---

A recent national poll found a majority of Americans do not trust the people who bring them the news each day. We gathered a group of people together in Denver to discuss these negatives about American journalism with Charlayne Hunter-Gault. That's after a report on the poll by Kwame Holman.

---

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight what's wrong with the press and two art stories. The press story is next. The Pulitzer awards announced this afternoon recognized excellence in journalism, but excellence is not the most used word to describe the fact and product of American journalism these days, and a recent national poll found a majority of Americans do not trust the people who bring them the news each day. Our coverage beings with a Kwame Holman report on that poll.

KWAME HOLMAN: Jonbenet Ramsey has become a symbol of what's wrong with today's journalism. According to a new poll three our of four Americans know about the slain six-year-old model but most say they have already heard or read too much about the story.

ANDREW KOHUT, Pew Research Center: A story can both have an enormous audience in audience measurement terms or audience size terms and also have more people who are sorry to see that story take up so much time on television or so much space in the newspaper.

KWAME HOLMAN: Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center directed a new poll that found many such complaints. He says saturation coverage of Jonbenet Ramsey or O.J. Simpson is just the tip of an iceberg of public displeasure with the national press that has grown dramatically since 1985.

ANDREW KOHUT: What we found 12 years ago was that the public was willing to excuse the press its performance sins, because they took comfort in the watchdog role that the press played, and they liked the news product. They were engaged by the news products. Well, a dozen years later we find more criticism of the press for its performance, its accuracy, its fairness, its lack of good judgment about intrusiveness, but less appreciation of that watchdog role, and also less engagement with the news product.

KWAME HOLMAN: In 1985, most Americans, 55 percent, said national newspapers and the broadcasters reported the facts accurately. Only 34 percent said the press often was inaccurate. By this year those numbers had reversed. Now only 37 percent of Americans say the national press is accurate, and a solid majority, 56 percent of those polled, say the national news media are often inaccurate.

ANDY KOHUT: The important thing about this trend is it's pretty much across-the-board. There isn't any major demographic group or political group that is less inclined to think the press is accurate than, than was the case a dozen years ago and by a lot.

KWAME HOLMAN: And not just less accurate but less fair as well. In 1985, a third of those surveyed considered press coverage of issues fair. Now only 27 percent think so. And those who believe press coverage favors one side swelled from 53 percent to 67 percent. More Americans also say national news coverage of elected officials' ethics and behavior is more excessive than before. In 1989, only about half the public called such coverage excessive. Now, 65 percent do. And more of the public now says such media criticism of political and other leaders is harmful. In 1985, only 17 percent said press coverage keeps leaders from doing their jobs. Today almost a third of Americans say the press gets in the way.

ANDY KOHUT: We have people--what are your biggest--why does the press get in the way, why does the media get in the way of society solving its problems? The top three answers are: sensationalism, bias, and inaccuracy. And they're all interrelated. There's this sense that the press is covering these people in an excessive way not because it's interested in revealing the truth about this scandal but because it wants to exploit it for the sake of audiences, or for the sake of career enhancement, or for--or advancement.

KWAME HOLMAN: The diminished esteem for the press mostly is limited to national newspapers and TV news, and television bears the brunt of the criticism.

ANDY KOHUT: Television gets more heat because more people are watching television than reading newspapers, and it's where people turn first, and more often where they see reporters with the microphone in the face.

REPORTER: Can you stop for a second, please. Can you turn around.

KWAME HOLMAN: And according to the Pew survey the press's own mis-steps have contributed to its loss of credibility. They include last summer's reports based on unnamed sources that Richard Jewell was a suspect in the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing.

SPOKESMAN: I'm tired of it all. I really am tired of it.

KWAME HOLMAN: And the two Dallas Cowboy football players were rape suspects, though neither ever was charged.

ANDY KOHUT: I think there have been libel cases, there have been scandals about, about the press, itself, and the authenticity of press reports, and it's taken its toll.

KWAME HOLMAN: The polls showed such incidents undercut support for the investigative techniques the press sometimes uses to perform its role as society's watchdog against wrongdoing.

ANDY KOHUT: When we ask people about investigative techniques, they say, no to hidden microphones, no to paying informants, no to not revealing that you're a reporter. So people say yes, we're interested in investigative reporting but now, be nice, and do this in a fair way, and be mannerly and be orderly, and part of it, seriously, is be mannerly, be more mannerly and, you know, don't show such a blood lust. I think that the American public senses or feels that there's kind of a blood lust in the way some of the reporting is done and presented.

KWAME HOLMAN: Not all the news was bad for the press. Local TV news and newspapers got far less criticism than the national media. Opinion researcher Kohut says the national news media would be wise to heed the warning.

ANDY KOHUT: There's no reason to believe that if things continue to be bad that we won't have the percentage of people saying they don't believe the media increasing even further. It's now not--not in crisis mode, but it's serious. We have a serious condition when one in four Americans say they doubt mainstream news organizations.

JIM LEHRER: We gathered a group of people together in Denver to discuss these negatives about American journalism. The Denver folks are the same ones we have talked to before about matters political. They represent both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked to them last week.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, thank you all for joining us. Do you agree with the assessment we just heard that the news media in this country are in a pretty serious condition, Mr. Jornayvas?

ROBERT JORNAYVAS, Oil and Gas Executive (R): Yes, very much so. I think over the last few years we've watched the media as a whole degenerate and turn into much more of an entertainment business than a journalistic news delivering business, and I think the charges of, you know, lack of credibility and sensationalism are very true.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Do you agree with that, Ms. Chattman, serious?

TANYA CHATTMAN, Graduate Student (D): Yes, I do. I do agree with that. There are certain duties of the media. The media has a duty to inform; the media has a duty to serve as a public watchdog. But they also have a duty to make money, to be profitable. And I think that's the main reason such sensationalistic stories in the race for ratings, in the race to get more dollars, more advertising dollars, it's necessary that you have, you know, your ratings are up, and as a result, you--when the Nielsen sweeps weeks roll around, you make sure you have the stories that you perceive people want to watch. And that's why you see Jonbenet Ramsey, O.J. Simpson, and really overloads on these types of stories.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: But this survey found out that over the past, well, since 1985, the public attitudes have changed dramatically towards the media. What do you think accounts for this dramatic deterioration?

ERIC DURAN, Financial Analyst (D): I think the one major factor that's changed from the 80's through the 90's is that now we have more information available to us. There is, you know, a hundred cable channels. There's the Internet. There are so many more publications being put out there. And so it makes it more difficult for the main networks to compete with all of these different media outlets, and so that's why it's--I think we're seeing a blur between sort of the sensationalized journalism and nightly news. Just there's so much information bombarding all of us that you have to compete.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Because in 1985 there weren't all these things.

SUZANNA CORDOVA, Student Adviser (D): The important part about that is I think it's really blurred the line between what is news and what is entertainment, and that network television in particular has had to use news crossing over that line into entertainment. So like with tabloid journalism shows, which--and, you know, even local televisions that I feel have--do re-enactments in the news--I mean, I think that's obviously trying to compete for an audience by going into the realm of entertainment instead of news.

ROBERT LINDEN, Assembly Line Manager (R): But all of media is part of the entertainment, and news is just a subset of that. They've got to compete for the--for the buck and for the ratings, and so they've be the sensational, or they're not going to get the viewership. And we have expected for a long time that the news, especially the news, would not be entertainment; that, in fact, they would report the fact and let us make up the mind that we have for ourselves, but, instead, oftentimes they give us the judgment that they think we ought to hear and that we ought to have made a decision about before if we just hear the facts, you decide, it's no longer that way.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying that the news media--I mean, the polls said that the news media were less accurate. Are you--you all agreeing?

DENNIS COUGHLIN, Investment Banker (R): Well, I think the inaccuracy in reporting comes not so much from the reporters' inability to understand the issue that they are reporting. It is his time or her time constraint where they only have got the 30-second news bite or whatever it is, and to be told half a story is sometimes worse than to be told no story at all.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Anybody else on that with a different view?

LINDA HOUSTON, Insurance Broker (R): I believe it's as accurate as it has ever been. I think maybe the competition has created some extremes, but I think that the media continues to be our main source of communication worldwide, and I think that they do need to use some common sense. I think if we think of media as sort of the mother communicator in the nation, then there has to be some common sense, some courtesy, some caring, some interest in the fact that people don't need to see some of the extremes, but that it is the communication that we're all receiving. I mean, we wouldn't know--

DEE CISNEROS, Retired Teacher (D): You don't have to watch it.

LINDA HOUSTON: No, we don't.

DEE CISNEROS: It's all there. We need to be more discriminating. We need to decide what we want to watch. Whatever is out there, there's going to be a lot out there because there is a lot of competition.

ERIC DURAN: There's more facts available, and people can sort of pick and choose. And I think we all need to admit that the media is just reflecting our desires and our needs.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, that is the point. Let me pursue that just a little bit because there is a perception somewhere that the public likes the sensationalism; that this is what the public wants. Is that not the case?

JAMES SULTON, Higher Education Administrator (D): No, that's not the case. The point is that the media has fed people information, and people have grown dependent on it. I dare say they've become lazy, too lazy to discern on their own. And the responsibilities that people are talking about here is that folks have to be able to sift through this sensationalism, the amazing stories of tabloid journalism, and all of that, going into it knowing that they're being fed a story, and determined to find out what the truth is, themselves. Now, that's a lot like work. The people don't want to do that.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Conway, you're shaking your head.

THOMAS CONWAY, Stockbroker (R): Well, I think as a buying public what we have to remain cognizant of is that the press is there because of a constitutional right, freedom of the press. We as individuals have to be discerning enough to be able to find out and determine which is correct and what is incorrect.

MAN IN GROUP: But they can't bring the news to you without the dollars, and without the dollars--

THOMAS CONWAY: They will sensationalize in order to be capitalistic and make a profit. That's correct. But we have to be at least knowledgeable enough to be able to read what's there and see what is out there to be able to find the truth. The amount of information that we're getting now and the speed with which we get it is incredible. So the competition is higher for the dollar and the profitability but we as a public still have to be able to discern what is correct. The media should bring us everything that they can.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Jornayvas.

ROBERT JORNAYVAS: Well, what I find unfortunate is that there are no consequences for inaccurate reporting or for bad journalism. For example, what the "Dallas Morning News" did to Tim McVeigh--you know, here we are in Denver with that sensational, you know, trial beginning, and the "Dallas Morning News" goes out and reports that possibly he confessed to his attorneys. Well, what--what did that really serve? You know, my view is that all that served was to sell more newspapers for the "Dallas Morning News." Did they really look and see is justice being served here, is there a higher good by reporting this? And the risk that they took and what they did, there's no consequences. Had they caused a mistrial, had they caused--there's no consequences to the "Dallas Morning News" for doing what they did.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The survey showed that people--those people believe that the media were being excessive, particularly when it came to the way it reports on politicians these days, their ethics, their practices. What do you think, media excessive in this way?

DEE CISNEROS: Well, it must be what people want. You have some people that want to hear all this. We have in our society, we have voyeurism, we also have people that would rather listen to a program that is an educational program. I think there's something there for all of us.

LINDA HOUSTON: Well, the media, you know, is pushy sometimes, but I think that it's important that sometimes it is. It has the one advantage the other people do not. I think a Watergate, for instance, had they not been pushy, we would have never known the true story.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Ms. Cordova, how do you think the media is performing as a watchdog?

SUZANNA CORDOVA: Well, there are a couple of things that I think about that. I think that--I have some friends who are journalists even, and I think that they all--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Some of my best friends are journalists. (laughter among group)

SUZANNA CORDOVA: --and they always try to say that they are doing everything under the cloak of objectivity, which I just don't buy, because we are all human, and we all have our belief structure and our belief system, and our biases. And I think it's pretty obvious that if you ask anybody in this room that they would say that they could name either newspapers or televisions that they feel have an obvious bias. And so, you know, I don't--that whole idea of it being a watchdog I don't really buy completely because, you know, there are certain things that I read and I always think, well, I know what to expect from them. I expect it from this angle, or I expect it from that angle.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Does anybody else have an opinion about the watchdog function? Ms. Cisneros.

DEE CISNEROS: I do. I really feel that we need a watchdog. I think that a lot of times there's a lot of things going on in Washington. We can't be there. I can't sit on my Internet all the time. So I think listening and watching--I agree we have to be discriminating in what we hear, but I feel that we need that.

JAMES SULTON: To be honest, I think everybody really has a sense of appreciation for the media for bringing certain issues forward that would not have been brought forward. This is not just scandals by public officials, but issues per se. It has degenerated though to the point where when the media does that kind of a job, it's almost by accident because they're so wrapped up in the techniques and the strategies and the one-upmanship that they forget what people are really looking for in terms of news results, and that's where the disappointment is.

ROBERT JORNAYVAS: There is a pendulum that's swinging, and I think it's swinging towards the media getting themselves in trouble by continually stepping over the line. And I'd be interested in seeing the media do something about themselves. I mean, you watch that survey that we saw, and clearly there's--you know, America's concerned about it.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What would you like to see done, for starters?

ROBERT JORNAYVAS: If I were a journalist, I'd be tremendously concerned that the American public doesn't find me credible. I mean, I don't understand why the journalists aren't getting together, saying, how can we solve this?

JAMES SULTON: You make a good point. He makes a good point because I'm not prepared, and I don't think we should try to propose a code of ethics for journalists in this group. I think that the profession has to construct that code for itself. I think you know what it is, and journalists everywhere know what it is, but they have to police it. I think the survey is saying they haven't done that. I agree. I don't think that the profession has really established and maintained a strong sense of ethics.

DEE CISNEROS: Are you asking for some form of censorship?

JAMES SULTON: No. Competition should bring that on.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Linden, what do you think should be done for the media to get a better report card?

ROBERT LINDEN: Well, I think they need to have accuracy and balance. I think they need to look at what are both sides of an issue and not just report one side, not to try and be so sensational like this unbelievable media feeding frenzy over the Heaven's Gate thing, I think that's been blown way out of proportion. It's gone way beyond its usefulness. I mean, there was 39 deaths, a tragic thing, certainly, but how much of a media frenzy has there been over the near 39 deaths of Kevorkian, for instance? There hasn't been the same amount of play at all, and there hasn't been the balance that is necessary. And I think the self-policing and the balance would be two really good things.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Ms. Cordova, do you have one last word on what you would like to see changed?

SUZANNA CORDOVA: Well, you know, I think that it's all fine and good to have the multitude of sources of news, but, you know, ultimately, if we don't like something, we need to stop watching it and stop buying it. It exists because somebody's watching it and somebody's buying it. And I think like, you know, as a nation, we need to, you know, exercise that choice and turn it off.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I'm going to have to turn this off as much as I'd like to keep listening all night, but thank you all very much for joining us.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.