|
|
VOICES: NEWSPAPERS
Journalism's
Champions Must Speak With One Voice
BY
GENEVA OVERHOLSER
 What
might journalists accomplish if we could speak with one voice
on those rare occasions when that voice is sorely needed?
A November New York Times article, on the current battle for public
opinion, noted the Pentagon's tight hold on information and said:
"Thus far, news organizations' only response has been increasingly
frustrated questioning of the policy in weekly meetings with Victoria
Clarke, the chief Pentagon spokeswoman. No unified challenge has
been made by top editors, broadcast news presidents or publishers."
Not that there haven't been efforts. At October's APME meeting
in Milwaukee, the council of presidents of journalism organizations
-- which to date has largely occupied itself with such practical
matters as ensuring that the various convention dates didn't overlap
-- took the unprecedented step of attempting a joint statement
on the importance of wartime press access to information. Significantly,
twenty-six organizations joined in. But the council represents
thirty-five. Some prominent members -- the American Society of
Newspaper Editors among them -- declined to sign. ASNE later joined
the Newspaper Association of America in a separate statement.
Meanwhile, bureau chiefs in Washington were holding regular meetings
with the Pentagon. Each of these efforts was important. But inevitably,
the fracturing results in less effectiveness, less public awareness,
and less influence on the government.
There have been of late several prominent calls for some kind
of national voice of -- or for -- journalism. Peter Goldmark,
chairman and c.e.o. of the International Herald Tribune, in a
speech at the Aspen Institute in August 2000, called on media
executives to "fund, jointly with your sister companies,
an independent council to track, promote, examine, and defend
the independent news function in America and in the world at large."
Jay Harris, in a speech at Harvard last May after his resignation
as publisher of the San Jose Mercury News, called for a new version
of the 1947 Hutchins Commission on press freedom and responsibility,
to move the debate about "unfettered market forces"
onto a larger stage. The Newspaper Guild's Committee on the Future
of Journalism made a similar recommendation a couple of years
ago. And a group gathered in 2000 by the Ford Foundation recommended
establishment of a nationwide partnership for quality journalism.
If journalism had a national voice, it could be raised at this
moment on behalf of freedom of information and on behalf of an
industry-wide recommitment to public service after years of just-another-business
performance. Never have these messages had more potential for
impact. With single-copy sales at some newspapers running as much
as 10,000 above normal, it's clear the public yearns for good
journalism. Equally evident -- in the surprise among so many upon
learning of the strength of anti-American sentiments abroad --
is the negative effect of the dramatic cutbacks in foreign news
in the years leading up to September 11.
Since the terrorists struck, the performance of America's newspapers
has been extraordinary. But it would be a miracle if such a commitment
of resources to news were to continue. Even before 9/11, advertising
was down, and profits threatened. Now, virtually every newspaper
company expects to fall dramatically short of already lowered
projections. Surely this moment of dislocation is the time for
newspaper company executives to tell a different story to Wall
Street -- one that, instead of disconnecting good journalism and
high earnings and emphasizing the latter, focuses on the commitment
to public service. As the Knight Foundation's Eric Newton, lamenting
the current situation, said at an October seminar sponsored by
the Nieman Foundation and New Directions for News: "Being
a cash cow is a strategy." It's a strategy that has hurt
the public and undermined democracy. And it's time we acknowledged
that, loud and clear -- now, when the public's reliance on us
is greater than ever, and when the costs of our failure to serve
them well have been made evident.
But without some national voice for journalism, how can we bring
the public in on the discussion? How can we help embolden executives
to tell a different story? How can we effectively bring change?
I don't know whether what is needed is a new national body such
as Goldmark or Harris envisions, or simply an effective coalition
of existing groups willing to put down their differences and speak
in one voice. I lean toward the latter, both because that course
seems more practicable and because it recognizes the allergic
reaction to anything smacking of monolithic views in an industry
of rugged independence and individualism.
Independence is all to the good -- but not at the price of failing
to take a stand. American journalism needs an effective champion.
As long as we cannot speak in one voice, we cannot meet the need.
Geneva Overholser
(genevaoh@aol.com), a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post
Writers Group, writes regularly for CJR about newspapers. She holds
an endowed chair at the University of Missouri school of journalism.
Among positions she has held are editorial writer for the New York
Times, editor of the Des Moines Register, and the ombudsman for
The Washington Post. She also served nine years on the Pulitzer
Prize board.
|
|
|
