THE OMBUDSMAN: EDITORS FRET ABOUT RISING PUBLIC DISTRUST OF PRESS

Washington- Hundreds of the nation's newspaper editors gathered here last
week to try to figure out what to do about the distrust they feel from
readers everywhere.

By the end of a week devoted to critical self-examination, most seemed to
agree with Sandra Mims Rowe, editor of the Portland Oregonian and president
of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, when she characterized the
current era of American journalism as "a time of frighteningly low respect
for the newspapers we hold dear."

In a sometimes blistering critique of the performance of the press in
recent months, she challenged editors to work to turn around their
performance and win back the confidence of readers.

The opening session of the conference began with a District of Columbia
high school choir singing inspirational songs, including "The Impossible
Dream."

Whether the dream of restoring credibility to newspapers around the country
is realized will depend, Rowe told the editors, on the quality of
leadership in the future, and learning from mistakes of the past.

"In the face of intensive pressure and in hot pursuit of story, the salient
standard in the early Clinton-Lewinsky coverage appears to have been that
someone said it, therefore we wrote it; the wire service sent it, therefore
we printed it.

"That is not leadership," she said. "It is a sorry squandering of the
credibility we have."

The society has undertaken a four-year project to study, understand and
presumably turn around what surveys and research almost universally reflect
as a declining trust in newspapers and the media. The project was initiated
a year ago by Rowe before the current scandal gave impetus to her concerns.

The society met for its annual session in the nation's capital, and spent
most of the week listening to editors, educators and others try to figure
out why American newspapers are losing credibility with readers, and what
to do about it.

The next step in the four-year process will include research into specific
markets to determine exactly what readers' concerns are, and development of
training materials to help individual newspapers re-establish what seemed
last week to be badly battered standards.

Rowe did not let any members of the audience off the hook when she reminded
them that one individual editor exercising good judgment and clear
leadership can make the difference between proud public service and
failure, and it is done one decision at a time. She offered hope in her
remarks, but nailed the responsibility for failure or success right on the
editor's door.

Rowe's call for clear-eyed leadership was met with some defensiveness,
though politely stated.

Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of the Washington Post, assured other
editors his paper does not have a stake in the current scandals, and is
just trying to do a good job. But when he was questioned directly on
whether the newspaper's standards on the use of confidential sources had
changed, as some in the audience feel had happened recently, Downie
responded with non-specific assurances.

That led a Bremerton, Wash., editor to observe, "The rules seem somewhat
different here in Washington [D.C.]."

In an earlier session the Post's ombudsman, Geneva Overholser, observed
during a panel discussion on a hypothetical case that "we have our
standards, we just don't live up to them."

That might have been the theme for the week's debates, and some fear it
could be carved on the gravestone of newspapers.

The discussions on restoring credibility became somewhat entangled in the
obviously differing points of view between editors in and around
Washington, and those farther away.

Deborah Howell, editor and Washington bureau chief for Newhouse News
Service, acknowledged in the introduction of a discussion of the use of
confidential sources that "most people I know wanted to talk about nothing
else but Clinton-Lewinsky," and then acknowledged that "inside the Beltway
[surrounding D.C.] we thought the president was toast. We were wrong."

Also apparent in the discussions in and out of the conference rooms was the
concern that local newspapers apply tougher standards to their own
reporters than they do to services that provide the majority of national
and international news in most American newspapers. Most newspapers get the
bulk of their national reports from the Associated Press and the wire
services served by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington
Post. McClatchy Newspapers, including The Bee, uses those sources plus
reporters based in Washington to watch out for its readers' interests.

In the question periods and in panel discussions, editors frequently made
reference to what they call "the two-source rule" for unidentified sources
in news stories. That "rule," which was a guideline used by the Post during
the Watergate era, has never been universally adopted, as a few irate
editors pointed out at a session here on Wednesday. In fact, several said
that some readers feel sources should always be identified.

In his defense of the Post, Downie said that readers have to trust the
newspaper they read based on experience with that newspaper. He argued that
the system of unidentified sources exists as created by politicians and
officials, not the press, and that the fundamental test for readers is
whether they believe their newspaper.

Rowe and others noted that unidentified sources are not the only problem
eroding credibility for readers. Among the concerns she and other editors
cited were: In the corporatization of newspaper companies, Wall Street
often becomes more important than Main Street, and in some companies the
quest for profits reduces the ability of the newspaper to pursue the news
adequately.

Training and wages for newspaper personnel are rarely adequate, leading to
confusion about standards and a brain drain out of the industry.

Newspapers do not have to be dragged along into the mud when other media,
recently including Internet sources and broadcast outlets, fail to meet a
newspaper's standards. Newspapers do not have to follow television news in
the tendency to "dumb down" in the quest for ratings.

New media, including the Internet Web sites that have grown in the past
year, do not adopt newspaper standards and should not be treated as if they
do. And in the discussion in the halls, it became apparent that the view
from Washington is not the same as the view from the rest of the country.

One editor pointed out that the farther away from Washington she traveled,
the farther back in the local newspaper the stories about accusations over
Clinton's sex life appeared.

TWO EXAMPLES of what newspapers can do to address the problems were cited
by Rowe. Some newspapers recognized that the O.J. Simpson trial was not the
top news story of the day every day for months, and appropriately moved it
inside the newspaper.

And editors at several newspapers -- including The Bee -are taking the time
to address readers' concerns through columns written to explain to readers
the standards and values the newspaper wants to uphold, which leads to
better understanding and accountability.

She praised San Jose Mercury News Editor Jerry Ceppos for being willing to
apologize and acknowledge to readers last year that the newspaper had
failed to live up to its standards.

"Without saying so directly," she said, "he made clear the Mercury News
stands for quality."

The debate last week, Rowe said, is not about what editors have a right to
do, "it is about doing the right thing."

Newspapers can regain lost ground by being devoted to believability --
which includes accuracy and more -and being open about weaknesses,
nurturing journalists with a passion for responsibility and maintaining the
character of their newspaper.

For the next three years the editors' society plans to keep the issue of
credibility at the top of their agenda, the first time any single subject
has dominated discussion by the nation's top editors for more than one
year.

Whether the studies, discussions and projects that result make any
difference for newspaper readers remains for the editors to demonstrate
over those years.

THE OMBUDSMAN deals with complaints and concerns about The Sacramento Bee's
content. His opinions are his own. You can contact the Ombudsman by mail at
P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, 95852. E-mail to ombud@sacbee.com, fax at
556-5690, call directly at 442-8050 or through BeeLine at 552-5252,
category 5678.

Copyright ) 1998 The Sacramento Bee