|
A CONVERSATION WITH JAY HARRIS
MARY BITTERMAN, President, The James Irvine Foundation; Former President, KQED
DAVID LYON, President, Public Policy Institute of California
ROBERT ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
Moderated by JAY HARRIS, Wallis Annenberg Chair of Journalism & Communication and Director of the Center for the Study of Journalism & Democracy, USC Annenberg School of Communications; Former Publisher, San Jose Mercury News
Answers to Written Questions from the Floor:
Harris: When will the media return to in-depth critical reporting and debate about American policy and priorities at home and abroad rather than the current fare of in-depth reporting on Laci Peterson or the latest sex scandal? I'd ask what each of the two panelists think about the balance of news in various news reports between that which interests the public and that which is in the public interest.
Lyon: The question is a little bit too hard on the media. The amount of information that's being fed to the media these days by institutions that generate knowledge - some of it useful, some not - is formidable, and the media has done a remarkably good job of absorbing the information they're being fed, trying to integrate it into their main storyline. There are currently nationwide 300 independent think tanks, all of whom are clamoring to get the attention of newspapers. They're feeding information into newspapers, television and through their websites; they're feeding information into the public as rapidly and as targeted a way as possible. My assessment, after having watched PPIC over the last nine years, to deal with the ability of the media to absorb it is that the media has an insatiable appetite for the product of these think tanks, and the public actually does enjoy reading the stories that come through these research sources, or the newspapers and TV wouldn't be covering them. I would give the media very high marks for being there to absorb all of this information, doing the best they can with the technical reporters they have to put that information out to the public. While it may at times read a little thin, the fact is that if you don't like what you're reading about, there are very many other places to go.
I'd also like to give high marks to Rosey. Rosey's style now is beginning to be felt in the Chronicle. Here's the Monday front page of the Chronicle. In my years here, I've never seen a chart placed at the top of the banner. This was a story on our latest PPIC statewide survey, and they actually put a chart right there showing the results of the survey. It says that this is important enough information to be shared. Not only does he have charts above the folds, he's got pie charts below the folds. A combination of that kind of information being presented on the front page of a newspaper is a sign that this country is coming to grips with the fact that this is the level at which you've got to read if you're going to understand what's going on.
Audience Question: In 1979 Congressman McCluskey introduced a bill to set up a national service program of community and military service. I wrote to every member of the House and the Senate and the White House about supporting this, in particular, to set up a Marine Corps equivalent of the energy conservation corps as an alternative to war in the Persian Gulf. The San Jose News did a front page local article on this. I attempted today to share this with the people attending this event and was asked to get permission to hand it out and was told that printed material is not allowed to be distributed here. In this conference on civil discourse and communication of ideas and solutions, this has been blocked by a gatekeeper. A year later, I met the publisher and managing editor of the San Jose Mercury and showed him this article and asked why did the San Jose News, the afternoon paper, do this front headline, but the San Jose Mercury ignored it. They just said that they didn't think it was relevant.
Harris: I read recently about the quintessence of democracy at the New England town meeting, and it was pointed out that even in a New England town meeting there had to be rules in order for deliberation to occur in a thoughtful way and for everybody to get a chance to speak. I'm sure the purpose of the rule is that if a lot of people came with their important issue of public consequence, we wouldn't be able to have the dialogue that we suggest. What I would ask you to do is to make yourself available to people who are interested.
I'm going to go back and forth between the microphone and questions. Let me start with, Why do the media often present an issue in terms of being good for the Democrats or good for the Republicans, rather than being good for the public? Why does the media ignore other parties?
Rosenthal: That's a valid criticism. It goes to what I was earlier thinking about: Who is this really aimed at? Journalists tend to look at things as good guys and bad guys, who's going to gain the upper hand, who's going to win or lose - which is sort of how American society tends to work. We reflect that, and journalists are people. If you can change the culture of a news organization, as part of the core values, what does this mean? Who does it mean the most to? It's really about changing values.
Harris: How well does the news media cover itself? I've not heard any mention of the current FCC hearings, this having to do with regulations which would deregulate broadcasting and cross ownership of newspapers and television. I've heard no discussion of the FCC hearings on any station other than KQED.
Bitterman: Well, of course, KQED holds to very high standards. But I think part of it is a compliment to the people of northern California, who are extremely demanding in terms of the depth and the quality of information that they want. Colleagues at KQED are always working hard, both through producing locally 20 percent of the schedule and acquiring the very best mix of regional and national and international news to provide responsive, timely, informative messages for the people.
The media, like any other estate, does not spend huge amounts of time reflecting on itself. I don't think the other three do much, either. So I wouldn't want to put the media out alone. There's a lot of disinterest paid to what's happening at the FCC, because the issues, a lot of people feel, just aren't incredibly interesting in the sense that people really don't feel that there's a lot of debate; they've already been told that the commission at this time is a commission with the character of wanting the market to regulate itself. It doesn't want to come in with a heavy hand of regulation and doing what it thinks is best. It wants to be responsive, quietly so, to market concerns. The old days when you had somebody like a Newton Minnow heading the FCC, who referred to television as that vast wasteland - you've really not heard comments similar to that from FCC commissioners for a long time.
It's in the interest of all of us to have everyone in our society be prepared for full participation in the affairs of our day. That's why we go back to underscore education. To comment on the question about more thoughtful news coverage, go back to the old days when an Edward R. Murrow and others were reporting thoughtfully - I think to some extent we romanticize the nature of what was on the air and in print a number of years ago. We're fairly selective with our memory traces. But if what we always do is just respond to people's interest, we may find a growing kind of diminution of the seriousness of media coverage. Not only should we speak on the one hand about having people become a bit more engaged, curious and whatnot, but that goes hand-in-hand with an educational system which contributes at a very early age to children being able to deal with difficult ideas, to be able to learn to think critically, to be able not just to take a relativist stance on everything. The man who just passed away yesterday - one of the great Americans, Mr. Rogers - some may think a very simple sort of person because he spoke only to small children; but in knowing Fred Rogers, I think he was one of the most sophisticated Americans and dealt with the smallest Americans in preparing them for citizenship and taking responsibility for what they did, to be engaged in their communities and really to contribute to a robust civil society.
Harris: What can we do as consumers of media output to encourage a high quality of journalism? How do you encourage the public to read or listen to what is important for them and civil society as a whole, rather than, or in addition to, simply what they want to read or hear?
Bitterman: Sounds like coercion: "I'm sorry, you must sit down and read this." I don't know how many people are clear on how few people actually watch the news and how networks over the last several years have declined in terms of audience. CNN has been laying off people because its profits have gone down, because people aren't accessing news. There's always a question about why public broadcasting doesn't do more in terms of daily news; that question came up at KQED. It would be about $8 to $10 million a year for a single program, and we've really tried to do that kind of timely coverage on our radio station with bureaus now throughout California. What is the old adage about taking the horse to water but not being able to force it to drink? Education is such an important part of the mix. We have to be looking at all of this in a very long-term arrangement.
Lyon: Some data we collected in a research project on voting participation rates in California and the general downward trend in voting participation shows the trend has been underway now for well over 20 years. We looked at how voting is highly correlated with levels of education. Education is key to raising people's understanding of these issues, their ability to absorb them and then be caring enough to go out and express an opinion through the ballot box. Equally troubling: The degree to which the current voting population of California is very white, it is higher educated and in the upper income level, upper middle and on up. If that profile continues, 20 years from now we will have a white population in California of 30, 35 percent of the total population, yet they will continue to be a majority of the people going to the polls. That's a challenge that we all face. You've got to think about 20 years from now, not how do you solve the problem today, because this problem is in the DNA of our demography, today. It needs to be worked out, and the media needs to begin to bring this point to public attention.
Rosenthal: The first part of that question was, "What can you do to keep the standards high?" If you like something or don't like anything, let the newspaper or the television station or the radio station know. Public feedback is crucial, and newspapers are very accessible now with the Internet and emails.
Audience Question: I know a couple of people probably share my concern that currently about six very large corporations own approximately 90 percent of all the media in the United States, and that's down from about 53 corporations less than 20 years ago. Many of those corporations have stakes in the other five; that right there says a lot about why, when we come to other cities and look at newspapers, it seems to be remarkably similar in terms of news coverage as the city you just left. Then you go to a place like Europe where you have much greater diversity of political parties, and views represented in the media and reflected in the newspapers.
Rosenthal: That's one of the reasons I left the Philadelphia Inquirer, which was owned by Knight Ridder. But corporate ownership and corporate values and the media companies that base their number one priority on profit margin definitely impact journalism. The homogenization you're talking about is of less concern. I was the editor of a big paper, owned by a big corporation. I was never told what to do in terms of taking a position or a stand either on a story or editorially. What I was told to do was direct coverage a certain way or deal with people in a certain way that I thought didn't enhance the journalism at all. If the number one priority of a media company is profit, there's no question it affects the kind of information you're going to get and the quality of the people who will work for the organizations. People who go into journalism are very passionate about what they do, they really believe at the beginning of their careers that they can make an impact, that they can help make the world better, they're not in it for making money. No journalist I know ever started his career or her career because they wanted to make money. They want to get paid, but it's not a profession where you aspire to great wealth.
But corporate and bottom-line thinking does change what editors have to do and what journalists can do. I don't have a solution for it. The best newspaper companies have a better balance than others and value the journalists and the work that they do. In the long run, those companies are very successful, not only in terms of what they do for society in general, but also the type of money they make in the long run. There is definitely a conflict of values that's really risen to the fore, probably more than ever in the last 20 years.
Bitterman: It's not obviously just limited to newspapers, it's the electronic media as well. Many heads of these larger organizations are people with no journalism background really; they had never witnessed any interest in this kind of pro bono publico. Three things related to this often come up when people express this concern: there is a proliferation of low-power radio stations which are to provide voice to people in a less-than-huge media environment; the Internet provides the ability to very small groups of people, individuals, to communicate to large numbers of people in new and interesting ways; and, not necessarily a good fact at all, but in a growing number of communities across America, the only locally owned stations are the public stations - public radio, public television.
Lyon: People are quick to judge the quality of the product; if they think there's coverage that's not being done, there will be criticism, and I assume owners would respond. We have the same challenge in our field. People will say, "Well, where did you get your money? Where is the research money coming from? That source must bias your findings." You ask the question, look at the research, look at the finding, look at what people say about the work. The test of time will be if that work is any good, if it's accurate, if it's fair, it will be recognized as such.
Harris: How should California handle the population growth issue? Encourage more, discourage it? Do you consider our resources finite? Are you concerned about the deterioration of life in California? Do you think bilingual use, such as in voters' pamphlets, prevents many from learning English, which enables many to be able to read our papers?
Lyon: The first one is a tough question. How do we handle the population growth we've had, which is already substantial, and is already presenting us with a formidable set of problems, which have contributed to the fiscal crisis we've had in Sacramento? And what is our population policy, if we even have such a thing, about our future in California, and how is that going to play out?
There's a lot of attention being paid to this. If you think of Prop 187 - as weird as that proposition was, and this is the one that Governor Wilson got involved in and it was really very hurtful for the Republican Party - there was a case where a governor backed an initiative that was saying, We shouldn't have to pay for a federal policy - and the border policy in California is a federal policy. It came off as being punitive toward illegal immigrants, the children of illegal immigrants. In fact, we were working on a policy problem and an understanding of where the preferences of the state were on how you deal with undocumented immigrants.
The biggest challenge we face is how to formulate the question that relates to the state's future. How much population are we going to have? Where is it going to go? How are we going to do a deal with the attitude of many communities in California? "We want no more growth in our community; it's got to go elsewhere." How are we going to deal with the fact that that elsewhere increasingly is either the Inland Empire down in southern California or the Central Valley? The Central Valley is a huge body of land. Imagine 50 years from now, a good share of the Central Valley being covered with housing. That's the path we're on. What we should be doing about it right now is working that question about the future.
Bitterman: We have to be clear on not just spending our time saying, "Oh my goodness, our population's 35 million people; in 20 some years, it's going to be 60 million people - what are we going to do about this? Tut tut, it looks like rain." Rather, take a much more proactive stance with actually putting the issues out there which need thoughtful consideration and thoughtful resolution. The two fastest-growing areas of this state will, in ten to 20 years, displace the Bay Area as the second largest population center in the state.
The Inland Empire - many Californians have never heard those words. If I say San Bernardino, Riverside, Southern California, east rather than west, that's what I'm talking about - a growing population and a population of great need. Great amounts of illiteracy, great amounts of poverty. A population with the dimmest of prospects. Following that will be the great Central Valley. It is larger than Great Britain. It is a very large piece of land. Growth in population there is coupled with huge strain on existing resources and such diminutive infrastructure.
The challenge to all of us in this conference is to go back and focus on what are the critical issues that we need to position through our research organizations, foundations, educational institutions, media operations, wonderful public engagement groups like The Commonwealth Club of California, and really begin to work on these. Just sort of chatting about them in a very general way is necessary but not sufficient.
Harris: After I posed those two questions, a gentleman came up with a heartfelt question: "What do these two questions have to do with the media?" I want to wrap up with an answer to what I take as a very sincere question. One of the most important roles that the media play is called the agenda-setting function. The media do not control what people think. But we do have an enormous impact on what people think about. What questions like these have to do with the media and the other issues that we've talked about is that these are issues that the public, the ultimate sovereigns in our state and in our country, should be thinking about. The second way the media is involved is that it falls in large measure to the media to give the public the information that they require to discuss among themselves the best approaches to these great challenges, so that the will of the people, public opinion in the old sense of the word, can be expressed clearly and can have an impact on our representatives.
Tom Campbell
Dee Dee Myers