Credibility Roundtables: "Readers Speak"

APME National Credibility Roundtables Project

May 18, 2003

Readers speak: Why we don't alert media to mistakes

Deborah Hudgins of Manchester, Md., has caught errors in her local newspaper but she doesn't bother to report them. "What's the point," she said. "Do they really care?"

"Why waste the time," said John Martin Meek, a newspaper reader in Green Valley, Ariz. During the three years that he has lived in the area, the newspaper has never responded to his phone calls or e-mails, Meek said.

Karen G. Johnson of Otis Orchards, Wash., said she does not consider the errors she sees to be "mistakes" but rather "deliberate embellishments or fabrications to make the story more interesting."

"There are many times when I have not offered a correction since the prevailing belief is one of arrogant indifference to detail," said Rod Steadman of Spokane, Wash.

Associated Press Managing Editors, working with 16 newspapers across the country, last week asked these readers and about 3,000 others to comment on a disturbing question raised by The New York Times Jayson Blair case:

Why would readers and sources fail to alert a newspaper to reporting they recognize as clearly inaccurate?

Those who said they failed to report errors had a variety of explanations: They doubted newspapers cared about mistakes or would listen to them. Navigating a newspaper's corrections system would take too much time. The error was so obvious that surely someone at the newspaper would correct it. They believed inaccuracies were intentional in journalism that glosses over the fine points and hypes storytelling.

E-mail reader advisory networks

APME gathered reader comments through new e-mail reader advisory networks developed as part of the organization's National Credibility Roundtables Project. The interactive networks' goal is to give editors broader, quicker access to reader reactions on journalistic issues and to expand and diversify the pool of people contacted by reporters for stories. Last week's effort, which brought 233 reader replies Thursday and Friday, was the first time the networks have been used together for a national perspective.

APME queried readers following revelations that a New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair, plagiarized stories and fabricated quotations over a six-month period ending with his resignation on May 1.

"Much of the commentary so far about The Times' journalistic tragedy has come from journalists," said Carol Nunnelley, director of APME's National Credibility Roundtables Project. "But the media's ultimate relationship of trust must be with the public. It is important to hear the public's voices in this conversation."

Ed Jones, president of APME and editor of the Fredericksburg, Va., Free Lance-Star, added: "The public need not be an estranged adversary when it comes to inaccuracies. When asked for input, readers can be a partner in building a credible news report."

Jane Amari, editor and publisher of Tucson's Arizona Daily Star, one of the papers that queried readers, said: "I think that 95 percent of the problems that newspapers get into are the result of arrogance, which comes from losing contact with readers. This kind of feedback is critical because we need to hear criticism. Nothing takes the edge off of arrogance like someone pointing out the errors of your ways.''

The questions

Last week, readers in 16 communities were asked these questions by e-mail:

- Have you ever contacted the newspaper about an important mistake in a story? If so, were you satisfied with the response?

- Have you ever noticed an important mistake in a story that you did not call to the newspaper's attention? If so, why didn't you let us know?

- Have you ever been misquoted in the newspaper?

- Has the media acted responsibly in attempting to report on the scandal and correct the stories?

- Does this change the way you think about the media and its credibility?

APME is continuing to accept and compile responses.

Readers were outspoken in describing how communication with the media breaks down. Some also described instances when newspapers' corrections systems worked well.

Readers expressed both support for and disappointment in journalists, their hometown newspapers and The Times.

"It does remind me that editors and managers have a responsibility to see that this sort of thing doesn't happen," said George Carvill of Milford, N.H. "The Times blew it here. Too bad for The Times; too bad for all of us."

The comments gathered by APME and partner newspapers last week were not a scientific survey. The sentiments expressed seem in step with studies that report continuing, widespread lack of public confidence in the accuracy and fairness of news coverage.

The Pew Research Center for The People and the Press reported last year that two-thirds of Americans believe news organizations are unwilling to acknowledge their errors, while just 23 percent say they admit their mistakes. The research center also reported that the number of people who believe news organizations are politically biased stood at 59 percent.

Building trust

Many news organizations are working to address the problem, including more than 100 that have taken part in APME's Credibility Roundtables Project.

"It is no mystery that readers and viewers often distrust what is printed and broadcast and the people who report and edit it. They have told us why they feel that way," said Nunnelley. "News organizations are putting to work ideas that promise to build journalism that deserves to be trusted, and is. A starting point is to invite readers into the journalistic conversation."

APME's National Credibility Roundtables Project is supported by a grant from The Ford Foundation.

Most reader networks used for last week's APME project were established during the past six months. Newspapers across the country invited readers to sign up to receive occasional e-mail messages asking about newspaper credibility issues or news events.

Also participating was The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash. Ken Sands, Managing Editor of Online and New Media at that newspaper, has been working with reader advisory groups there since 1997. He directed the Credibility Roundtables initiative to spread the idea to more newspapers.

"People are flattered that they've been asked to be involved in the process, and the responses typically cover a broad spectrum of opinion," Sands said of the approach.

The newspapers taking part included The Telegraph, Nashua, N.H.; Carroll County Times, Westminster, Md.; Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, Ariz.; Idaho State Journal, Pocatello, Idaho; Detroit Free Press, Detroit, Mich.; The Herald, Rock Hill, S.C.; St. Cloud Times, St. Cloud, Minn.; Missoulian, Missoula, Mont.; Norfolk Daily News, Norfolk, Neb.; The Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville, Fla.; Wyoming Tribune-Eagle,Cheyenne, Wyo.; Observer-Reporter, Washington, Pa.; The Daily Astorian, Astoria, Ore.; The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Wash.; The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; The Idaho Statesman, Boise, Id.

The readers quoted in this story were contacted by phone to confirm their e-mail comments.

Contact:
Carol Nunnelley: (212) 621-7502, credibility@ap.org
Ken Sands: (509) 879-7437, kens@spokesman.com