For the Record
Dean Wright on Ethics, Innovation and Values
Audience and media: Can this marriage be saved?
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
Reuters recently hosted a panel at our New York headquarters called “Audience and the Media: A Shaky Marriage.” I was on the panel with a distinguished group: Lisa Shepard, ombudsman of National Public Radio; Andrew Alexander, ombudsman of The Washington Post; and Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor of The Associated Press. Jack Shafer, editor-at-large of Slate, was the moderator.
The key question we explored was: “How can mainstream news organizations retain (or regain) their audiences’ trust in a skeptical world where almost anyone with an Internet connection can be a publisher?” It will come as no surprise that we did not answer the question definitively in the 75 minutes we were on stage. However, a number of questions–some quite troubling–were raised. Rather than attempt to summarize all the points raised and positions taken by the panelists and the audience, I’ll explore some of the questions raised in my mind.
–Why do people mistrust the media and whose fault is it?
Much of the fault lies with the mainstream media. For far too many years, news organizations had an arrogant, one-way relationship with our audiences. We gathered news, packaged it in ways we thought made sense and shoveled it out to our audiences. If you liked what we delivered, fine. If not, well, you could always write a letter to the editor of the newspaper where you saw the story. Now I think the balance is much better. Feedback is instantaneous, transparency is the norm and our readers can also be publishers on their own.
On the other hand, much of the distrust is not our fault. Discourse–certainly in the United States– has become far more polarized and news consumers are seeking out news sources that support their own politics or world view. That makes it especially difficult for those of us who pride ourselves on being independent and free of bias. Readers sometimes see bias when a news report doesn’t support their particular world view.
Let’s remember that the idea of an unbiased and independent press is relatively new. Many news consumers around the world choose a news outlet that reflects their world view. I worry that a large cohort of news consumers now expect that–and prefer it.
Dim view of media? Try more transparency
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.
I glanced over the values and find “commission” but where is “omission”? Failure to report on the Tax Day Tea Parties (which I did not attend) was lamentable. Thousands of Americans in all 50 states participating in any activity is newsworthy. This, naturally, leads one of wonder what else you are omitting? And why? And who decided that we didn’t need to be informed? And with what agenda?
A is for abattoir; Z is for ZULU: All in the Handbook of Journalism
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
The first entry is abattoir (not abbatoir); the last is ZULU (a term used by Western military forces to mean GMT).
In between are 2,211 additional entries in the A-to-Z general style guide, part of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, which we are now making available online. Also included in the handbook are sections on standards and values; a guide to operations; a sports style guide and a section of specialised guidance on such issues as personal investments by journalists, dealing with threats and complaints and reporting information found on the internet.
The handbook is the guidance Reuters journalists live by — and we’re proud of it. Until now, it hasn’t been freely available to the public. In the early 1990s, a printed handbook was published and in 2006 the Reuters Foundation published a relatively short PDF online that gave some basic guidance to reporters. But it’s only now that we’re putting the full handbook online.
We’ve decided to make the handbook available to everyone for a number of reasons. Among them:
- Transparency: At a time when trust is an endangered commodity in the financial and media worlds, it’s important that news consumers see the guidelines our journalists follow.
- Service: As we’ve seen over the past decade, the barriers to publishing have dropped so that anyone with an idea and a computer can be a publisher. But it’s also become clear that publishers have a varying standard of truth, fairness and style. Our handbook is a good place for budding journalists to begin.
- Geography: Reuters serves a global audience and the handbook recognises the cultural and political differences that our journalists face in reporting for the world. This is a handbook not just for English-language journalists in the United Kingdom or the United States, but for wherever English is used.
Many entries deal with words that are sometimes confused or misused. Turning randomly to the “H” section, we learn the difference between hyperthermia and hypothermia (The latter means “Too cold. Think that o rhymes with low” while the former means “Too hot. Think of ‘er’ as in very.”); Haarlem and Harlem (the latter is in New York City, the former in the Netherlands); hangar and hanger (the latter is for clothes, the former a shelter for aircraft); and hale and hail (the former means “free from disease, or to pull or haul by force.” The latter “is to salute or call out, or an ice shower”).
Some good stuff to read… enjoyed your post, thanks..
Oscar special: Journalists on film
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
It’s Oscar time, and I’m again reminded of the debt Hollywood and journalists owe each other. Journalists supply Hollywood with great stories and Hollywood sometimes makes us look cool—or at least worth a couple of hours of time and the price of a ticket.
Put aside the fact that a number of Hollywood movies literally are made from the pages of journalism –“Saturday Night Fever,” “Dog Day Afternoon” and “Adaptation,” to name only a few, were all based on magazine stories. We journalists are also the very characters that Hollywood screenwriters sometimes love.
In addition to sometimes bringing out our cool factor—although, really, what aspiring reporter could resist Robert Redford’s corduroy suits in “All the President’s Men”? — Hollywood movies can illuminate the kind of ethical, moral and values issues that journalists have to deal with.
This year’s slate of Oscar nominees again includes a movie with journalism as its subject. “Frost/Nixon,” the film adaptation of the Broadway play about British journalist David Frost’s pursuit of the ultimate interview with disgraced former U.S. President Richard Nixon, is nominated for five Oscars.
So here is a completely arbitrary list of my top dozen movies about journalism that have something to say about the way we do our jobs–ethical or unethical, selfish or selfless. Aside from that, about the only thing they have in common is that they all were at least nominated for Oscars. I’ll also acknowledge that most of the films are U.S.-oriented, like the Oscars. So I want to especially encourage feedback and suggestions for films from all parts of the world. (A word of warning: There will be plot spoilers.)
The envelope, please.
Please accept some random thoughts upon stumbling across this blog posting:
Journalists apply their professionalism (doubtlessly to all degrees of candour c.f. Stephen Glass) to report facts to us through reporting media channels. With similar divergence to keeping true to the facts, the big screen has historically adapted a plethora of media related / journalism stories to challenge box office hits; nothing new.
What is interesting, however, is the contrary; when movies create real facts thereby feeding journalism. Indeed, many fictional stories are predecessors to subsequent real life events, bringing us to question whether the story inspired actionable blueprints and/or to marvel the author’s prophetic capabilities.
The abovementioned movie – Ace in the Hole – holds remarkable similarities to what has, is, and will transpire with the trapped Chilean miners.
Many will see cynicism in the similarities and try to pass judgement on the credibility of the operation. Others will refute its relevance to maintain the dignity of this human disaster and authenticity of this timely and successful rescue story. Despite differing opinions, Ace in the Hole provides an interesting ‘conversation piece’ about how a piece of 1950s American fiction resembles so closely to the current state of affairs in Chile 60 years later.
Journalism is constantly faced with ethical concerns of representing the truth. The question of whether journalism reports the truth or whether it creates the truth can be blatantly clear-cut but also extremely complex. This fine line comes face-to-face with the challenges of our era where facts are labelled ‘true’ as long as enough people accept them as such.
This debate however, should not impede journalism nor curtail the movie industry. Indeed, both nourish a much sought-after psycho-sociological need in our ever alienating society: ‘to confirm the life of others’; nothing new. Hence a blog entry and not a Pulitzer prize!
stsalicoglou gmail com
After the warm glow, telling the cold, hard truths
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
The president was inaugurated in front of adoring crowds and positive reviews in the media. As the unpopular incumbent sat on the platform with him, the new Democratic chief executive took office as the nation faced a crippling economic crisis. The incoming president was a charismatic figure who had run a brilliant campaign and had handled the press with aplomb. The media were ready to give him a break.
That was 1933, and in Franklin Roosevelt’s case, the media gave him a break.
For Barack Obama, the honeymoon was shorter.
Less than 36 hours after Obama took the oath of office, the White House denied news photographers access to the new president’s do-over swearing in, instead releasing official White House photos of the event. Reuters, The Associated Press and Agence France-Presse protested and refused to distribute the official photos (which nevertheless showed up on the websites of a number of large U.S. newspapers).
This is an important issue for news organisations, the public and for an administration that has promised a new era of transparency in doing the people’s business. How are people to know, for example, that the official photos haven’t been staged?
All U.S. administrations seek to manage the flow of information and the White House and the news media have a complex, interdependent relationship. Each needs the other. But it’s important that media organisations remember who’s most important.
Are you really making a comment on ‘transparency’ just due to the white house not letting the media in to the second swearing in of Obama?
Is there really nothing more important to talk about? Im angered that made that much of a hubbub about the first go around that the man felt that he had to do it again and waste more time appeasing and delaying his work as president.
Do people feel empowered when they point out the mistakes of others (be they mistakes or not) when they themselves don’t have to be in the line of fire, or have as heavy of responsibilities?
Come on now.
Twittering away standards or tweeting the future of journalism?
I’ve been tweeting from the World Economic Forum, using the microblogging platform Twitter to discuss the mundane (describing crepuscular darkness of the Swiss Alps at 5 a.m.) or the interesting (live tweeting from presentations).
Is it journalism?
Is it dangerous?
Is it embarrassing that my tweets even beat the Reuters newswire?
Am I destroying Reuters standards by encouraging tweeting or blogging?
(These aren’t rhetorical questions – I’ve been challenged by many people who would answer those questions as No, Yes, Yes, and Yes! I answer them as Yes, Potentially, No and No.)
David, its most interesting to read your blog. But as you demonstrate most clearly, twittering is a good tool for short messages only. It is not a tool for analysis or developing anything close to a complex idea.(Unlike blogging).
While democratization of the media is undoubtedly a phenomenon of our times, I am not quite sure that twittering small packets of information will make a huge difference in this regard. Too much information (without analysis) can be as painful as too little information. How does Haruki Murakami put it? Just shovelling cultural snow?
Anyway, please do twitter your next blog, I look forward to reading it….
I just left yahoo.com and changed my home page because I couldn’t stand being forced to go through FB to comment. Now, I just posted a comment on this site and got your message about censorship. Censorship is censorship not matter how you try to dress it up. And censorship is subject to ones opinion, that being the censors. Therefore, someone from your organization is telling the public what is acceptable to read and what is not. That is bias not matter how you look at it. It is subject to the opinion and interpretation of another. I agree that I read some pretty ignorant or angry, venting comments that I consider worthless. But after reading about 2 or 3, I move on. But that is according to my standards and what I consider to be of value. I can’t force that on someone else because it is my view. But you have taken away the power and control of the individual to determine for themselves what is of value and interesting and what is not and put it in the hands of those it shouldn’t be in. I think that this is a bad idea and that we have enough liberties being taken from us at record speed these days. The last thing we need is an open forum to become a censored one regardless of who likes what. I will stay with this site temporarily to see what you do about this. If I am not satisfied, I will move on. I still have the freedom to do that!