Interview with Amy Mitchell
Can you explain what the
Project for Excellence in Journalism is about and the reasons for its
conception?
The Project for Excellence in
Journalism is a research organization that specializes in using empirical
methods to evaluate and study the performance of the press. We examine the
coverage as well as other trends such as audience, economics, ownership and
public opinion. PEJ is non partisan, non ideological and non political.
Our goal is to help both the
journalists who produce the news and the citizens who consume it develop a
better understanding of what the press is delivering. The Project has put
special emphasis on content analysis in the belief that quantifying what is
occurring in the press, rather than merely offering criticism and analysis, is a
better approach to understanding.
How is Excellence defined in relation to this Project?
The term Excellence really had to do
with the one aspect of our mission the first nine years or our existence. During
that time, the Project was was affiliated with the
Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
and had a twin mission of evaluating the press and helping journalists clarify
their professional principles. The first task, press evaluation, was carried out
through PEJ's empirical research. The second task, clarifying principles, fell
to a group the Project ran, the
Committee of Concerned Journalists
(CCJ). It
was the clarifying of principles that spoke to the “Excellence” of journalism.
In that regard, we developed (through a series of public forums across the
country) a list of ten core principles of journalism. They became the basis for
a book we published, The Elements of Journalism (available on our
website).
On
July 1, 2006, the Project began a major new phase in its history. It formally
separated from CCJ and
What have been some of the
key findings of the Project thus far?
The findings have grown each year as technology continues to advance, information outlets expand and audiences splinter among them. In the 2007 edition of our Annual Report on the State of the News Media (www.stateofthenewsmedia.org), we identified seven main trends occurring across all media sectors:
News organizations need to do more to think
through the implications of this new era of shrinking ambitions.
The move toward building audience around
“franchise” areas of coverage or other traits is a logical response to
fragmentation and can, managed creatively, have journalistic value. To a degree,
journalism’s problems are oversupply, too many news organizations doing the same
thing. But something gained means something lost, especially as newsrooms get
smaller. There is already evidence that basic monitoring of local government has
suffered. Regional concerns, as opposed to local, are likely to get less
coverage. Matters with widespread impact but little audience appeal, always a
challenge, seem more at risk of being unmonitored. What do concepts like
localism and branding really mean? Should only national newspapers maintain
foreign bureaus? Does localism mean provincialism? Should news organizations, so
as not to abandon more high-level coverage, enlist citizen sentinels to monitor
community news? To what extent do journalists still have a role in creating a
broad agenda of common knowledge? Those issues, debated in theory before, are
becoming real. And the wrong answers could hasten, not stave off, the decline of
news organizations.
The evidence is mounting that the news industry
must become more aggressive about developing a new economic model.
The signs are clearer that advertising works
differently online than in older media. Finding out about goods and services on
the Web is an activity unto itself, like using the yellow pages, and less a
byproduct of getting news, such as seeing a car ad during a newscast. The
consequence is that advertisers may not need journalism as they once did,
particularly online. Already the predictions of advertising growth on the Web
are being scaled back. That has major implications, (which some initiatives such
as “Newspaper Next” are beginning to grapple with). Among them, news
organizations can broaden what they consider journalistic function to include
activities such as online search and citizen media, and perhaps even liken their
journalism to anchor stores at a mall, a major reason for coming but not the
only one. Perhaps most important, the math suggests they almost certainly must
find a way to get consumers to pay for digital content. The increasingly logical
scenario is not to charge the consumer directly. Instead, news providers would
charge Internet providers and aggregators licensing fees for content. News
organizations may have to create consortiums to make this happen. And those fees
would likely add to the bills consumers pay for Internet access. But the notion
that the Internet is free is already false. Those who report the news just
aren’t sharing in the fees.
The key question is whether the investment
community sees the news business as a declining industry or an emerging one in
transition. If one
believes that news will continue to be the primary public square where people
gather — with the central newsrooms in a community delivering that audience
across different platforms — then it seems reasonable that the economics in time
will sort themselves out. In that scenario, people with things to sell still
need to reach consumers, and the news will be a primary means of finding them.
If one believes, however, that the economics of news are now broken, with
further declines ahead, then it seems inevitable that the investment in
newsrooms will continue to shrink and the quality of journalism in
There are growing questions about whether the
dominant ownership model of the last generation, the public corporation, is
suited to the transition newsrooms must now make.
Private markets now appear to value media properties more highly than Wall
Street does. More executives are openly expressing doubt, too, whether public
ownership’s required focus on stock price and quarterly returns will allow media
companies the time and freedom and risk taking they feel they need to make the
transition to the new age. The radio giant Clear Channel made that point when it
went private. So have a host of private suitors emerging in the newspaper field.
What is unknown is whether these potential new private owners are motivated by
public interest, a vision of growth online, having a high-profile hobby (like a
sports team), or as an investment to be flipped for profit after aggressive
cost-cutting. Public ownership tends to make companies play by the same rules.
Private ownership has few leveling influences. And the new crop of potential
private owners is unlike the press barons of the past, people trying to create
their legacy in news. Most of them are people who made their fortunes in other
enterprises.
The Argument Culture is giving way to something
new, the Answer Culture.
Critics used to
bemoan what author Michael Crichton once called the “Crossfire Syndrome,” the
tendency of journalists to stage mock debates about issues on TV and in print.
Such debates, critics lamented, tended to polarize, oversimplify and flatten
issues to the point that Americans in the middle of the spectrum felt left out.
That era of argument —R.W. Apple Jr. the gifted New York Times Reporter who died
in 2006, called it “pie throwing” — appears to be evolving. The program
“Crossfire” has been canceled. A growing pattern has news outlets, programs and
journalists offering up solutions, crusades, certainty and the impression of
putting all the blur of information in clear order for people. The tone may be
just as extreme as before, but now the other side is not given equal play. In a
sense, the debate in many venues is settled — at least for the host. This is
something that was once more confined to talk radio, but it is spreading as it
draws an audience elsewhere and in more nuanced ways. The most popular show in
cable has shifted from the questions of Larry King to the answers of Bill
O’Reilly. On CNN his rival Anderson Cooper becomes personally involved in
stories. Lou Dobbs, also on CNN, rails against job exportation. Dateline goes
after child predators. Even less controversial figures have causes: ABC
weatherman Sam Campion champions green consumerism. The Answer Culture in
journalism, which is part of the new branding, represents an appeal more
idiosyncratic and less ideological than pure partisan journalism.
Blogging is on the brink of a new phase that
will probably include scandal, profitability for some, and a splintering into
elites and non-elites over standards and ethics.
The use of blogs by political campaigns in the mid-term
elections of 2006 is already intensifying in the approach to the presidential
election of 2008. Corporate public-relations efforts are beginning to use blogs
as well, often covertly. What gives blogging its authenticity and momentum — its
open access — also makes it vulnerable to being used and manipulated. At the
same time, some of the most popular bloggers are already becoming businesses or
being assimilated by establishment media. All this is likely to cause blogging
to lose some of its patina as citizen media. To protect themselves, some of the
best-known bloggers are already forming associations, with ethics codes,
standards of conduct and more. The paradox of professionalizing the medium to
preserve its integrity as an independent citizen platform is the start of a
complicated new era in the evolution of the blogosphere.
While journalists are becoming more serious
about the Web, no clear models of how to do journalism online really exist yet,
and some qualities are still only marginally explored.
Our content study this year was a close examination of some three dozen Web
sites from a range of media. Our goal was to assess the state of journalism
online at the beginning of 2007. What we found was that the root media no longer
strictly define a site’s character. The Web sites of the Washington Post and the
New York Times, for instance, are more dissimilar than the papers are in print.
The Post, by our count, was beginning to have more in common with some sites
from other media. The field is still highly experimental, with an array of
options, but it can be hard to discern what one site offers, in contrast to
another. And some of the Web’s potential abilities seem less developed than
others. Sites have done more, for instance, to exploit immediacy, but they have
done less to exploit the potential for depth.
What observations do you make
about the relationship of government on the press? Do you believe that the
American Press has complete freedom to say what they want to?
The relationship
between government and the press often changes a bit with each new
administration. Now, though we are seeing some a change stemming more from
technology then from individual relationships. In general, those who would
manipulate the press—elected officials and other news makers—appear to be
gaining leverage over the journalists who cover them.
Several factors point in this direction. One is simple supply and demand. As
more outlets compete for their information, it becomes a seller's market for
information. Another is workload. The content analysis of the 24-hour-news
outlets suggests that their stories contain fewer sources. The increased
leverage enjoyed by news sources has already encouraged a new kind of checkbook
journalism, as seen in the television networks efforts to try to get interviews
with Michael Jackson and Jessica Lynch, the soldier whose treatment while in
captivity in
More recently, we now see many government entities with their
own websites that in a way seek to bypass the media. They put out their own
press release, their own blogs and even their own “news” reports.
As the same time, the American press
still has great freedom in what its reporting. While there are more eyes
watching the press (bloggers and other non-traditional media as much as
government) the legal freedoms are as strong as ever. What’s more, the public
supports such freedoms. If given a choice, for instance, a growing percentage of
Americans would pick press freedom over government censorship. After September
11, a majority leaned the other way (53% to 39%). That number has been reversing
to the point that by February 2006 a majority now favored press freedom (56% to
34%).1
Do you believe that
journalists can rise above the pressures that stem from popularism, corporate
boundaries and competition to do good
journalism that is about objectivity and responsibility? Please elaborate if
good journalism means something different to you.
Journalists can and do rise above these pressures on a daily
basis. It does, though, continue to get harder as newsroom resources diminish.
Journalists find themselves trying to produce more news reports in a faster time
frame but with fewer resources and less support from senior executives.
How would you describe the level of trust and respect
American citizens have in the Press and what factors have contributed to the way
it is?
Americans continue to appreciate the role they expect the press to play, and by some measure that appreciation is even growing.
But when it comes to how the press is fulfilling those responsibilities, the public’s confidence in 2006 according to some indices continued to slip. Perceptions of bias, and the partisan divide of media, appear to be on the rise.
The number of Americans with a favorable view of the press, for instance, dropped markedly in 2006, from 59% in February, to 48% in July. The metric can be volatile, but that was still one of the lower marks over the course of a decade.4
And in one of the most basic yardsticks of public attitudes, the number of Americans who believe most or all of what news organizations tell them, there were continued declines. Virtually every news outlet saw its number fall in 2006. In a battery that included more than 20 outlets, the only ones that did not decline were Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, people’s local paper, the NewsHour on PBS, People magazine and the National Enquirer.5
In contrast with a decade ago, there are no significant distinctions anymore in the basic believability of major national news organizations. About a quarter of Americans believe most television outlets. Less than one in five believe what they read in print. CNN is not really more trusted than Fox, or ABC than NBC. The local paper is not viewed much differently than the New York Times.
And there are signs, despite the appreciation for an independent press, that the perception of bias, even agenda-setting, is a growing part of the concern.
Among those who feel that their daily newspaper has become worse, for instance, the number who blame bias, and particularly liberal bias, has grown from 19% in 1996 to 28% in 2006.6
Has the Project for
Excellence in Journalism investigated how the media reports on the Iraq War and
the public expectations and assessment of the press coverage of the War?
We plan to conduct an in-depth study of
the 2007 content in the months ahead. But, one thing we did find in the coverage
from January through March of 2007 was a strong tendency to cover the
Is there a best case example
of journalism that you can nominate and describe what impresses you most about
the case?
I’ll hold off on this as our aim is more research now.
What
general comments can you make about the opportunities and barriers that female
journalists experience in the industry in
Women’s roles in the press as well as in
other industries continue to grow here in the
Katie Couric became the first solo
female broadcast anchor in September 2006, for CBS (see
Network TV Audience).
In local TV news, women have for long
been the face of the newsroom. According to the RTNDA, women accounted for more
than half of all anchor positions in 2005 — 57%. Even a decade ago, in 1996, 54%
of anchors were women.9
Indeed, the most recent survey of news directors in July 2006, commissioned for
the RTNDA, does show that virtually all newsrooms now employ women (97%) and
that they made up 40% of the TV news workforce as of 2005.10
Women are also increasing their ranks behind the scenes.
There are now more women executive producers, reporters, news producers and
writers. Indeed, in 2005, the number of women TV news directors heading their
own newsrooms rose by 25%, reversing a two-year drop. And, according to Bob
Papper, their salaries are at par with their male (news director) colleagues.
Such women, though, are generally found in smaller newsrooms
(with staffs of up to 10 people). The biggest newsrooms have the lowest
incidence of women news directors.
Further, the percentage of women in the
total television workforce over time has remained essentially stagnant.
According to RTNDA data, the share of women in the TV newsroom has fluctuated by
less than two percentage points between 1999 and 2005. They make up less than
half — 40% — of the newsroom staff.
Women in the Newsroom
1999-2005, As a Percentage of
Total Workforce in All Television News
|
Year |
Percent of Women |
|
1999 |
40% |
|
2000 |
39.7 |
|
2001 |
38.6 |
|
2002 |
39.3 |
|
2003 |
39.1 |
|
2004 |
39.3 |
|
2005 |
40 |
Source: RTNDA/Ball State University Annual Surveys on Women and Minorites
Nonetheless, women journalists are
increasing their ranks. According to surveys conducted by Profs. David Weaver
and G. Cleveland Wihoit for their book “The American Journalist in the 21st
Century,” which were conducted over three decades, women made up 33% of all
journalists in 2002, up from 20% in 1971, the year of their first survey.11
The journalistic trend reflects the
broader trend of an increasing number of women in the general labor force. In
2006, approximately 60% of women were in the labor force, a significant increase
over the 41% of 1970.12