EDITORIAL EYE

October 2000
		During 40 years in the news business, Bill Kovach, former curator of Harvard University's Nieman Foundation for Journalism, has seen journalistic styles change and trends come and go. Now, he takes your questions on the current state of the profession.

Forum introduction Has the speed of technology led to less original reporting? Has the quality of reporting declined? Is there no such thing as unbiased news? Whatever happened to JFK-era journalism? Is the increasing number of media outlets leading to journalism's decline?     Sept. 25, 2000: Bill Kovach discusses the modern media. July 17, 2000: A look at the trend toward newsroom synergy. May 24, 2000: WBBM-Chicago's "no-frills" newscast. June 1, 1999: Discussing quality in local news. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of media issues .     Harvard University's Nieman Foundation

For Bill Kovach, journalism isn't just a business -- it's his life's work. Like many in his field, Kovach started out small, working first, in 1959, at the Johnson City [Tennessee] Press-Chronicle. He then moved to the Nashville Tennessean, where he covered Southern politics, Appalachian poverty and the civil rights movement. After a year of study at Stanford in 1967, Kovach began an 18-year career at The New York Times, serving the last eight as chief of The Times' Washington bureau. Kovach began his tenure as curator for Harvard's Nieman Foundation -- a center offering extended study to mid-career journalists -- in 1989. At Harvard, Kovach taught classes on press, politics and public policy at the Kennedy School of Government. He now heads the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a group devoted to maintaining journalistic principles. To Kovach, not all of the technological advancements and ideological adjustments journalism has seen in the past few decades have led to changes for the better. He told The NewsHour's Terence Smith the technology has loosened journalists' grip on accuracy. "Clearly, the greatest problem is the speed with which information moves today, which overwhelms the ability of journalists to verify their information before they publish it," Kovach said. "It's almost created a situation where it doesn't matter if you're wrong so long as you're first." Have journalists' approaches changed over the years? Is the modern media headed in the right direction? Bill Kovach responds to viewer questions below...   Mike Noble of New York City asks: Do you think that the increase in speed of information flow has led to an equal increase in the amount of news attributed to sources other than one's own news organization? Do you think it has led to a decrease in original, 'enterprise' reporting?   Bill Kovach responds: Yeah, Mike, I think it has done both. It has had two deleterious impacts in this regard. It has encouraged reporters to "rummage around" in the data base of the reporting of others rather than doing their own reporting and increasing the amount of new information available. And it has increased the amount of information that is simply passed along, rather than verified by the news organization doing the secondary story. This is why gossip, conjecture, speculation and just plain bad information have such strong legs. Back to top   Lenny Zieben of Chicago asks: Although the media today seems more like a division of the entertainment industry than an information source because of corporate ties and dependence, has the quality of reporting declined, or are we just becoming aware of the way it has always been? Is there any hope of attaining a less distorted view of world news?   Bill Kovach responds: It's a mixed bag. The quality of some reporting--mainly at cable news organizations like MSNBC or Fox, talk radio or newspapers which have radically cut back on newsroom staff and budget--has declined because it is so easy to simply pass on what someone else has reported without checking. On the other hand, at news organizations that invest in staff and newsroom budgets, the technology allows an extraordinary reach for their reporting. Take for example the 14-part series the New York Times did on race earlier this year. The reporting on that series (which involved 14 reporters and editors over more than a year) amounted to 10 years of reporting time. The same technology allows a diligent person to comb the Internet and get an extraordinary amount of international news from some of the best news organizations in the world. The only problem is you have to be your own reporter, editor and gatekeeper. Back to top Michael Bodell of Mountain View, CA asks: I'm concerned about the notion of unbiased media coverage. Much of the media coverage today to me seems highly biased. Commercial forces are pushing harder and harder against our news agencies, and at the same time the news is becoming more and more surface level sound bites only. Is it a myth that at one point in time the news was unbiased, and is there any hope of us moving to a world of in-depth, unbiased news?   Bill Kovach responds: There has always been a certain amount of bias in the news, Michael, simply because subjective judgments are made all along the line of reporting, writing and editing the news. The best journalists keep that bias under control, others are less able to. The most encouraging development recently-and one that the Committee of Concerned Journalists is pushing very hard in our work with news organizations around the country--is the trend toward more transparency on the part of the news organizations. That means being more open with the audience and telling them how decisions are made and why they are made. The best recent example is the extraordinary editor's note The New York Times ran explaining the failures and bad decisions made by editors in the reporting of the Wen Ho Lee case. That sort of openness can be a powerful disinfectant and can lead to more credible journalism. Back to top Nelson Shogren of Mansfield, Ohio asks: We have seen many cases of journalists bending ethics to reveal the scandals of Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and others. Is this "watchdog" function the latest trend in journalism -- to pry into public servants' private lives to see what tabloid treasures might be told to the masses? Do you think the "old journalism" of the JFK era has fallen by the wayside?   Bill Kovach responds: The trend toward more intrusion into the private lives of public figures is the result of a number of trends beginning in the 1960s when laws of libel were eased as the result of a number of court decisions, most notably New York Times v. Sullivan. This legal change coincided with a number of social movements, including the feminist movement, which insisted that the private behavior of public figures--how a man treated his wife, for example--was important information for a citizen trying to decide who and what to support. All this coincided with the explosion of new outlets for news--cable TV and then the Internet--which radically increased the competitive nature of news coverage and, in many cases, created a world in which the lowest standards drove the level of responsibility and taste down. Back to top Hunter Harris of Wayland, MA asks: Fifty years ago, I got the impression that a reporter valued his byline since it reflected upon his personal integrity. I am almost totally convinced that is not the case today because news is more centralized and tied to a news organization's economic survival. Do you think the quality of news is decreasing as the number of outlets and reporters increases?   Bill Kovach responds: I think the expansion of the number of outlets for news with the advent of cable television and the Internet has put in motion a sort of Gresham's Law in which the lowest ethical standard often rules. This combined with the conclusion of a lot of senior editors at news organizations that the only way to attract a new generation (18 to 34-year-olds) is by introducing "attitude" and "edge" into their presentation of news which encourages mixing verified news with opinion and speculation in a mix lethal to credibility. The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which I chair, was organized to push back against just this kind of trend in journalism. I am pleased to tell you that after three years talking with journalists all over the country that there are more of them than not who agree with your and our concerns. Back to top