Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
This week brought more distressing news for journalists, as a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found the U.S. public more critical than ever of the accuracy and independence of the media.
Only 29 percent of Americans believe that news organisations generally get the facts straight, the survey found, the lowest level in the survey’s near quarter-century history.
It gets worse:
–Just 26 percent said the media are careful that reporting is not politically biased.
–Only 20 percent believe news organisations are independent of powerful people and organisations.
–Barely a fifth believe the media are willing to admit mistakes.
And news organisations have been able to do what politicians have failed at: creating consensus across party lines. Now solid majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents all believe that stories are often inaccurate and tend to favor one side.
It’s been a long road down. Back in 1985, in the first survey on media performance cited by Pew, 55 percent said news outlets get the facts straight and only 45 percent said the press was politically biased. Now 60 percent see political bias and only 18 percent say the media deal fairly with all sides of political and social issues.
What are we to do?
In the face of criticism, there’s sometimes a tendency to take shelter, keep one’s head down and hope the critics go away. But they won’t go away. And judging by the passionate and sometimes vitriolic criticisms I see in our comment sections, there are significant numbers of readers who will never believe reporters can put aside personal viewpoints and report a story accurately and fairly. You only have to look at discussions of coverage in the Middle East to see that.
The proper response, I believe, can be summed up in two words: More transparency.
That’s why we decided to make freely available to the public the guidelines our journalists live by when we published our Handbook of Journalism–and asked for feedback on it. That’s why I’m doing this job. That’s why we’re aggressive and open about correcting our mistakes. That’s why, in this blog and others, we welcome comments and debate on our work and issues in the news.
Reuters Editor in Chief David Schlesinger put it well in a recent speech, when he described journalism, at its best, as “a mirror, exposing back to society a true and brutally honest picture of what is going on.”
“When we fail at that,” he said, “when our picture is not clear or is at all distorted, we deserve to be criticised.”
At the risk of violating metaphor-overload rules, I invite you to take advantage of the windows we’re opening into our world–our Handbook of Journalism and our blogs–to tell us when you see a distorted picture or when the view is foggy. Or when it’s clear and distinct.
Judging by the dim view of the media revealed in the Pew survey, we can’t open the windows too wide or too soon.
Trackback
140 comments so far
Previous | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | … 1 | Next
Why was debate killed by the moderators on this thread when it was extremely popular??
- Posted by brianDo not underestimate the American people. We are resourceful and with a good dose of common sense. I deeply believe that we will come out of this Crisis, yes different, but better.
- Posted by oscar canosaWhat used to be known as “reporter” is now referred to as “journalist”. Reporters used to be tasked with reporting on stories and writing about the “who” “what” “where” “when” and “why” of a newsworthy event. Today “journailsts” are dedicated to “changing the world” or “making a difference”. That isn’t reporting, that is tinkering, slanting, censoring or even attempting to MAKE the news.
If reporters do not know what their job responsibilities are, they should find a new line of employment. That the biases of our so-called journailsts of today is now so readily apparent, can there be any wonder why the profession is no longer trusted? Further, instead of such bias being rewarded with pink slips from editors, they are rewarded with Pulitzer Prizes - far too often for made-up, totally fabricated tales - that were falsely filed so some “journalist” could “make a difference”.
- Posted by 4DeuceIntegrity is within, the problem is integrity does not get on the front page. Our society drives this train, words like: sex, explosive, mass, horror, tragic and celebrity do. Oh we get anew to jump on every now and then.
Stand back and look at this, what base truths about people could you possibly write.
This has become a world our standard for subjects, if you today’s article, the words might be rearranged, but it will still be there tomorrow.
Dominick
- Posted by Dominick VillapianoFrom WSOPNE.org
Easy as this, stop printing so much crap, and people might actually give it a read.
- Posted by mooseAs this section will obviously not reach Mr. Swann’s record of 170+ VAT comments, I suppose it is time for rebuttal:
As I was standing shoulder high in the empty dam on the farm, not having rained for three years, over the past weekend, surrounded by many species with their own sounds, doing number one, two and even three everywhere they wanted to, many in various stages of labour, everybody out to get rid of my favourite animals, the jackal and the lynx, as they kill 5% of all livestock yearly, I thought to myself: this is beyond prayer.
When I came back to the City of Radioactivity and Cyanide, and reading the comments below, I thought to myself that I should rather have gone to the coast and read Animal Farm in the first place. What a circus.
Let’s then look at EQ if IQ is a sacred word and postulate it is an upside down/inverted IQ bell curve. That would place Forrest Gump on the far left side and JFK on the far right side. We seem to lack EQ.
- Posted by Casper LabFor all the talk of transparent media the (lack of) coverage on the current police state tactics taking place in Pittsburgh right now are going remarkably unnoticed. It’s the first time LRAD’s have been used on the American people under a law that prohibits them from assembling or protesting (with out a permit, they are not giving out permits). This is not news-worthy? The internet is ablaze with these goings-on and yet the major media centers remain pretty much silent on this, little blips about protesters causing violence but nothing of the thousands of police and military attacking these peaceful protesters.
That’s why people don;t trust mainstream media, it’s nothing but a pack of lies, omissions and half truths.
- Posted by OrgizmoI suspect most journalists think they report the truth for the most part. Where they fail, in my opinion, is in intellectual honesty, having been bombarded themselves in college and within their own cocoons with all kinds of false indoctrinations that end up coloring their perspective on everything. They need to get over the persistent intellectual laziness of assuming their notions of the world are correct, and start really questioning everything. Journalists often write or say the most ridiculous things, seemingly oblivious to their own ignorance.
- Posted by Eric PeckhamIf journalism is to strive for an unbiased, objective telling of events, it will first have to start from the precondition that there is a Truth to be told. Unless the journalist believes in the fundamental philosophical principle that Truth Exists, then there can be no objectivity in his journalism.
The problem with journalism today is that the philosophically untenable principle of relativism has become the fundamental paradigm and perspective of journalists. Unfortunately, this reduces Truth to a series of competing, subjective perspectives. When everyone is always “correct,” then someone will always be offended that they are being lied to.
Thus, journalism’s bias becomes most apparent when articles are written that attempt to provide equal footing to perspectives that are contrary to Truth. Consider how words like “progressive,” “right,” and “pro-choice” are used in the journalism. These words are often used in a way that is directly contrary to basic foundational Truth.
Mainstream journalism has taken the proper notion of presenting various perspectives on amoral issues and perverted it. Now issues that touch on the very nature of Truth itself are bandied about without resolution. Tocqueville has correctly identified that democratization tends to degrade the intellectual class and cheapen philosophy. In other words, today we are all journalists, but we no longer know what is True.
- Posted by GaryDean Wright writes: “As an editor with 36 years in this business, I’ve never been more impressed with the quality of the men and women producing journalism.”
There’s the problem, Dean Wright. In therapy, it’s called ‘denial.’ You and other members of your profession seem to bathe in it daily.
Tell you what: next time you look out your window and see a mob of tea-baggers stomping around in the street, go back into your office and read ‘Glenn Beck’s Common Sense.’ Soon as you get through laughing at Glenn Beck and the idiocy of his followers, recall that the press was once known as ‘the schoolmaster of the people.’ Then explain to yourself again why it is that you think journalism is doing a good job for American democracy.
The state of this nation should be the shame of newsmen everywhere.
- Posted by Deacon SolomonOK so lets do a little experiment of our own on reporting a story:
Dean you just made a comment on the results so far of this question. You chose to represent the results in a certain way by breaking them down into 4 general categories you defined and responding in short to each, also pointing out where you sit personally.
Now that’s one way to present results, however after reading and analyzing the last 100 posts myself I found:
- 96% of bloggers strongly agreed there was a serious problem with accuracy, bais or corruption in the media.
- 1 person in 100 (harold trout) thought there were no such problems.
- 3 people spoke off topic and did not address the article.
Now of those 96% the VAST majority were VERY strongly opposed to the current state of the media so much so that most of them took the time and effort to write and articulate very lengthy arguments as to why we should not trust corporate media.
I think I was maybe asking a different question than you dean, but do you think the one i’m asking is more important, or just more dangerous?
- Posted by brianCan anyone explain the difference between my results and deans??
Dean,
Thank you for this ande I hope Reuters will take the findings of this research seriously. The Pew research was probably done nationally, but it should be noted that in parts of the center of the country where I live I would assure you that the media is held in even lower regard; no that I know would say that the national media is unbiased. When Saturday Night Live joked on multiple occaisions about the media being in the tank for Obama did it never become a subject of serious concern in editorial boardrooms? It was funny because it was just the big inside joke of all the smart people, an in-your-face poke at conservatives. But we know the really is hardly different from the parody, and for that reason we mostly just ignore the msm now. You can recover our respect but it will mean making an honest effort at balance and abandon the trivial. The big joke around our house when we turn on the TV news or pick up a paper is for someone to say “I wonder if Michael Jackson is still dead.”
- Posted by Jack L GravesHow about more editorializing and opinion? Seriously. Just shift all the line reporters to commentary, and dispense with news altogether. Because the opinions are so productive and valuable.
- Posted by DMDean,
You are a brave soul for bringing this up. Talk show radio hosts admittedly have biases. Reporters, however should be above this. There is a fundamental flaw in all of this. Major metropolitan areas are countries unto themselves, while the smaller towns and communities are not areas where reporters congregate. You have become elitists to those of us in the boonies.
While you believe, with some credible authority I might add, that a rifle in the hands of an untrained twelve-year old with a .22 caliber rifle in New York City is a bad idea - and the generalized to the other 49 states; I applaud a younster with that rifle for the rabbit meat that he provides his grandmother in Williston, North Dakota.
While you believe that all the federal government should be concentrated in one geographical location - also a large metropolitan area, many believe those congressmen (politically correct and proper protocol for both sexes) should be required to stay in their districts and use current technology to interact while feeling the daily pressure from their constituents. This makes for more expensive reporting and lobbying.
Reporters are out of touch so much with middle America that they don’t even understand that they are out of touch. The Tea Partyers and other perceived radical extremists are the result of years of common sense being trodden upon by the urban patricians. So, the next time you go through Columbia, SC, stop for breakfast at Lizard’s Thicket rather than the Hilton.
Personally, I don’t find many reporters whose biases don’t ooze from the pen like a vile slime that conceals even the most obvious fact. But, then again, that’s probably my bias!
Other than that, most of you guys do a great job. Just call an ace an ace without fear of retribution for political correctness. Remember, most accountants know how to show the facts any way you want to see them. It is up to the astute analyst to determine the most truthful and relevant - unless your boss doesn’t like it.
Come to think of it, you have an impossible job! I’m going for coffee - come along and we’ll talk sports.
- Posted by Brigham 007OK then Reuters - rise to your own challenge of objective news and do a series of investigative stories on how Reuters spewed propaganda during the Iraq war.
Jon Krakauer has just blasted the US propaganda machine with a book about Tillman with references to the Jessica Lynch propaganda stupidity. It came about 7 years too late, but something is better than nothing.
If is safe now for Krakauer to do it, so can Reuters - though I wish you journalists weren’t all so cowardly.
Rise to your own challenge of objective news and do a series of investigative stories on how Reuters spewed propaganda during the Iraq war.
It will be fascinating to see how, despite a “Handbook” the content of a news organization can be controlled and manipulated by Government and Business.
It is time for apologies.
- Posted by JeffThe decline of print media has been blamed on the internet. Another plausible hypothesis is the business goal of market expansion via eighth grade reading level and political goals allowing for the ‘foxification’ of news. US Democracy nolonger lives on a healthy stream of factual data for public decision making. No wonder no one reads papers or treats the president with respect. I say shame on the “Great Generation” for raising the degenerate boomers. I think “baby-bloopers” is more appropriate.
- Posted by Thad CumminsI want to thank the community for a lively and civil discussion. As Sean’s comment pointed out, we’ve certainly had a number of responses, which seem to me to fall into a few categories:
- Posted by Dean Wright–Those who think that news organisations in general–or Reuters journalists in particular–are so hopelessly biased that we can never, ever gain your trust and you’re turning to alternative forms of media. I can only ask that you judge us by our actions and what we produce– and think a bit about what the world would be like with no “mainstream” media to do the everyday reporting that fuels debate in alternative media.
–Those who think we’re trying to be fair, inclusive and unbiased but sometimes suffer lapses. We don’t always succeed in this objective, but I’m in this role to make sure our journalists know and follow the guidelines in our Handbook of Journalism and provide a clear, undistorted picture of the world. Many other news organisations, too, have ombudsmen or reader representatives who help promote high standards in reporting and editing.
–Those who think Reuters and other news organisations are just not very good at the basics of our job. Sadly, sometimes we do make errors–of commission and omission. Still, we correct errors quickly and prominently and we’re always adjusting our coverage tactics and strategies to meet the needs of a changing world. As an editor with 36 years in this business, I’ve never been more impressed with the quality of the men and women producing journalism.
–Those who think news organisations are doing a pretty good job at telling the world’s story, but could do better. I’m in this group, though some days it seems like we have a long, long way to go to prove ourselves. Thanks for your confidence, but as I said in my original piece, it’s vital that we be as transparent as possible about the guidelines we live by and how we do our jobs. That way, it’s more clear when we fall short.
I’ll be returning often in my For the Record column to the issue of trust and I look forward to engaging and lively discussions.
Consumers of news need to do their due diligence.
a) Find out who the reporter is, what are the opinions expressed in the past. After all reporters are people too.
b) If any “expert” opinion is quoted or referred to in the article, who is that expert: is he qualified to be considered an expert on the subject matter at hand.
Given the internet, it is very easy to follow the above formula. It is amazing how fast propaganda is separated from real news.
- Posted by meteorWell Dean, it seems you’ve got some responses to your query. I would like to hear your (and Reuters) response to some of the issues brought up here. I challenge you to publish some of the comments here and respond publically. That would be a good follow-up article to show us you are serious about exposing bias in the media…
- Posted by SeanIn my opinion journalists interviewing other journalists is not news. It is filler. Time filler. T.V. News is a type of entertainment which requires 24-7 content. Hence the need for fill.
- Posted by Lenora MobleyTalk radio does well because it recognizes it is a form of entertainment. It is very funny in our politicall correct T.V. News world.
I was taught long ago to question the authority of the messenger and to keep in mind the messengers stated bias and who gives the messenger their paycheck. Journalists do not do any of this anymore. Our free press, so essential to our political system is not free and unbiased. Journalist have tingles….
Our political system is what makes us Americans. It binds us as U.S. citizens. When our press fails us and when voters do not understand our political process we are in grave danger. The voter then becomes just a part of another group with their hands out in exchange for a vote. Self interest becomes short term interest and U.S. interests are lost. We no longer understand the process and it is like politics today, me;me;me. Long term selfishness requires the facts and responsibility.
Personal responsibility, as a citizen, as a reporter is treated as something out of the 50’s. Health care becomes a right and no one asks the cost.