to look closely at decisions on publication. It no longer has a regular editor's column that provides this transparency (the last editor who wrote one left five years ago). Hartman says, "I do believe in that, but we don't do it regularly." Occasionally, he says, Colleen Conant, the editor and publisher, will "write something about why we do something. When she first came [about three years ago] she wrote an apology for something awful we did. That column prompted a very positive response."

According to Managing Editor of the Columbus Dispatch, Mary Lynn Plageman, in another effort to be accountable and shore up credibility, the paper has moved to explain itself more often, in a variety of ways. For example, local cops cracked down on crime in the parks and arrested 30 men on charges of exposing themselves. "It is a crime we'd normally never report on," says Plageman, "but the point of the story was the issue of safety in the parks. We had an internal, day-long debate, a [contentious] in-house discussion, and in the end we ran all the names and addresses, and some occupations. But with it, on the jump page, we ran a 10-inch editor's note explaining our decision-making, and promising to follow up the story."

Subsequent to his interview with Berlin, chief editor Ben Marrison kicked off a series of occasional columns, called "The Inside Story," which he told readers will "explain our decisions, inform you of changes and generally try to demystify the newspaper process."

The Kansas City Star's efforts to be more reader-friendly include greater transparency, explaining why and how the newspaper does what it does. "We do it occasionally in an editor's comment box, and I do it [regularly] in my column," says Miriam Pepper, the paper's 'readers' representative'. Her column is the major venue for answering technical questions, such as why the newsprint curls and how the old file photo of serial killer John Wayne Gacy, dressed as a clown, appeared in a photo spread on "clown week." ("Somehow, that picture ended up in our clown file," she says with an embarrassed shrug.)

Explanatory comments are linked to stories when gripes are expected, she says. For example, when the newspaper ran photos of a funeral, editors figured there might be reader complaints that it was intruding on the family's grief and so it inserted into the story a line saying that the family had invited the Star to cover the service and speak with the survivors. And, anticipating complaints about the salacious nature of some of the content of the Ken Starr report on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, Editor Mark Zieman explained in a column why the Star decided to publish the full text. Another way in which the Star opens itself to readers is by inviting them into the office to discuss complaints and opening the daily story meeting on a particular day each month to a limited number.

On the other hand, in Denver, the Rocky Mountain News' John Temple, argues, "I don't want to start explaining everything I do. Newspapers are too sensitive to this. I only do so in exceptional circumstances. I still believe that if you have to do it, you do it within the story. You rise or fall on what is the story. You may explain in the third paragraph why the story matters, but you don't have to do a column explaining your damn story."

The Rocky Mountain News did run a news story on the controversy over a segment of the comic strip For Better or for Worse that dealt with gay issues. Temple recalls ruefully that because that story ran, "we were deluged with calls. That was our mistake. With no story, it would have been less controversial."

Mary Lynn Plageman at the Columbus Dispatch, among others, recognises that one way to improve accuracy is to call back sources to check technical information in a story. "We don't let sources see the stories," but in some cases - the use of numbers, budgetary stories, graphics, listings of events - "we let the source look to eliminate errors of time and place, or we go to an agency and say, 'Here's our finding using your numbers. Is anything wrong?'"

Plagued by errors made in previous years, the Dispatch "let the Ohio State Fair folks proof all of our daily fair graphics - to verify the accuracy of the events and special ticket prices. In the interest of fair patrons - many of whom rely on The Dispatch to provide that daily information - we were determined to be error-free with it this year (and we succeeded, I'm happy to report)."

In general, she says, veteran reporters are more comfortable than younger reporters when it comes to doing such readbacks - which is the exact opposite of the comment by Cape Cod Times editor Cliff Schechtman. (When asked whether he was trying to improve accuracy by encouraging reporters to read copy back to their sources to eliminate factual errors and improve clarity, he says readbacks, "are a good concept, but we have an older staff, so there is less of it.")

Carolyn Kingcade, readers' representative at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes that one way to cut down on errors and corrections is to get back to sources to double-check facts, interpretations and quotes. At the Post-Dispatch, such readbacks are "up to each reporter or editor, and are done very sporadically," Kingcade says. As a columnist, she sees the value of readbacks, because even if the facts are straight, "there are nuances you catch that are worthwhile. And it sometimes helps to get the shock value over with before it hits the paper. I don't have a problem with it, and I definitely would encourage the whole staff to do it, even if some sources do change their minds about a quote."

Barney Calame, the Wall Street Journal's deputy managing editor who oversees staff ethics and story quality, encourages reporters to read back quotes to sources to avoid errors being made, but warns reporters against making agreements with sources on the right to clear quotes before publication.

Cliff Schechtman, of the Cape Cod Times, points to a central paradox of newspapering: "old-fashioned, probing journalism is what will build credibility, while at the same time it will inevitably alienate a part of our constituency." As a result, he says, "the debate over credibility is bull. If you publish the truth as you know it at a given time, or show the community and City Hall with warts and all, people take their shots. We have to be fair, honest, accurate. We [alienate] people, of course, because we report the truth - and that's just too bad. However, I believe very strongly that we should be sensitive to readers' concerns. I want to publish things they care about. But my feeling is that both our screw-ups and our good journalism bring the same volume of complaints."

Barney Calame says that the editors at the Wall Street Journal, like all good journalists, insist on accuracy. "Some of the people we're serving sometimes make decisions on the basis of what we put in the paper. They shouldn't, but they do. We really feel that responsibility." As a result, the Journal's policy is to make corrections in print and on line, if anyone notices an error, whether or not there are complaints.

At the New York Times assistant managing editor, Al Siegal, says that the most overt aspect of the concern with accuracy is the volume of corrections run on page two each day (or in an equivalent position in the specialized sections of the paper.) "We correct every error we can find" There is a concern at the newspaper with "the malignancy of misspelled names, which, if you haven't noticed, has become one of the great themes of our corrections column...In the first 255 days of this year ... we've had 1,739 corrections, an average of 6.82 a day, up a total of 173 corrections on the year ... There have been 198 corrections this year for misspelled given names and surnames, the overwhelming majority easily checkable on the Internet."

Miriam Pepper at the Kansas City Star says that, among the complaints she gets, "accuracy is the number one gripe. It's usually the little things. Invasion of privacy is not that big a problem here, because we are very conservative on that score." The rule for reporters and editors is that any factual error must be corrected, and it is a firing offence if a reporter is found to have hidden an error. Corrections are run regularly on page two (in keeping with a policy being adopted by more and more newspapers). There is a follow-up form for erring reporters to fill out, and those who make more than two errors must go to training sessions, which are also offered to new reporters.

Glenn Guzzo at the Denver Post says that corrections are run on page two and on the sports and editorial pages, and each time they run, there is an invitation to the public to call in fixes. He expresses concern about "too many typos", although "our regular critics say they notice improvement".

The Rocky Mountain News' John Temple says that in addition to inviting the public to point out errors, and running corrections on page two, the newspaper has an internal corrections process. "We build a database of every error we make - how, who, the cause. We look for patterns. Reporters who commit multiple errors are called in for a meeting with the managing editor."

The New York Times' Al Siegal was extraordinarily emphatic about newspaper ombudsmen. He says "the difference between our process and a reader representative or ombudsman is mainly one of [public relations]. We accomplish the same accountability goals without interposing a third party between the reader and the top editors. [The executive editor] wants to know what the problem is and wants the public to see his involvement. He's not going to hide behind a PR reader rep. The public visibility of an ombudsman is useful, but they [newspapers that use ombudsmen] pay a price."

Siegal cited as an example "coverage of controversial issues and especially material involving sensitive confidential sources ... An ombudsman would inevitably have to be responsive to complaints from organized protest groups without having access to the identities of the reporters' sources. At the Times, editors would not be "bypassed or disengaged" when questions are raised by outsiders about a reporter's work. "[At the Times,] the reporters are not being kibbitzed by a professional kibbitzer whose credentials are not as impressive as theirs."

Citing the Washington Post as an example, he says that if he were a reporter there, "I'd want to feel [Executive Editor] Len Downie, not [the newspaper's Ombudsman], is responsible for criticism of my story. " Siegal says Bill Borders, the editor in charge of quality control and reader relations, is as close as the Times gets to having a reader representative, but his role is very different from investigating and pronouncing on a reporter's coverage.

Borders recognizes the "huge" importance of the various accountability mechanisms, because (he says) the 1.1 million people who buy the Times today are making a voluntary decision, "and tomorrow they may do something else. We always have had to be more like Macy's [in satisfying customers]. What can we do to halt this hideous erosion of credibility in the media? It is imperative for us to try to dissipate that generally held impression, and the way is to take a posture of non-arrogance. If we think they're smart enough to be our readers, why don't we think they're smart enough to listen to?"

Lynn Plageman says that the Columbus Dispatch's editors have talked about the introduction of an ombudsman to symbolise their focus on relating more closely to their audience. "But it's a tight staff," which means that using editorial budget for an ombudsman is not the highest priority. She made clear in her email to Berlin some time after their interview that since there was now an editor's column that ran regularly, focussing on explaining the news process and responding to complaints, there was no present need to bring in a reader representative.

Plageman concludes: "We have to overcome a century or more of belief [by both readers and newspaper people] that newspapers are not supposed to be part of the community, but removed from the debate at large. As a first step, our editor has begun to open a dialogue with community groups."

At the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the newspaper brought in an outsider (a journalism professor from North Carolina) as a part-time readers' advocate. But "he only visited occasionally. It did not work," says Carolyne Kingcade. After several months, he resigned and the post lay vacant until 1999, when Kingcade was named Senior Editor for Readership Issues, or reader's advocate. She has had a long career in St. Louis as a reporter and editor with close links to the community and a reputation for championing the concerns of readers. Her main function, she says, is to make better connections with readers, listen to any complaints from news sources and "show that we are more accessible than people think we are." The most visible manifestation of the Post-Dispatch's accessibility, transparency and concern for readers is Kingcade's regular Sunday column which discusses ethical issues.

Kingcade has dealt with complaints about political bias in the newspaper. She notes a widespread perception of a liberal bias in news coverage, "a perception that we have some political agenda".

"Some gripes about a liberal bias have a point," she admits, noting that nobody calls to complain that the Post-Dispatch is too conservative. "But the reasons for the slant are almost never with the deliberation that readers suspect. I've learned that this perception is just as bad for the paper's credibility." Several of her columns have dealt with this issue.

Kingcade has used her position to initiate changes. She notes that the newspaper has begun holding workshops to teach staffers how to respond appropriately to the public over the phone. In addition to her column, Kingcade helps coordinate a "community outreach" program, in which newspaper staffers "go to neighborhood meetings to talk to people and let them know what the Post-Dispatch has done to connect with readers."

To further expand the newspaper's transparency, she says, "We've also talked about [inviting community groups to visit] the newsroom to see how it operates, to see how decisions are made in the morning news meetings and what happens as pages are set up in the evenings; to dispel myths ..." Kingcade admits that many readers and community leaders "feel unwelcome inside the building," and says that has to change.

The Kansas City Star's Director of Strategic Business Development points out that, in appointing a readers' representative, the real challenge was "changing the culture of the newsroom, viewing readers as customers who are free to take their business elsewhere. Newsrooms long have assumed they know best what readers need and want from newspapers, but too rarely do newsrooms talk to readers before forming these conclusions ... there still are many in the newsroom who just don't want to yield in that way." According to Berlin, the question left unspoken, by Weaver, anyway, is what lessons should be drawn about being reader-friendly if that doesn't improve the bottom line? Does a newspaper, especially a monopoly newspaper, act like a retailer by removing from the shelves items that don't move? Or by packaging news in a more entertaining but perhaps less newsworthy way?

In Denver, the Post's Glenn Guzzo's response to the question of an ombusdsman is that "if you studied it, you'd find that those who write critically of the Post's editorial positions and coverage are more likely to be published, and at greater length, including guest columns. The News' John Temple says that "because we are willing to be bashed, we can get away without having an ombudsman" at the News. "No paper needs an ombudsman," he argues. "Some may decide they want them for various reasons. The News has had three ombudsmen in recent years. The most recent was Jean Otto. When she retired we didn't find the right person to take the job. I think that it's essential you have somebody with a deep understanding of the newspaper business in that position." Guzzo says the Post doesn't have an ombudsman because of cost, "not principle. I can use more reporters before I can justify the cost of that position. We expect our managers to be responsive" to the public.

The Wall Street Journal's Barney Calame had a different spin on the questions of ethics. Legal problems are very real for the Journal, because what it reports is often demonstrably quantifiable in terms of someone's profit or loss. It was hit with the largest jury libel verdict in U.S. history, although the case ultimately was dismissed on appeal. The Journal, more than other newspapers, is cautious about establishing or publicising internal norms such as an ethics code. "We have an active program in place to discuss ethics on an ongoing basis with all of our reporters and editors, which we think just works better than a "code' that sits in someone's desk," Calame explains. "Dow Jones (the owner) actually has a published code of conduct, which is different than an ethics code, [one] that deals quite explicitly with financial conflicts of interest for all employees of Dow Jones. The publisher of the Journal wrote at some length on the code in the paper just last January."

The Cape Codder's Glenn Ritt is a strong advocate of what is called "civic journalism," the idea that the news organization must go beyond objectivity to become engaged in the community. "The news organization has to do problem-solving," he insists. "It must always be engaged in the conflict. It must engage as a partner with the Cape Cod Natural History Museum or the local Chambers of Commerce. If the community feels that you are so leery of conflict that you don't stay engaged, you become irrelevant. You don't keep elements of the community away. You provide channels for people to find each other, not just as a medium but as a facilitator. You manage not just the newsroom - you manage the community."

Is there a danger, when an advertiser becomes a columnist, that the conflict of interest is palpable? Is there a danger if the newspaper itself promotes a policy, asking government to prioritise it? Is there a danger that engagement will provide the impression of bias or imbalance? Ritt recognises these dangers, and speaks confidently about his ability to "walk a fine line," insisting that the conflicts of interest involve a "balancing act," and can be "managed." (One way, he says, is to build a wall between the news reporters and the news organization's activism.) He argues that accuracy and balance are worthless without the dynamism of engagement in the community. Unlike the editor of a large metropolitan daily, much more direct community involvement is expected of a weekly newspaper editor. The public must know where to find you, he insists. He spends a lot of time attending local functions, from a ceremony honouring a town's top teachers to a public meeting on affordable housing.

Another community newspaper, the Boulder Camera, leads readers to issues, rather than simply following them. The editor and publisher has selected several issues that she believes are important to the community and makes sure the newspaper covers those topics. Among them are youth news, poverty and philanthropy.

Boulder is a wealthy town, but its people give less in charitable donations than the national average. After years of talking with local non-profit groups and "realising they need help," the Camera launched its own campaign to promote giving, and in particular urged readers to set aside a percentage of their salaries for charity. "It is a whole-newspaper effort, with stories, editorials, columns, advertisements - a true partnership". This is an exercise in Civic Journalism, one of which the Camera is proud, but one that raises the question of whether the newspaper loses objectivity on institutions it covers in the news columns if it initiates a promotion on their behalf.

Thad Keyes, the managing editor, says, "I admit freely that we have vigorous debates over the topic within our own newsroom, which I think is healthy. The best civic journalism is meeting and exceeding core journalistic values every day in every edition to inform, broaden and provoke thought in citizens."

Should newspapers provide direct contact details for journalists? Email addresses or phone numbers or both? And what result does provision of such information have?

Barbara Crossette (at the New York Times), who covers the United Nations, says the level of emailed reader response has been less than the increase in press releases, and she still gets more regular mail and phone calls. In all, she says, it takes about 45 minutes a day to answer messages, letters and phone calls. "Although some of this is 'hate mail', they also often offer new ideas or angles I can incorporate later. Some offer themselves as sources, and I have kept a number on file.

"On the whole, I think it is a very good idea to interact with readers, even those whose minds are closed long before they take up pen or cursor. I am very worried by the plummeting level of credibility in the press and the sense I gather from doing some public appearances that people think we're out to get them or warp them... We in the media have often exhibited a great deal of arrogance on many occasions.

"On the other hand, I think it is insanity to let readers decide what we will write or publish. That I see as the greatest danger of feedback... Market researchers...want to tell us what the folks out there want. Especially in foreign affairs, we in the field can feel the world shrinking around us right in the newsrooms and corporate boardrooms ..."

Jonathan Clements, a Wall Street Journal columnist who writes about personal finance, says that email has vastly increased the volume of his reader responses. "Before email became widespread, I would get a fair number of phone calls and letters from readers; now, I get almost none," he says, in response to an email query.

"Instead, almost all the correspondence comes via email. When soliciting comments from readers, which I have done a couple of times, I've typically received 400-plus emails. When it's simply readers responding to a column, the number of messages varies with the degree of outrage generated. A controversial column might get 100 emails. A more straightforward personal-finance column might get as few as 10.

"I have ended up using correspondents as anecdotes for stories (after, of course, contacting them and making sure they are agreeable). I also use emails to gauge what interests readers and what issues seem to cause the most confusion, and thus could be better expained next time I tackle the topic. And, occasionally, I pick up intriguing ideas from readers, which have become the basis of columns. Journalism has always been a fishbowl. You mess up or anger somebody, you hear about it. That was true long before email. The ease of sending messages has simply meant that the criticism is quicker and louder."

Note from Professor Berlin: All the editors who were the subjects of live interviews were given "readbacks" - the chance to comment on the first draft to fix my factual errors or misinterpretations.

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.

	About the Council [ its history and benefits of self-regulation \| Members] \| Adjudications \| Complaints [ Privacy Standards \| Complaint Procedure \| Make a Complaint ] \| Public activities [ Council publications \| Case Studies \| APC Fellow \| Public Forums \| APC Prize] \| Annual Address ] \| Freedom of the Press \| What's New \| APC News \| Guidelines \| Links \| Search this site [ by keyword or browse the sitemap ] \|

	Last updated 1 February 2004 All material ©The Australian Press Council. Email: info@presscouncil.org.au Copyright and Disclaimer Notice Website Design, Construction & Maintenance by Catherine McDonnell and the Australian Press Council.