The public speaks
Sacred Heart University has released a media poll. Here’s a summary:
- Only 19.6 percent say they “could believe all or most” of media reporting, down from 27.4 in 2003
- 87.6 percent believe media tries to affect public opinion, and 86 percent that it tries to affect public policy, up from 79.3 and 76.7 in 2003, respectively
- The highest percentage for national news media was 40.7 for “quality of reporting.” Accuracy was 36.8, keeping bias out 33.3, fairness 31.3, and balance 30.4.
- Four-to-one see the New York Times and NPR, three-to-one journalists and broadcasters as a whole, and two-to-one CNN and MSNBC, as “mostly or somewhat liberal.” Fox was the only poll subject to be viewed as “mostly or somewhat conervative” by a rate of just over two-to-one.
- The three top ratings for “most trusted for accurate reporting” were Fox News at 27 percent, CNN at 14.6, and NBC at 10.9. Fox News and CNN have flip-flopped since 2003, when CNN got 23.8 and Fox only 14.6.
The results for reporting on Iraq are even more dismal:
- 49.1 percent agreed things are going better than portrayed
- 59.8 percent believe negative reporting damages prospects of success
- 70.7 agreed that negative reporting damages troop morale
- Only 31.3 agree coverage is fair and balanced
- Miltary officials edged media for being trustworthy and balanced, 30.8 to 28.3
These are deep, deep, wounds and are primarily self-inflicted. And, make no mistake, attitudes about national media trickle down to the community journalism level. When people criticize “the media,” they rarely draw a distinction.
The national media (indeed, all media) is scrambling as we speak to reformulate business models to address an evolving market. But efforts to improve accountability and fairness have been met mostly with arrogance and denialism, begging the question: What good will a successful business model be if no one trusts the product?
A truly successful business model should address more than simply increasing revenue. It should strive to reclaim media’s role as the trustworthy source for accurate, balanced, and accountable information. The success and popularity of blogs can be directly attributed to media’s lack of response to perceived failures in those areas.
At the core of resistance to these improvements is an institutional lack of trust for the public (the customer), which, more than ever, wants an open dialog with its media sources. Reader forums, comments, reader blogs, and an available and open ombudsman process would go a long way towards repairing public trust in media. If the customer feels media is open to criticism, responsive to concerns, and invested in their input, perceptions of fairness and accuracy will improve dramatically.
For too long media has dictated its product to the customer. Those days are over. Going forward it will be those products that respond to the market that will survive. To date I have seen mostly a “circle the wagons” protectionism at the national level, rather than a sincere attempt to improve the product.
Community journalism, which suffers many of the same, understandable fears as the big dogs, has an opportunity to elevate itself by being proactive in these areas. It needs only the courage to take that leap.