Journalism and The Public Trust : The Credibility Crisis within American Journalism

Pat Hickey

To paraphrase a Sixties axiom, you have to deal squarely with your problems before you can come up with solutions. Myths are particularly troublesome, because they are predicated on rarely challenged assumptions that are often only partially true. Like certain superstitious beliefs, myths can even blind us from the truth.

Because of the unique circumstances of America's founding and the critical role core principles like "freedom of the press" played in America's bedrock documents, it is frequently naively assumed that press freedom is inherent to whatever form American media takes. The notion "freedom of the press" merits critical evaluation in light of journalism's credibility crisis. Just as ideals of a free and democratic system of government hinge upon the exercise of certain "self-governing" duties, press freedoms are linked to how responsibly those freedoms are exercised. As Bennett points out, "There is no institutional check or monitoring system to guarantee that news as it has evolved in America will serve the needs of American democracy" (Bennett xiii). And as Dennis points out in Media Debates, "...freedom of the press does not exist in a vacuum but must coexist with other rights accorded to individuals under the Constitution" (Dennis 7).

Such practices as sensationalizing and splicing news with entertainment are justified by a broad interpretation of freedom of the press. But serious questions should be raised about the press' role in compromising those freedoms in regard to responsible standards of journalism, such as truthfulness, fairness and accurate news reporting. A serious re-examination of duties and responsibilities appears necessary if the press is to fulfill its historic role of watchdog and truth seeker in a free society. Without such self-reflection, journalistic credibility will continue to decline. More importantly, the very foundations of a free press may erode if society, which grants that freedom in law, collapses in part because of the media's refusal as the supposed watchdog to uphold its own ethical obligations.

In Media Debates, Michael Novak says of journalists and objectivity: "The myth of objectivity leads to misunderstandings in American journalism. There are no facts 'out there' apart from human observers. And human observers become not more, but less astute when they try to be neutral..." (Novak 109). W. Lance Bennett in News: The Politics of Illusion writes of the irony inherent within the concept of objectivity, saying it "...confronts the paradox of objective journalism by showing that news is biased not in spite of, but precisely because of, the professional journalism standards intended to prevent bias" (Bennett 143).

Objectivity and its surrogate fairness resonate with the idealized notion of American democratic tradition; however, as Bennett points out, these somewhat mythical norms frequently end up systematically favoring the reporting of "narrow, official perspectives" If as Bennett suggests, fairness and objectivity are "euphemisms that disguise bias in news content," are we not better off to rethink our beliefs in the practice of objectivity and consider what alternatives there may be? Approaches like interpretive reporting, investigative journalism and citizen-oriented journalism are newer methods that may augment or even replace "objective" reporting in the future.

Bennett in Chapter Five, "Inside the Profession: Objectivity and Other Double Standards," challenges a number of current professional journalism standards. He takes on the traditional idea that the press plays the role of a politically neutral adversary. If it seems contradictory that the press be both neutral and an adversary at the same time, that's because of its dilemma; if it became a true adversary, it would "bite the hand that feeds it." The press in striving to reduce complex issues to two sides restricts itself to quoting official sources from one side of the conflict. And as Bennett notes, if the press really pursued those in officialdom, it risks discrediting the institutions "on which it depends for credibility."

The notion of "neutrality" of the press should also be questioned. In a number of areas, the press has a vested interest in the maintenance of the governmental status quo. The press is not as independent as myth would have us believe. As J. Herbert Altschull points out repeatedly in Agents of Power, "The news media are the agencies of someone else's power." Media are dependent on government regulation for their existence. While the First Amendment appears to enshrine for eternity the noble principle of press freedom, it's historically the case that what a government giveth, it can also taketh away. Owners of media are partisan participants in society and its institutions, including the government.

Government is not only a source of news, but a source of economic stability or instability in which media can either survive or perish. The press in America, willingly acknowledging its position as the fourth estate, has firmly positioned itself as part of the established order along with other central institutions like business and government. The press may ritually play the part of neutral governmental adversary, but the two comprise what Bennett calls a stable symbiotic relationship, in which the existence of each institution depends on the long term well-being of the other.

Personal and institutional journalistic biases also contribute to the credibility crisis. In Boys in the Bush, Larry Sabato says, "The relatively small group of professional journalists are drawn heavily from the ranks of highly educated social and political liberals..." This perceived liberal bias has been part of the impetus driving the growing popularity of conservative radio talk shows and their hosts. In "If the Press Doesn't Want the Job, I'll Do It," radio personality Michael Reagan commented, "I do the job that Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and all their brethern and sistern in the dominant media are supposed to do but fail to do."

Strong opinions exhibiting political bias are expected on editorial pages or news commentaries, but when programs like "Contract on Congress: Is the Media Fair?" show that news reporting is skewed with the same slant as editorial writing, then a credibility gap is opened -- at least for those who don't share the same ideological bent as the dominant media. Objectivity, mythical though it may be, is further undermined by a preponderance of personal bias in news reporting. The result can be readers and audiences tuning in then tuning out, or tuning permanently to alternative news sources such as talk radio, the World Wide Web, new publications, or cable television.

Institutional biases inherent within the mechanism of news reporting are another reason for the crisis in credibility. Bennett names four information biases -- personalized news, dramatized news, fragmented news and normalized news -- calling them the "single most important flaw in the American news style" (Bennett 39). By looking at news and events through the spectrum of personalized stories, it's possible to ignore deeper, societal problems. For example, news coverage of American presidents with engaging personalities like Reagan and Clinton results in a preoccupation with style over substance, thereby ignoring deeper policy or systemic problems within the administration. Dramatizing news often propels news reporters into the role of news makers, which can also lead to news becoming "infotainment" as opposed to serious analysis of a given problem. Fragmented news such as coverage of the Gulf War from a decidedly pro-American perspective may be popular with the public, but ultimately may diminish our understanding of global realities. Normalizing the news typically points to problems with individuals and not the system. Bennett sums up these points: "The underlying assumption in almost all critical reporting is that the basic political system and its values are unquestionable" (Bennett 67).

Although institutionalized methods of news delivery serve the purpose of keeping the masses comfortably tuned in, serious questions abound as to whether news is doing more entertaining than informing as sensationalized, celebrity-focused news fast becomes the norm. To a growing number of Americans, this new norm results in diminished media credibility and society suffers because of it.

Media academics have scrutinized other questionable, contemporary journalistic standards. Bennett calls tag team and pack journalism "frenzied adversarialism" (Bennett 152). We are all familiar with the tag team method; press panels grill an unwitting official before the glare of cameras. Would George Washington have politically survived the cherry tree incident if he had been forced to defend his actions on a Sunday morning news show? The laziness of journalists who rely upon the news tack taken by their peers diminishes the media's credibility as well. A recent Gallup-Times Mirror poll revealed that 68 percent of respondents felt the press is unfair and out of touch with the public on most issues.

Adherence to documentary reporting is another way that even the most independent journalists become vulnerable to being co-opted by officialdom. Despite their best intentions, unwitting news people can be manipulated easily by staged political events designed solely for press consumption. It's the proverbial catch-22: The evening news producer allots a 30 second segment, forcing the politician to deliver up a visually and/or verbally compelling but superficial "snapshot," which coerces the reporter to portray mostly what was intended by the politician's managers. Bennett points out the inherent irony, "The more perfectly an event is staged, the more documentable, and hence reportable it becomes" (Bennett 157).

At staged events, both the press and the politicians understand the game's rules of engagement. But because it is neatly packaged for prime time programming, all players appear to be willing participants, even though they are aware of the game within the game. Unfortunately for the networks and the mainstream press, the public appears to be catching on, too. From a Media Studies Center/Roper Survey gathered from 1000 registered voters near the end of the 1996 presidential campaign, two-thirds of the respondents said media accounts about the campaign events were unreliable.

The crisis in American journalism is broader than simply a failure of journalistic standards. If the press is to take steps to regain its tarnished credibility, then it should begin with a kind of institutional gut check and scouring of its collective conscience. If the press concludes that its predominant mission is to serve the corporate bottom line, then it must dwell in the depths of diminishing credibility. A "new ideal" for a new millennium must be grounded in press values founded on past greatness as well as a realistic assessment of what standards will lead the profession and society it serves toward a more credible future.

Earning trust from the citizens is integral to the press' credibility. Trust within the press' professional conscience is returned by trust from the discerning public who knows despite the press' best defenses when it is being honest with itself and them.

Reclaiming and reworking visionary ideals are tasks for many, not one. A good starting point is for journalists to critically review the norms and standards that brought their institution to this point. Reporting the news is a great calling entailing enormous responsibilities in meeting the challenge. As entertainment becomes increasingly linked with truthful information in the coming era, the great film maker Frank Capra offers wise counsel, "Only the morally courageous are worthy of speaking to their fellow men for two hours in the dark. And only the artistically incorrupt will earn and keep the people's trust."

  This article by Pat Hickey, published in a publication of Reynolds School of Journalism, has relevance
  for all  democratic countries although it focuses on the American scene of journalism.