Monday, May 09, 2005
Media Credibility in the Times ?
Yesterday in my Whither Big Media ? post, I discussed the changes underway in Big Media and the fact that the latest newspaper circulation figures show a continuing decline. Now let's take a look at how one Big Newspaper wants to address its "credibility" problem, which may be related to its circulation problem. It seems the NY Times became aware that people don't take their word as gospel any more and set up a panel to investigate the problem.
Today the Times reports that its internal review panel Proposes Steps to Build Credibility : "In order to build readers' confidence, an internal committee at The New York Times has recommended taking a variety of steps, including having senior editors write more regularly about the workings of the paper, tracking errors in a systematic way and responding more assertively to the paper's critics. The committee also recommended that the paper "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues."
The article notes that: "The report comes as the public's confidence in the media continues to wane. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that 45 percent of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in their daily newspapers, a level of distrust that may have been inflated because the questions were asked during the contentious presidential campaign when the media itself was often at issue. When specific newspapers were mentioned, The Times fared about average, with 21 percent of readers believing all or most of what they read in The Times and 14 percent believing almost nothing."
Did you notice how the writer tossed in that comment about "inflated" results due to the media being at issue during the election ? That's an example of confounding fact with opinion that is often found in NY Times reportage. In this case, its so reflexive that it even occurs when the Times looks better than some of its rivals. Could it be a part of their problem? Will the editors seek out and address that systemic issue or just respond assertively against any such charge ?
Let's look at another article in the same edition, A New Political Setback for Iraq's Cabinet with the subheading "The parliament approved appointments for six new cabinet spots, but a Sunni chosen as human rights minister declined the post". It's in the International Section where we should expect more fact that opinion; but perhaps not this time. The article reeks of bias against American policy in Iraq - not just in what and how it tells the story, but in what it doesn't say. To clarify this point, let's compare this story with some other reports from the WS Journal.
The Times first Paragraph says :"One of four Sunni Arabs picked this weekend to join Iraq's new Shiite-controlled cabinet abruptly rejected the job on Sunday, saying he first learned of his selection from a television news report on Saturday night. He added that he felt his selection would further a quota system for Sunnis that would only make sectarian problems worse."
After citing the weekend homicide totals for the insurgency, the third paragraph notes : "In the capital, the National Assembly approved six new cabinet ministers on Sunday, including the unwilling candidate, Hashim al-Shibli, who had been named human rights minister. But on a day when Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari had hoped to complete his cabinet and end the contentious political battles that delayed his government, the rejection was another embarrassment." OK; Got the image of Klutzy Iraqis and Americans being embarassed? Good!
So, how did the WSJ handle the same news item on the same day? Check their OpinionJournal - Featured Article, Titled "Iraq's New Government" with the subheading "Iraq's new governing coalition may not hold together.Welcome to democracy." (OH Yes. This is an WSJ opinion not reportage article). The first Paragraphs:
"Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari completed his Cabinet yesterday, and we hope Americans appreciate the accomplishment. It is the first popularly elected government in Iraq's history, and the only one in the entire Arab world. Now it's up to Iraqis to see if they can keep it.
That last point is crucial, because apart from security and technical expertise American leverage with the new government really is limited. Iraqis are going to have to forge their own political coalitions and compromises, and in that sense the weeks of bickering over the new government may well have been useful. While the delay since the January 30 election was frustrating, the political jockeying clarified a few things.
One such is that the victorious Shiites realize they can't govern Iraq by themselves. They have ceded a significant role to the Kurds, including the Presidency to Jalal Talabani, and they have invited willing Sunnis into the government as well. Six Cabinet posts will be held by Sunnis, including the defense ministry. Counterintuitively, the Sunni choice for human rights minister refused the post yesterday precisely because he said he was chosen on ethnic grounds. He wants the government chosen on merit."
So, if that's what the WSJ offers as "Opinion" what else does it offer? Consider this bi-weekly OpinionJournal - Extra report from Arthur Chrenkoff, also on the same day. It has a solid summary of facts and presents them in the context of a country emerging from long dictatorship and struggling to create it's own version of collaborative democracy. As an example, he quotes from a letter written by Iraq's President, Jalal Talabani, to Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair :"Building a democratic federal Iraq is a difficult, and slow, but rewarding process. Those who doubt the swiftness of transition must keep in mind that a state such as Iraq is a cultural, ethnic and linguistic mosaic that was only ever held together by brute force, thus, political speed can kill."
And later discusses the formation and approval process for the new government , e.g. : "T he Cabinet . . . would have 17 Shiite Arab ministers, eight Kurds, six Sunni Arabs and one Christian, fulfilling promises by leaders of the Shiite majority to share power among ethnic and religious groups.
These Cabinet numbers quite faithfully reflect the size of various ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. The cabinet also includes six women."
Maybe it's just me, but reading those three articles , all focused on Iraq and its new government, I can't help but feel that the NY Times does not really understand why they have a credibility problem with most people. Their "factual" reportage has more implicit and explicit bias and opinion than the WS Journal's opinion pieces. That's why I feel justified in using those "scare" quote marks. But having a Internal Panel is a start, even if it failed to identify the biggest contributer to their problem. Maybe they should try an independent External Panel next time.
Today the Times reports that its internal review panel Proposes Steps to Build Credibility : "In order to build readers' confidence, an internal committee at The New York Times has recommended taking a variety of steps, including having senior editors write more regularly about the workings of the paper, tracking errors in a systematic way and responding more assertively to the paper's critics. The committee also recommended that the paper "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues."
The article notes that: "The report comes as the public's confidence in the media continues to wane. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that 45 percent of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in their daily newspapers, a level of distrust that may have been inflated because the questions were asked during the contentious presidential campaign when the media itself was often at issue. When specific newspapers were mentioned, The Times fared about average, with 21 percent of readers believing all or most of what they read in The Times and 14 percent believing almost nothing."
Did you notice how the writer tossed in that comment about "inflated" results due to the media being at issue during the election ? That's an example of confounding fact with opinion that is often found in NY Times reportage. In this case, its so reflexive that it even occurs when the Times looks better than some of its rivals. Could it be a part of their problem? Will the editors seek out and address that systemic issue or just respond assertively against any such charge ?
Let's look at another article in the same edition, A New Political Setback for Iraq's Cabinet with the subheading "The parliament approved appointments for six new cabinet spots, but a Sunni chosen as human rights minister declined the post". It's in the International Section where we should expect more fact that opinion; but perhaps not this time. The article reeks of bias against American policy in Iraq - not just in what and how it tells the story, but in what it doesn't say. To clarify this point, let's compare this story with some other reports from the WS Journal.
The Times first Paragraph says :"One of four Sunni Arabs picked this weekend to join Iraq's new Shiite-controlled cabinet abruptly rejected the job on Sunday, saying he first learned of his selection from a television news report on Saturday night. He added that he felt his selection would further a quota system for Sunnis that would only make sectarian problems worse."
After citing the weekend homicide totals for the insurgency, the third paragraph notes : "In the capital, the National Assembly approved six new cabinet ministers on Sunday, including the unwilling candidate, Hashim al-Shibli, who had been named human rights minister. But on a day when Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari had hoped to complete his cabinet and end the contentious political battles that delayed his government, the rejection was another embarrassment." OK; Got the image of Klutzy Iraqis and Americans being embarassed? Good!
So, how did the WSJ handle the same news item on the same day? Check their OpinionJournal - Featured Article, Titled "Iraq's New Government" with the subheading "Iraq's new governing coalition may not hold together.Welcome to democracy." (OH Yes. This is an WSJ opinion not reportage article). The first Paragraphs:
"Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari completed his Cabinet yesterday, and we hope Americans appreciate the accomplishment. It is the first popularly elected government in Iraq's history, and the only one in the entire Arab world. Now it's up to Iraqis to see if they can keep it.
That last point is crucial, because apart from security and technical expertise American leverage with the new government really is limited. Iraqis are going to have to forge their own political coalitions and compromises, and in that sense the weeks of bickering over the new government may well have been useful. While the delay since the January 30 election was frustrating, the political jockeying clarified a few things.
One such is that the victorious Shiites realize they can't govern Iraq by themselves. They have ceded a significant role to the Kurds, including the Presidency to Jalal Talabani, and they have invited willing Sunnis into the government as well. Six Cabinet posts will be held by Sunnis, including the defense ministry. Counterintuitively, the Sunni choice for human rights minister refused the post yesterday precisely because he said he was chosen on ethnic grounds. He wants the government chosen on merit."
So, if that's what the WSJ offers as "Opinion" what else does it offer? Consider this bi-weekly OpinionJournal - Extra report from Arthur Chrenkoff, also on the same day. It has a solid summary of facts and presents them in the context of a country emerging from long dictatorship and struggling to create it's own version of collaborative democracy. As an example, he quotes from a letter written by Iraq's President, Jalal Talabani, to Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair :"Building a democratic federal Iraq is a difficult, and slow, but rewarding process. Those who doubt the swiftness of transition must keep in mind that a state such as Iraq is a cultural, ethnic and linguistic mosaic that was only ever held together by brute force, thus, political speed can kill."
And later discusses the formation and approval process for the new government , e.g. : "T he Cabinet . . . would have 17 Shiite Arab ministers, eight Kurds, six Sunni Arabs and one Christian, fulfilling promises by leaders of the Shiite majority to share power among ethnic and religious groups.
These Cabinet numbers quite faithfully reflect the size of various ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. The cabinet also includes six women."
Maybe it's just me, but reading those three articles , all focused on Iraq and its new government, I can't help but feel that the NY Times does not really understand why they have a credibility problem with most people. Their "factual" reportage has more implicit and explicit bias and opinion than the WS Journal's opinion pieces. That's why I feel justified in using those "scare" quote marks. But having a Internal Panel is a start, even if it failed to identify the biggest contributer to their problem. Maybe they should try an independent External Panel next time.
