Wilkes-Barre University & Citizens' Voice
(Wilkes-Barre, PA)
Dr. Andrea Breemer Frantz, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies
Paul Golias, Managing Editor
November 4, 2004 - COM 260: Basic News Writing - 24 students, mostly sophomores with a few juniors and seniors
Who took part in the roundtable?
Students in the class were each required to invite at least one community member from their third spaces assignment who fit the profile we were looking for (18-35 years old). We discovered that two of the invitees were actually over 40; however, didn't see that as a problem as they offered good insight. Some also chose not to disclose their ages, but were under 35. All of the participants are local residents (residing within the Wilkes-Barre or Scranton area) who identified themselves as either readers, occasional redaers or non-readers of the Citizens' Voice.
Wilkes students were in charge of contacting each person personally (face-to-face or by phone) for the initial invitation. We then mailed formal letters of invitation and sent e-mails or did follow-up phone calls for confirmation. The original list of invitees varied substantially from the actual list of attendees. Two of the attendees signed in only with first names and preferred to be listed as such.
What were the key issues discussed at the roundtable?
Our roundtable focused on how self-defined readers, occasional readers, and non-readers of the Citizens' Voice between the ages of 18-35 regard the credibility of the newspaper generally. We were interested in learning how these participants consumed news, what they valued and didn't value in the paper, and what appeals enhanced and diminished the newspaper's credibility with consumers.
Were some issues more important to readers, viewers, story subjects and sources? If so, what were they?
We created break-out groups among the participants and conducted separate discussions with them based on how they identified themselves (readers, occasional readers, or non-readers). Thus, the questions for the roundtable discussions varied slightly.
Readers Group key issues: The readers valued the restraint the Citizens' Voice showed in reporting names of suspects in crimes. The CV's policy is to wait for charges before reporting names and readers agreed that such restraint indicated respect for the community members. In addition, the group talked a lot about letters to the editor and articles having by-lines. The other daily newspaper in town offers a column called "Say So" that is a call-in editorial line which allows readers/callers to post editorial comments anonymously. The readers group uniformly condemned such an approach because they believed it "brought the community down," and "makes us look bad" to outsiders. Readers also noted that they do not automatically place faith in the credibility of information reported; they go to the stories with a "skeptical" eye because they can discern discrepancies in various pieces of information that is reported. One reader talked about an environmental issue that had surfaced in Mt. Top. He noted that there was much "more to the story" than what had been reported, and he was interested in seeing more care given to the details of such investigative pieces.
Occasional Readers key issues: Much of what these people talked about was speed and up-to- the-minute reports. Almost all acknowledged that they look online for information and updates on latest happenings, whether it's sports scores or reports on the war. Many occasional readers also asked for more opportunity for feedback in the CV beyond the Letters to the Editor, despite the fact that most didn't have an idea of how that would work.
Non-readers key issues: This group focused primarily on why they don't read the Citizens' Voice and/or in some cases any other newspaper. One of the key reasons had to do with familiarity with (and trust in) reporters. The comparison was with television reporters. Non-readers agreed that whether it was accurate or not, they felt they "knew" television reporters; they "welcomed" them into their homes daily. But newspaper reporters are simply names on a page (if that), which allows for no familiarity and hence less trust. Non-readers thought that short biographies, photographs of reporters next to by-lines, and/or longer introductions to new reporters on the staff would help with that trust. "If we see a picture in the paper and then we see the reporter around town, there's a greater sense of, 'Oh, I know that person.'"
Were there important points of agreement on coverage approaches or news philosophy that would improve the newspaper's content and its credibility? What were they?
Identification of reporters--i.e., photographs next to by-lines, biographies, short feature articles
introducing new reporters on the staff--would help readers with familiarity and trust.
Reporters should be encouraged to participate in community so that they know the people and their values.
Avoid all appearance of bias--readers are interested in cold, hard facts. Let readers do analysis.
However, many also said they wanted lots of detail in stories, but for similar reasons. They want to be able to discern for themselves how to feel and with more sources from a variety of perspectives, they are better informed. Those who advocated this noted that longer, more detailed stories are what help differentiate the quality of print versus broadcast reports.
Were there points on which roundtable participants agreed to disagree? Where were they?
Some of the participants really like the "Say So" column in the competing daily newspaper because it allows community members to voice their concerns without fear of disclosing their identities. Others communicated great disdain for the ethics of this practice. They noted that it was cowardly and also reflected poorly on the community making residents look "ignorant."
There was also some difference of opinion on the appeal of the layout of the Citizens' Voice. Some like the tabloid layout and find it easier to navigate than a broadsheet. Others liked the look of a broadsheet and noted they prefer the other daily paper in town because of that.
Will the newspaper consider changes in its coverage of the roundtable issue, or in its news philosophy, as a result of the discussions? What changes? (Professors should consult with their key editor contact to answer this and other questions referring to the newspaper's actions.)
The Citizens' Voice editors and publisher who attended the roundtable were definitely interested in appealing more to this age group and indicated a willingness to listen to ideas. In addition, the publisher offered his card to many and asked the participants and the students to contact him with more ideas and suggestions or with questions. There were no hard and fast recommendations for specific change that emerged from the discussions beyond possibly the use of photographs alongside by-lines for reporters. Many of the comments focused on the newspaper's policies that readers and occasional readers particularly appreciate.
How has the newspaper informed its readers of the roundtable, what happened there and what may occur because of the discussion?
Prior to the event, the newspaper's Managing Editor, Paul Golias, wrote a column about newspaper credibility and its importance. He highlighted the Wilkes class and a session he had recently talking about questions for the upcoming roundtable discussion.
Immediately following the roundtable, the Citizen's Voice ran a feature story with photos on the event.
My students also submitted letters to the editor on issues of credibility that emerged from their discussion in class following the event. The Citizen's Voice Editorial Page Editor, Lisa Napersky, dedicated an entire page to these letters on December 17. There were six letters highlighted and the layout placed special emphasis on key issues drawing them from the letters and putting them into quote-based headlines. The headline for the page of letters was "Next generation of newspaper readers examines credibility," and she also provided a brief contextual note about the APME National Credibility Roundtable Project and the Citizens' Voice's relationship with the Wilkes students. She noted that the "discussion covered newspaper credibility, the challenges created by increased competition from electronic news media and the complex issues surrounding the decline in newspaper readership among young people."
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CLASS AND THE STUDENTS:
What did your students learn from putting on a roundtable?
The roundtable preparation and implementation was a wonderful opportunity for my students to hear firsthand what an audience or a prospective audience thinks about news coverage and newspaper credibility.
Students communicated some amount of surprise at readers' impatience. As one student, Nathan Wilkes, wrote in his letter to the editor following the event, "If newspapers want to attract younger readers, they will have to show that accuracy and credibility are more important than getting news the second it happens and in its simplest form..." But he also noted that "some comments [in the roundtable discussion] were a reminder that youth in this country tend to be lazy." Some students agreed with Nathan that they were surprised that non-readers tend not to question the credibility of what they read online or see on television as they should.
Students also became much more sensitive to the importance of accurate reporting and began to question things like numbers and facts in articles they read. Following the roundtable event, the Citizens' Voice ran a story about it that unfortunately reported certain details inaccurately (for example, how many community members attended). Students immediately picked up on the discrepancies and discovered that their own sensitivity to accuracy in reporting had been heightened.
In addition, the students certainly gained valuable insight into professionalism. They learned how to present themselves to community members and to Citizens' Voice representatives and on paper (in their letters to the editor), understanding that every action, every word ultimately reflected on them and on the university. Two of the moderators were thrilled, for example, after the Managing Editor talked with them following the roundtable discussion, praised their professional presentation and encouraged them to apply for internships at the newspaper. The students saw immediate feedback on performance which helped inspire confidence.
In course evaluations at the end of the semester, students also noted that they valued getting to know their community better. Some had very little experience with the Citizens' Voice prior to this semester, but acknowledged they planned to keep reading it.
What worked well in having the students organize and facilitate the roundtable?
From the professor's viewpoint?
I liked that the students were responsible for inviting participants from their third spaces assignment (among the introductory tasks in the term). In that assignment, students were to observe a public space of their choosing that drew community members together for specific social, political, economic purposes. There, they were into initiate contact with people. Eventually, they were to invite someone from that space who fit the target age group to participate in the roundtable discussion. It wasn't fail-safe. Several students struck out and had to dip into the student/peer pool. Though students fit the profile for the target audience, my goal was to get the journalism students out of their comfort zones and into the community at large. However, for those who were able to garner participation from community members they really didn't know prior to this project, I think the approach ensured a certain emotional investment.
The students who moderated the break-out sessions were excellent choices. They managed things generally very well, though one group (the readers group) was somewhat more reticent to talk openly.
I also think that the question writing session, evaluation and feedback session from Paul Golias, and overall structure of the roundtable were particularly effective.
From the newspaper's viewpoint?
We planned the food well. We did hot appetizers prior to the event and cookies and coffee halfway through. This type of food is "stand up food" and it allowed guests to mill about and introduce themselves before the discussions got started. This was a much better idea than a sit down type of dinner or even pizza.
In addition, the newspaper editorial staff all praised the questions the students had developed as appropriate and useful to gaining insight into how young people think about the newspaper and news media in general.
What would you do differently if you had another class work on a roundtable?
I would probably choose to do this with a more advanced class, though my basic news students did as well as I possibly could have expected them to do. This group, however, has little experience with media criticism, and I would have liked more time to explore deeper issues of credibility with them.
I would prefer next time to work on a more specific credibility issue, though looking at general issues of credibility was very appropriate for this particular class. If I were to do this again with a more advanced class, I believe I'd push to locate a specific issue of credibility (for example looking at the issue of nepotism in county government which is a long-standing issue in this community) for the newspaper. I'd love to explore things in more depth. I personally felt that much of the discussion at the roundtable tended to be fairly general.
I'd also try to firm up the participant list faster than we did. Because some folks did not get back to us or had to drop out at the last minute, we had some late additions and changes and as a
result didn't record some important information about that handful of people. That was an
organizational problem and could have been avoided had we been more efficient in getting the list confirmed to begin with.
Finally, I'd have a more advanced team work on the videography and do the editing sooner than they did. We completed our roundtable toward the end of the semester and as a result the students were faced with deadlines in other classes on top of what they did for this. When we ran into technical problems with the video, the students had neither the time nor the expertise to problem solve on their own, and we came out with a video that is somewhat incomplete.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NEWSPAPER:
What was important for the university to offer to gain the newspaper's cooperation?
It was important, I think, to offer the space we did, which was lovely and quite conducive to group discussion. I also believe it was useful that the newspaper was under no obligation to pay for anything beyond providing for a few thank-you gifts. The newspaper editorial staff, however, has a long tradition of willingness to work with students, and I believe that they would have seen value in the experience regardless and would have cooperated even if we had asked them to foot the bill for food.
What was important for the newspaper to provide to help the university and the professor?
We needed guidance on what they wanted to know from readres, so our initial meeting about that issue was important. It was extremely important to the students that the newspaper acknowledge the process and its findings publicly. The page dedicated to the letters to the editor went a long way to educating the students, as did the Managing Editor's column prior to the event and the story following the event. I needed the students to learn about public messages and their impact, thus, ensuring that the public had access to our project beyond the event itself was important. The newspaper editorial staff did guarantee that space would be allotted, though never committed to a specific amount of space.
Do you have any other advice for professors who would like to do a roundtable? If so, please include it here.
We ran into a problem with our video recording of the event and as a result, lost some of what we recorded. This was totally student managed, so you acknowledge there are many aspects of this project you cannot and should not control. When we ran into technical difficulty, we did so because some of my telecommunications track students have little experience with the equipment. I was disappopinted, to say the least, but I recognize that they are undergraduate students and still learning about professionalism. I encourage all who participate in this process to accept that it will not be without pitfalls and mistakes.
I also encourage the appetizer approach to food. It was very useful to allow the participants to mill around and chat prior to the discussion.
In our break-out sessions, I had two student moderators per group and that worked well. Try to put two students together who can compliment and balance each other.
Make sure all students stay until the last participant leaves. Many of my students filed out with the participants and left clean-up to just a few who stayed. I hadn't thought to tell them to stay and they didn't think to ask if they could leave.
Contact information
Paul Golias: pgolias@citizensvoice.com
Linda Wienandt: frantza@wilkes.edu