News-Record.com

Mr. Robinson, I read this statement with interest:
"We don't try to satisfy one side or the other. We do what we think is right."

Unfortunately, what you guys think is "right" is often very "left."
Failing to excise the liberal bias in your coverage may be the source of some reader dissatisfaction.

I know you suggested that you believe it was a liberal bias when we didn't point out in that one story that the CWP exchanged fire with the Klan. Are there other instances in our coverage of this story that you believe show that liberal bias permeates our work? And can you discuss why "liberals" are critical of our work on this story, too?

And please, call me John. Even though we haven't met, I feel like I know you.

Perhaps, John, it's because Communism is associated with liberals, and the CWP were Communists. The whole controversy has been for years couched as a racial thing (even though the facts don't bear this out)with the racist right wing Klan vs. the liberal leftists CWP and the black population. The Klan is the evil empire and the CWP are the good guys helping minorities. The truth is that both were up to no good. A "news" story should have at least pointed out that the CWP exchanged as many bullets as the Klan unless of course the paper was trying to illustrate the good left vs. the evil right.

Of course, in reality the Klan does not truly represent the Right. I doubt many of them are even smart enough to understand the true differences between Right and Left, but that is not the point. But in the world of the N&R, if race is involved, it is always the fault of white racism. Not very enlightened or open-minded, is it?

John,

Did you note the absence of any mention of the communists in Cone's article? Fraudian slip? I think not. Cone's head is in that utopian cloud that enslaved Eastern Europe for 70 years.

Mr. Robinson, I was referring to the general slant of lots of stories, particularly those dealing with political topics. Sometimes even the headline for a story is misleading and left-slanted, indicating a negative bias against republicans or conservatives. As you know, the headline is a teaser for what's inside a story. Many folks only look at headlines, and continual subtle digs through creative headlines against anyone or anything conservative create a negative impression, regardless of the facts. I find your headlines and stories to be far more negative against conservatives than liberals, regardless of the basis for the story.
For example, conservative political figures are often referred to in the text as "right-wing" while Democrats are seldom labeled as "left-wing."
It's the little nuances in stories that set the tone, and leave the reader with a particular impression.
You and I could write a story on the same event and each give an entirely different version, based on our bias, through the use of negative or positive phrasing while still relating the same facts.
As far as the subject at hand, the Klan/CWP incident, I've found some subtle wording that is sympathetic towards the CWP. A story the other day (and I commented on it in another thread) had the word "racism" in the first line, leading the reader to believe it was a black/white or racially motivated confrontation, when in fact it was two groups of white folks duking it out in an otherwise uninvolved black neighborhood. I felt this was an intended reference that blurred the real story behind the confrontation, and sought to legitimize the actions of the oppressed “freedom fighters” of the CWP fighting against those evil ol' Klansmen.
As I've stated before, this bloody incident was disgusting and disgraceful, and would have best been settled had the participants on both sides fought to the death of all members. In no way do I support, condone, or agree with the position of either group.
However, I prefer to see the facts presented impartially and without bias, especially regarding a subject which generates such emotion.
Am I too sensitive about the treatment of conservative issues? Perhaps, but I see unjustified attacks against them daily in all areas of media coverage.

Good grief.

John, I'd like to get back to the larger point you were making, instead of slopping a comment up here that provides evidence after the conclusion.

As you say, as Editor you often face a scenario where no one is happy with the paper's coverage; that is, no one, from any perspective on a controversial issue, feels that you have been - pick the adjective - fair, thorough, unbiased. That seems to come with the job.

I have a few questions for you, and I hope that you can look past the questioner (a sometime critic) and engage the questions, the answers to which might be important and helpful for readers to better understand what you do. I ask them with no malice and no preconception of your replies. You may have answered them in a previous blog or column, and in that case, a referral to that answer would be handy.

When you face a scenario like the one described above, what standards of measurement do the newspaper staff look to in assessing whether they've done a good job? In other words, what criteria have to be met - reader approval not being one - for you to feel that you've done what is "right"? You say that you don't try to satisfy either side. What is it you attempt to satisfy? Strictly a news value equation, or something more?

Is the newspaper solely accountable to its corporate owners, or does it have some accountability to the community in which it's published?

Do you personally feel accountability to the corporate owners and/or to the community? In what proportion?

Acknowledging that you frequently hear from both or all sides on a particular issue, and that you do not seek to please them, what do you do with their input? Does it enter into the decision-making process at all, or is it completely set aside? How do you balance remaining independent of citizen lobbyists with the need to ingest and process feedback from your readership?

It's clear that at this point in your career, you're hardly fazed by the paper being "blamed" for this or that. Do you and the N&R staff find it difficult to separate the wheat from the criticism chaff, so to speak, due to the sheer volume of it? If your efforts on a particular controversial issue seem doomed to displease on a large scale, does that affect the resources and inches allocated to it? Do you apply any time-tested tactics to disarming critics before they launch, such as addressing issues of perceived bias out in the open?

Do newspaper editors, like religious leaders and public officials, face burnout due to the great expectations foisted upon them?

Do you believe that a newspaper is invested with unique power in its community? If so, what safeguards are in place to ensure that power is wielded responsibly? If not, how do you see the paper's role and purpose -- is it a servant of the people? Servant of its corporate masters? Just one voice among many?

Finally, does a newspaper have any kind of responsibility to reflect the attitudes, values, and priorities of its home city, or is it a private enterprise that only represents itself? Do you personally feel a responsibility to the out-of-towner that picks up a N&R to represent Greensboro in a way that's accurate and/or positive?

I realize you're not running for office, John, so thanks in advance for any time you can see fit to put to this.

Jasper,

I've written thousands of words on this topic over the last several years. I have been highly critical of the CWP for their actions and rhetoric, and praised the hearings for bringing out those facts. This column was about the Council and the hearings; I urge you to read the links at the bottom of the post to which John points before jumping to conclusions.

I may have to answer this one in segments, Chewie. What's our measurement? As the ante, we try to tell readers what's going on clearly, fairly and accurately. That must apply to all stories. Some stories we pay close attention to, others we log in and still others we only note or do nothing we. We made those decisions based on readership interest (think American Idol) and significance (think tomorrow's JP story) and resources (think, we don't have the staff of The New York Times).

Reader approval is certainly a factor, but we also know that on most stories we won't and can't please everyone. On controversial stories as TRC, reader reaction ranges from intense support of the project, intense opposition and apathy. We hear from all three groups -- even the apathetic who say, don't you have anything else to write about? So, on controversial stories, we don't put reader approval very high on our list of success factors. It's impossible to measure and borders on pandering. Plus, seeking reader approval on such a story leads us down the path of skewing the news to fit the audience we're seeking approval from. There are news organizations that are reputed to do that, but we don't want to be one of them, despite accusations by other commenters in this string.

We have been alone on a lot of stories. That is we've gotten public criticism on stories we have reported without any public support. But we've continued on reporting because we've thought the information was important to put in front of the public. I'm thinking of Project Homestead and the hockey deal with the Coliseum off the top of my head. That's what I mean by trying to do what we think is right.

In the end, we try to get at the truth of the matter. I suspect that you and others might challenge our work on TRC, suggesting that we're not doing that. As I've said, I accept the criticism that we could have done more, but also say that the story is far from over.

I'll get to the other questions momentarily.

On corporate accountability: Obviously, I'm responsible to both. My core responsibility is to our readership and to the community. My corporate bosses would tell you that, as well. My primary responsibility to our ownership is to publish a good newspaper and make my budget.

Again, different people have different views on what's good for the community. Some city council members think that by writing about TRC at all, we're hurting the image of Greensboro. Others thing we're hurting the community by not writing about it more.

Again, we certainly seek to please our readers. However, we know that it is impossible to please everyone. We listen to them all. Readers often make good points about our coverage, and we adjust. They also suggest good story ideas, and we follow them. It's not difficult to listen to citizen lobbyists and remain independent of them. As long as you have an open mind and the goal of getting better, you listen and adjust. It's not just citizen lobbyists, either. We do the same with corporate and political lobbyists. The messages and motivations are usually transparent.

So long as you have fundamental values -- and much has been written about journalism values -- then sorting through the thickets of disparate wants and needs becomes easier. (Not always easy, but easier.)

Not surprisingly, we can and do anticipate much of the criticism we get on specific stories. We may adjust by discussing how a story is displayed, what the headline would say, making sure that we have as many voices in the story as possible, that sort of thing. We do that because we do listen to readers and because they do make good comments. But if we think what we're doing is the right thing to do journalistically, we'll do it regardless of the criticism. (Most newspapers operate this way, too.)

Does intense controversy affect resources devoted to a story? Yes. It may well mean that we devote more resources to it. It rarely -- I can't think of a time, although it could have happened -- that the controversy surrounding a topic would drive us to cover it less.

More later.

Burnout? Sure, but, as you note, not any worse than a multitude of other jobs.

I don't know that a newspaper has a responsibility to reflect the attitudes and values of its home city. I do know, though, that if it doesn't attempt to reflect the values of its readership, it probably won't be in business for too long. The problem, of course, is that readership -- which in our case goes beyond our "home city" -- is incredibly diverse, with a variety of attitudes, values and priorities. How to reflect them all? And sometimes we tell people things they don't want to hear.

So we drop back to those core journalistic values, which, to save me time is well-articulated in "The Elements of Journalism" by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel.

Of course we want to represent Greensboro accurately. Positively? Oh, I suppose, but it's not a priority because many times the news isn't positive, and other times, it's important to see the warts and all picture.

The response to the best question -- the newspaper's role in the community -- will have to come later.

This is excellent, John. You're making me so glad I asked. Thanks.

No question a newspaper is invested with unique power in the community. That power is declining slowly because of all the other media options and declining readership habits among younger people, but the influence is still undeniable. We believe in the self-important way that journalists have that this is a sacred trust.

You question about safeguards is so broad and encompassing that I won't be able to do it justice here. Here's a shot, though.

Journalism has many written and unwritten ethical standards, expectations and rules of behavior. The Kovach-Rosenstiel book I referred to earlier states many of them. The News & Record has a 13-page ethics policy outlining a variety of rules and procedures that all news department employees must read and agree to.

We're well aware that our words and pictures carry weight and, in many ways, establish the building blocks for community understanding on events and issues. We're also aware that our reporting reflects a point in time. We write what we know at this one specific point. Some of what we write is wrong because people give us wrong information, particularly as it involves a breaking news story. The knowledge of the impact of our work motivates us to take great care in what we do. (Not publishing what we believed to be true about JP on Friday is an example of resisting the temptation to run a "great" story because we didn't have it nailed.)

We juggle community roles, sometimes gracefully, sometimes awkwardly. We try to give readers a clear picture of what happened yesterday and what's going to happen today as best we know it. We also try to "shine light in dark corners" and "speak truth to power," as the cliches go. These are tough assignments because they require choices: there are a lot of dark corners and our light can only reach some of them. (That's the reference I continue to make about available resources.)

The concept of the role of our "corporate masters" runs throughout your questions and I assure you that I rarely talk about news coverage with them and certainly not about specific stories. When we do talk about the news department, we talk about accuracy, fairness and trust.

I'll quote from The Elements of Journalism because it states this better than I can. "The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing....The news media help us defnie our communities, and help us create a common language and common knowledge rooted in reality. Journalism also helps identify a community's goals, heroes, and villains....Perhaps in the end journalism simply means carrying on and amplifying the conversation of people themselves."

Broad strokes, indeed. The debate, of course, ends up in the definitions and the details.

John, I won't lay this on too thick, lest people think that money changed hands.

You deserve accolades for taking the time to air these thoughts in public and responding to my request. There's a lot of talk about transparency these days - in many cases it is just talk. Thanks to the access this blog provides, your readers have a window into the newsroom that we've already begun to take for granted, and shouldn't.

I'm sure you know by now that I think what you do is incredibly important. With the advent of Fox "News", the wilderness of information gathering on the web, and the blurring of news and talk, we may need newspapers now more than we ever did - even as we talk about declining readership.

To hear you use terms like "sacred trust" to describe what you do means something - it means something to me. It's worth reminding your readers often that you are aware of how your work can "establish building blocks for the community's understanding on events and issues."

Though not one who ascribes simplistic partisan biases to your work, I and many others can still have trouble deciphering your decision making process. The guidelines you outlined above may seem rote and obvious to journalists in the daily grind but, especially given the behavior of some media outlets, your respect for and adherence to them is not a foregone conclusion, even for readers who have some familiarity with journalism. It's worth reaffirming.

Thanks for seeing not a challenge, but an opportunity in replying. I much prefer this dynamic to critic/defender, and think that it yielded much more helpful insights. Let's do it again.

Thanks, Chewie. I know that you are a constructive critic and we need and appreciate that. The newspaper is a learning organization. Because we start with a clean slate every day, we consider it a tremendous opportunity to improve every day. Some days we face that opportunity with more success than others. I've also tried to explain how we came to a decision. I've tried to acknowledge those bad days when we didn't use our best judgment or we just plain screwed up.

You're right, of course. Much of the traditions and mythology in this business are passed down almost by osmosis. In fact, books are written about journalists, capturing us at our best and our worst. My challenge is to do a better job in explaining the mysteries that go on in this building. What I described above, as I reread it, scarcely touches the surface and could use elaboration and back and forth. (I wrote while we were handling the JP story so I did what I shouldn't have done -- write with one eye on this post and one on Jefferson Pilot stories.)

I hope that you, and anyone else, who wonders what we do here will shoot me a note and ask. You're right that much of what we know and do is rote and obvious to us, and I may not be aware that it isn't the same to you. So help me there.

Someone recently wrote, "If you'd like to check out an endangered species, don't bother with a trip to the zoo...Just drop by the newsroom of your favorite newspaper or TV station and ask to see the conservatives."
As I said in my initial comment which raised this whole issue, often what you guys think is "right" is very liberal.
Liberal news people, educated in liberal institutions by liberal journalism schools and liberal professors, will invariably put a liberal spin on what they do, and believe it to be mainstream, moderate, reflective of the community, or "right." It is none of the above, it is the liberal slant from liberals who cannot help but express themselves that way.
A recent Pew Research Survey show the liberal bias in news employees:
"In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar ­ 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative)."
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214

I'll quote a line from your above post:
"But if we think what we're doing is the right thing to do journalistically, we'll do it regardless of the criticism. (Most newspapers operate this way, too.)"
Unfortunately, your view on the "journalistically right thing" to do is shaded by your liberal upbringing, liberal journalistic education, liberal professors, etc. You honestly believe that what you're doing is the "right thing" and I applaud you for doing what you think is right. But "right" in your world and in this context is the liberal interpretation of what is right, because you are, by nature, liberals.
I don't think you consciously sit around and plan stories or coverage to force your liberalism on others. But when you're a liberal, educated and taught liberal views by liberal professors in liberal institutions, it's just the way you do things, without realizing how liberal you really are. I believe that you folks work at a liberal newspaper, in a liberal newsroom, surrounded by other liberals, and you think it's the norm.
But it's just your norm, not the norm for the whole community.

Wow, the dialogue between Chewie and Editor Robinson gives me hope. In any event this discussion (stemming from the TRC process) has led our local paper's editor to enter into discussions that are meaningful and thoughtful. Good for the N&R, good for Greensboro, good for the GSO blogosphere. In these troublesome times, I'm proud to be a resident of Greensboro.

Mr. Appel, I appreciate your comments and want to learn from them. It would be more helpful to me if you would send me the examples of our liberal bias that you say occur daily.

The one example you cite -- racism in the first paragraph of a TRC story -- came from the testimony, not from a random conclusion by our reporter. Here it is:

"The racism and class differences that led to the Klan-Nazi shootings at Morningside Homes in 1979 live on today, speakers testifying Saturday told the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
"'The wounds are not old,' said the Rev. Mazie Butler Ferguson, president of the Greensboro-area Pulpit Forum. 'The wounds are still here. The wounds are quite present. The wounds walk up and down our streets.'"

Did we choose that angle? Yes. Did the testimony suggest that? Absolutely. Is it the reflection of liberal sensibilities? Possibly, but they are on the part of Pastor Ferguson. You say we should have said it was a white-on-white crime, but it was hardly that. African Americans were involved. The KKK is a racist group. You say that first paragraph "sought to legitimize the actions of the oppressed 'freedom fighters' of the CWP fighting against those evil Klansmen."

With due respect, how you draw that conclusion is beyond me. So let's move along. I hope you will let me know where you see our bias coming through in the paper more regularly so we can talk about them when they are fresher.

As far as the daily examples, I was referring to the media nationwide, not the N&R.
I drew the conclusion after reading the continual racial references in what was essentially a fight arranged by one group of whites against another group of whites in an otherwise uninvolved black neighborhood.
The impetus for this fight was generated in China Grove, NC, and the CWP issued a challenge to the Klan in their "Death To The Klan" rally that was to take place in Greensboro. The CWP chose to have it in a black neighborhood, with the willing participation of Nelson Johnson, who is, I'll concede, black.
I've never seen it as a black/white issue, regardless of those that would characterize it as such. I felt that way when it happened, and I still feel that way.
Never fear, I'll point out liberal bias when I perceive it in your newspaper.
As I said, it's more the subtle way in which words are used in a story by a reporter than a blatant statement.
Thanks for your interest.