|
'The News About The News'
With Leonard Downie Jr., Executive Editor
and Robert G. Kaiser, Associate Editor/Senior Correspondent, The Washington Post
Tuesday, March 19, 2002; Noon EST
Is high-quality journalism an endangered species?
Audience and advertising dollars drove the fight at ABC over "Nightline" and "Late Show" -- the latest round in the tug-of-war between reporting and entertainment on television, newspapers, magazines and the Internet worldwide. How does the drive to stay alive affect the quality of the information readers and viewers receive?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser, reporters and editors at The Washington Post for nearly 40 years, examine these questions and take a look at serious news -- on TV, print and the Internet -- in their new book, "The News About the News: American Journalism in Peril." They were online Tuesday, March 19.
Downie has been the Post's executive editor since 1991, and has served as managing editor, national editor, foreign correspondent, Watergate editor and investigative reporter. Kaiser is associate editor and senior correspondent, after having served as managing editor, assistant managing editor for national news, local, national and foreign correspondent. Downie and Kaiser began their careers at the Post in 1964 and 1963, respectively, as interns.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: Good afternoon. We will answer as many questions as we can during this hour. Thanks for your interest in THE NEWS ABOUT THE NEWS.
Los Angeles, Calif.:
I listen and read other international news outlets, particularly the BBC, which manage to provide comprehensive information not simply bites and sensational scenes as we do in this country. For example, when covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a newspaper in Germany or elsewhere is far more likely to explain the last several decades and what led the conflict to its current status. American newspapers spend the length of a column describing who said what, when, and tallying death rates.
Can you comment about the differences in news reporting here and abroad?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: Foreign news is one of the things we care most about. As we note in the book, many news organizations, led by the three networks, have cut back their foreign coverage in the last 15 years or so, some of them radically. CBS, for example, once had a correspondent in every major capital; now it has a handfull, and most travel to cover stories as they break. This means correspondents rarely have the opportunity to become experts.
Many newspapers have cut back space for foreign news--some to nearly zero. Just a few fine papers have maintained serious teams of foreign correspondents.
September 11 demonstrated the need for foreign news, and the days after demonstrated the public's appetite for it. Nevertheless, many news outlets have gone back, all or most of the way, to where they were before September 11, and are again de-emphasizing foreign news.
The BBC is an international institution; it has always cared about good foreign news--indeed, its world service exists to provide it. Europeans who live in a much more crowded neigborhood than we do have long felt closer to foreign countries and events than we do. But that excuse isn't so valid for Americans any more. We all know we live in a global economy, affected profoundly by other peoples and nations. Americans need good foreign coverage.
Baltimore, Md.:
I am wondering how the journalistic "tenet" of objectivity plays into this discussion of whether quality journalism can stay alive in the corporate, dollar-driven culture that exists today. Specifically, can and should objectivity exist? And, if it can/should, how can we better inculcate this and other journalistic values in young reporters?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. At the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee decided years ago that "objectivity" is really a subjective description--what you consider objective we may consider tendentious, and vise versa. So he established the idea that at The Post, the goal should be accuracy and fairness. Both are easier to define, though fairness can also be tricky. Our goal is that anyone who reads about him or herself in the Post recognize what we have said about them as fair.
The ownership of a news organization is key. At the Post the owners give the editors the final say on all editorial decisions. In our view, all owners of news outlets should do the same. Sadly they don' t all agree.
Reston, Va.:
Hello. What is your opinion of local TV/radio news departments, especially here in D.C., that almost solely rely on the Post's coverage to determine what their newsreaders read? Any informal study of WMAL's news roundup's at the top/bottom of the hour, compared to the Post's "A" and Metro sections, and Lloyd Grove, shows some remarkable and obvious linkages. I am reading Bernie Goldberg's "Bias" now, about to pick up your tome, and he makes the repeated assertion that the network news bases its coverage on the New York Times and your esteemed paper. I am just interested in your opinion. Thanks.
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: We write about this phenomenon in the book. It is ubiquitous, nationally and locally. Why? Because television news organizations don' tdo the same kind of reporting, usually, that newspaper reporters do. They have much smaller staffs. Channel 4 in Washington (a key example in our book)has about ten reporters on the streets of greater Washington today; the Post has well over 100. This ratio is not unusual. Bob Schiefer noted the other day tha the CBS bureau in Washington has shrunk from more than 30 to less than 15 since he joined it in 1968.
Wheaton, Md.:
Is it your sense that fluff and epherma are overwhelming what might be called "serious" news? I know, for instance, when I peel the Sunday edition of the Post like an artichoke very little seems to remain of the heart and much of that is submerged in costly advertisements. Am I wrong to assume that there is not very much "there" there in U.S. newspapers any more?
Thomas Slinkard
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: The leaves on that artichoke are our lifeblood-- gathering the news costs the Post tens of millions of dollars every year. The advertisers, bless them, pay for that. We would dispute your conclusion: the meaty sections of The Post, from the A Section and Metro to Outlook, Bookworld, Arts and Style, to Business too, are all bigger and better, in our biased opinion, than they were 10 or 20 years ago.
A good paper is like a supermarket, with departments to appeal to all kinds of shoppers. Some who buy the Sunday Post do so for the coupons and advertisements--that's OK with us, just so they buy it.
Somewhere, USA:
Is there ever pressure from local/state/federal governments on networks and newspapers to report on certain issues or to report toward a particular bias?
Having said that, is there a similiar pressure from advertisers? Do they dictate what they'd like to see in the news or they'll pull ads?
How does a news outlet respond?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: Good question, one we are asked often, though this is the first time we've been asked it from "Somewhere."
The governments we cover, all of them, spend a lot of money on public relations people, and it is their job, often, to try to shape the news. But we believe--hope--that we can see through their ploys nearly always. We gather from our colleagues who run the editorial page--a completely separate unit at The Post--that politicians and officials regularly lobby them for favorable editorials. This seems natural too. Our job is to resist their efforts to influence our coverage.
Advertisers have been known to seek favorable coverage in various news organizations. Some, sadly, succumb to the pressure. But the best newspapers do not, inour experience. Certainly at The Post no advertiser could get a story printed.
We do pay serious attention to government officials when they argue that publication of certain kinds of information would endanger lives or national security. Sometimes when they convince us, we leave details out of a story. We did that recently when we decided not to print the location of the underground bunkers where the administration has stationed senior civil servants to provide "continuity" in government if something dreadful happened in Washington, DC.
Seattle, Wash.:
How do you feel about Washington Post assigning a review of David Brock's book last Sunday to a former "reporter" for American Spectator, who is even mentioned in the book, to say nothing of the role the publication itself plays in it? The paper already got a dart from the CJR a couple of years earlier for doing the same for Lyons' book on Clinton -- once could have been a slip, but twice?! And if it was intentional, why?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: After hearing complaints from readers, the editor of The Post's Book World section discovered that the reviewer of David Brock's book had failed to disclose to her, as he was supposed to, that he had previously worked as a film critic for the American Spectator. As Marie Arana, the editor, will explain in next Sunday's Book World, she would have assigned the book to another reviewer if she had known this.
Perhaps we should be flattered by the oft-heard suggestion that we plot out every nuance in each day's Post for some secret purpose. We can assure you that this would be physically impossible. It is also contrary to our every instinct as journalists. Mistakes of this kind are inevitable when you have to publish an entirely new newspaper, containing 100,000 or more words, every day of the year.
Washington, D.C.:
What's the next step for newspaper Web sites? Will they do the only good journalism on the Web?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: In the early days of the Internet, many people speculated about the potential for a flowering of new news organizations that could challenge established ones and provide new angles on the news. This hasn't really happened. It's the established news organizations' sites that have attracted by far the most readers.
We are enormously proud of the several hundred thousand new readers the Web has brought to Post journalism every day. We'd like to figure out how to make some money from their readership! But we love having them.
The future, as Mort Sahl told us, lies ahead. It seems to us that thinking about the future of the Web today is rather like thinking about the future of television in about 1949. We'll just have to see what develops. But the Post will be a player, we're sure of that.
New York, N.Y.:
A lot of folks on television and in the media want to turn the Letterman/Koppel affair into a debate on the decline of informative journalism and an indictment that today's society is becoming "low-brow." I just don't see it. There are about 40 other channels on cable TV that deal with news, so I don't buy this crap that America is dumbing down just because ABC wants to give Koppell the boot. What's so special about "Nightline" that I can't find on FOX news, MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, etc.?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: When did MSNBC last send a senior journalist on an extended tour of the Congo for a series of broadcasts on conditions in that tragic country? Ted Koppel did that this year. Nightline provides what we consider the most important kind of journalism--original reporting, done by talented journalists. Of course this isn't the diet every day. But the program is one of the last sources of such reporting on network or cable television.
We argue in our book that there are big and important differences that distinguish the many different things that are labeled "news." Talking about news, so common on cable, or reading brief headlines is NOT the same as digging out a story that powerful institutions or individuals would prefer to keep hidden.
We'd love to see the cable networks do more of this kind of journalism, as they have occasionally in the past.
College Park, Md.:
Hello Messrs Downie and Kaiser,
The Post's readership area is home to several world-class scientific labs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Naval Research Laboratory, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the Carnegie Institute of Washington, and John's Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory.
SO WHY IS THE POST'S COVERAGE OF SCIENCE NEWS SO MEAGER COMPARED WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: The Times years ago made a big investment in Science Times; we have not been able to match that and do all the other things we have wanted to do. But our daily coverage of science is a source of pride here, and we would welcome a careful comparison of it to the NYT any day. We have a big staff of reporters covering high technology, pure science, health and health reasearch and related topics. We would love to do more, but our resources are not infinite.
Springfield, Va.:
I may be just naive, but there was a time when I really did trust the media. The likes of Howard K. Smith and Frank Reynolds were people I trusted to get the story right and to keep the process honest. Does that mean that during that time the media always did it right or was not motivated by selfish desires? No. But now I see a media who seeks to cash in as much as they seek to inform. Journalists have a sacred trust with this country, guaranteed by the Constitution. I know there are those who still see it as a trust but those who have become mega-stars should do some serious soul searching to make sure that their stardom is not more important than truly being the fourth branch of our government. What would you consider the heyday of journalism and what about that time should today's journalists and those who own the "press" be trying to emulate?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: You're right that there was a time when the networks worried more about good coverage, and less about the bottom line, than they do today. But, as Tom Brokaw notes in an interview inour book, those who look back to some golden age are often using a rosy rear-view mirror.
We argue that this ought to be the golden age of journalism right now. The technology is fabulous; today's reporters are better educated and trained than ever before; the best news organizations are more ambitious than ever before. We think the best newspapers today are better than at any previous time inAmerican history.
But too many owners have been distracted by the realization that news can make huge profits. Newspapers want 20 percent profit margins, or 30; local TV stations expect 30, 40, even 50 percent profit margins, the most one can make legally, according to one TV news director we quote. So they don't invest in news as much as they should, and they don't have that sense of public sevice you describe.
California:
Is news driven entirely by what editors think the viewers/readers want to know about or are interested in? Is there an occasional sense by news editors and reporters to report items of little interest to Americans but still important i.e., foreign news/policies?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: You seem to presume Americans don't care about topics like foreign policy and news from foreign countries. The evidence suggests otherwise. Surveys of readers and viewers regularly turn up big interest in foreign news. But it's expensive to cover, and requires expertise. Too many news organizations don' twant to make the effort to cover it.
We argue that too many self-styled experts on public taste are really just blaming the victim--the news consumer. Our Post is very popular in Washington, and more than half our readers do not have a college degree. People of all kinds respond positively to good journalism on serious subjects, if it is well done. But it has to be well done, and that's not easy or cheap.
Washington, D.C.:
Do either of you see any conflict in using the newspaper's Web site to promote your own book?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: As you may know, authors are manic in their desire to bring their book to its potential public. When washingtonpost.com invited us to do this, we jumped at the chance. We are comforted by the knowledge that other authors with no connection to The Post have appeared here too, but we would not try to deny that we enjoy a certain advantage in this regard.
Provo, Utah:
Two questions: How much will media integration -- combining competing print and TV outlets -- come into play in the future? And what about the trend of journalism "going corporate" with big newspaper chains -- how will that help or hurt the industry?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: This is an important question, and it touches on a major theme of our book. Nothing has changed more radically in Amrican journalism in the last generation than the patterns of its ownership. When we were young reporters it was typical for newspapes and tv stations to be locally owned. The networks were owned by their founders, and were relatively small corporations. That's all changed. The networks are all parts of giant conglomerates, and the news divisions are a tiny part of those empires. More than 1200 of America's 1400 daily newspapers are parts of groups or chains.
Why did this happen? In large part because businessmen discovered how much money they could make from news products (see above). The drive for more and more profits has become extremely important throughout the business. Only a small handfull of organizations has resisted the temptation to try to maximize profits in every quarter.
News has suffered as a result. We write about this at length. WE also argue that short-term profit maximization is dumb--that it weakens news products and will make them less important to viewers and readers over time, weakening the underling business.
Colorado Springs, Colo.:
Hello gentlemen:
I haven't read your book yet but plan to. My questions are: What has had more influence in journalism today -- the Internet or cable TV? And while mega-news organzations tend to buy up everything in sight, don't you think the broad freedom of the Internet will continue to be influential competition? After all, anyone can start a Web site.
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: Not easy to answer which is more influential. Cable TV is certainly influential; it does more news now than the networks. Its specialty networks are important--ESPN and CNBC, for example, and the Weather Channel too. But the Internet is also very significant already,and surveys suggest that people are abandoning local tv in favor of the internet.
In our chapter on the Internet and news we argue that over time, this could become a dominant news medium. Before too many years, people will be able to use the Web for a multi-media news experience that will allow them to reap the best of television and print--and to be in control of the experience, as you are now when you read a newspaper. That will be powerful.
Already, the Web allows readers to easily access an amazing array of news sources across the globe. This is important too.
Southern California:
What differences, if any, exist between journalism 30-40 years ago and today? Is there the inclination in today's journalisim to put two low ranking reporters on one story for a stretch of two years, with possibly nothing to come of it?
Unless I'm not reading the right papers or news sites or watching the right TV news shows, I don't see good investigative, insightful journalistic work. It's often shoddy and chalk-full of personal opinions that were once taboo in good journalism.
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: First point: If Carl and Bob had come up with nothing, they would not have been left on the Watergate story! Yes we do still assign reporters to long investigations without knowing that they will produce, if anything. All the best news organizations do this. But today, that reporter is likely to be an expert in his/her field--unlike Woodward and Bernstein in 1972.
In the book we argue that the kind of journalism you're asking about is the single most important genre. We devote a chapter to case studies of how the best investigative work gets done. We're proud of the fact that The Post continues to make a major investment in this kind of work. If you read the Post, the Times, the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal, you'll find a heavy dose of good investigations and revelations. But you won't find much of this on TV.
Reston, Va.:
Do either of you feel it is a conflict for two very senior editors of the most important newspaper in the capital of a nation at war to be selling a book? Isn't the Post politically hamstrung while awaiting the initial reception of your book by the local public?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: Happily, the Post is filled with talented people who can put out the paper without any help from us during the few weeks we are devoting to promoting the book.
New York, N.Y.:
Since there is increasingly so much subjectivity in journalism -- the inevitable result of profit-minded corporate owners who now control so much of the media -- do you think there should be some kind of professional standard or a "journalist oath of ethics" to which reporters could adhere? Should there be "training" for practioners? Many professionals like doctors and lawyers are required to work within standards of practice that keeps them honest. It strikes me that we are genuinely dependent on the media for our information, and yet, so much of it is skewed, hyped, etc. A newspaper or TV show could have the journalistic stamp of approval of an overriding, independent board of wisemen that actively helps develop and maintain ethics in the media. Maybe we've reached a moment in which this has become necessary?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: A very interesting question. We worry a lot about news values, the name of a chapter in our book. But your proposal raises several questions.
Most important, do we want any outside board to start, in effect, licensing journalists? This seems like a very bad precedent. We aren't practicing medicine here; journalism is more art than science.
The First Amendment makes it clear that government regulation of the press is not going to happen. We like that. But we have to acknowledge that the First Amendment protects the best and the worst journalism equally.
One reason we wrote this book was to help news consumers distinguish between the best journalism and the other stuff. We believe inthe marketplace, and hope that it will help weed out the bad journalism out there. This may be a romantic notion, but we are encouraged by lots of evidence that quality journalism draws big audiences and makes handsome profits.
We also note that there is a stronger lobby for good journalism than ever before; it includes ombudsmen on individual papers, journalism reviews (Columbia and American are the best), professors of journalism and the new committee for excellence in journalism. But we also need educated consumers!
Crawfordsville, Ind.:
I am seeking your opinion on the media's coverage of the war on terrorism. It seems to me that the news media has been quite uncritical is is mostly reporting information relayed to them by the Pentagon and other "official" news sources rather than more by investigative means. How do you feel about this issue?
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: We've had several questions like this one.
The government has made it very difficult for reporters to cover this war. Pentagon statements are often vague and self-serving.
But a number of news organizations have managed to send reporters to see for themselves what has been happening on the ground. Despite the great dangers, many have been able to do good reporting. They have found cases of accidental or ill-targeted attacks that took many innocent lives; we have printed a series of stories on such attacks in The Post. Such stories have led to Pentagon investigations that would not, in all probability, have been undertaken absent those reports.
Alexandria, Va.:
As a person who grew up hearing my parents idolize the Post reporters in the post-Watergate/Vietnam era, I am a bit dismayed at how centrist the paper has become of late, specifically in the abject lack of in-depth analysis of Bush in the pre-election season (though the Washington Post was not alone in giving him an easy ride); I have to inevitably ask: What happened to the Post? I find it funny that some of my colleagues who are Republican still think that the Post has a liberal bias(!). If they only read it, they'd see how close the Washington Post is to the center, if not the right on some issues -- the lack of criticism of the wartime Bush, the Brock situation, etc.
I think history will wonder why the Washington Post didn't cover Enron with the same tenacity as Watergate. The Post forced Americans in the 1970s to pay attention to the Watergate investigation; don't you feel it is your duty to do the same with Enron now? You and the New York Times need to make us understand the importance of this complex issue and the ramifications Enron's collapse will have for politics and business in the future. washingtonpost.com:
Enron coverage:
Understanding Enron Special Report
Timeline of Enron's Collapse
The Enron Probe
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: The Post -- like the government's regulatory agencies, and every single analyst on Wall Street -- were late in seeing what was going on at Enron, no question. Journalists are human beings, and therefore fallible; we make mistakes every day.
But since the story broke we have tried hard to figure out what happened, and explain it to readers. washingtonpost.com editors have helpfully provided links at the end of your question to our extensive reporting. Other organizations have done as well or better. Americans are learning a lot about Enron now.
Journalism is an imperfect business, as our book makes clear. We don't always know what to look at, or what to look for. We are proud of the fact that the Post's David Hilzenrath had spent more than a year reporting on weaknesses in the accounting profession, and produced wonderful stories on this subject.
But we will miss stories, no matter how hard we are looking for them. Sadly, too many news organizations today won't even be looking for them.
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser: We're out of time. Many thanks to all for the provocative questions. We got lots we couldn't answer; we apologize for that.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Bob
Levey Hosts Diane Rehm at 1 p.m. EST
Sally
Squires: The Lean Plate Club at 1 p.m. EST
Illinois
Primary: Congressional Quarterly at 1 p.m. EST
Hollywood
and Vine: Sharon Waxman at 2 p.m. EST
Brookings
Institution: Iraq, War on Terrorism at 2 p.m. EST
Fighting
Terrorism: Impact of Peacekeeping at 2 p.m. EST
Health
Talk: Obesity at 2 p.m. EST
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
