. 8.): \ A3. tizxtxg 82. 8 8)-8h8ll.88u{\afl:afluélz 59431.83“? 312.28.288.84... .5 t 8 I. . I. s .5 w . Kigali; - .. 8 53....2vnrhiwu83 c.8888 . .8.. 8.22%: , 8.184.888... .8 "has n . a 1 u....r.§fia...fi2vawixwmhnwnu..,‘,.i..w$nfi Ffiwwnfigyyexadfiixfipfiwmummwi 8.888065881882g \Itkapozbfi.lk..xi 2528...; : .94..tl1\a% 9 :3 8...) . MNNWHN358I‘J x viiizfi [92‘ , grhxttlfififl 2 gwgi. . 42...: $9.58.)- fad: 2..-bu: 8 .2 Eui 8.85.83.85.83... \: .81883858888484888 . . ‘ (1“ yard»; .4. . Emmi-r.» a: . LE. 23"..V-thf u afilinégo 2&1...»sz 5.1.x! . £3 .demuum-fiw. 1mg. fi..n.«....4&m8...,m8..d§nm¥i:fii8be¢882828488835... %82ti.£svfl8nkszcizist}.puuxhisinwuflu .e a? . 8 v a v... 8 . kpkl‘l‘lilbiil 8 hitfzii ill; 33 8.83%!» m: a .. 13$ .mp1 . 8 y l.» ~59 18.51.588.588: £82823!!! II» 8751...- .2; LL88? u:- 815 8. .. i . 8 188...... 38‘: 8:82.88 318.888.888.88818; 32.8.... 2.2. - uni... 3 . L..- :3». .. xdafi..8£ 2... 8.8.8.8 .2 22.....641483188283338 8.2.8.... . . n . . Q l: -, n1 i; :32 Rumba. fifim; .ziiLifln xlafififi. . , , .1. 8835.8..- .18.... 188.188.851.883 :1. . .. In... 8. 52.5.? .25.; 8... I 8.5.238... 8% egg: 838 28 ., 1.. .8 2.24 Rx 195.81 3.31.1.8. it. 818328-x882252.82?¥.58v888a ,. :- 8; .2 L3... 2 8 8mm giggukkhuhrxgng2.8888822284188828 .rifF-g .n r {hgzivfw .88 .558.“ . nilSa..P>i)1!s 168M043”! s ‘88: mass $.fif'i , attunbnfliii 8.831173... an"! , . .fl SKR Tm§fa 1. 2 this; x; «2285‘ khllybflf. I. _. . éhfifi %n .u .uxnuqhu‘wmotsuwm8888hn» z. 3 8...: 83.8%. 8:: tittiituh.849.8_tfll..2itzit.tt2u ll. , II. - u . . b \ I. it: . t .. . ,.X~"N.l§4 31. it; ax §§§r$%ig.t«t88x$flf 0: . {.8. n 79.1 . 82"} . £3 3).. V5.7. it» .. E8 .Pn. .t "mun. .1853... ax!- $538. A. 1898.84.89.88 aggyaufiwiu.lt.k.j.nibx . 8 but. :18. . 8a .4... . l fixifinfiu 2mm... . 2x “a?“ "1%.”.2: . t .R. V‘Wla. . 2 ‘83... . 8?...«35358 ha :8. .. Lt .5 I. 2.1,. a. a . 83.3831 8 . . ,3... “Wm. . . _ . :8. 8.... 54 h. ... silt-Int} ‘- . , uo. . .. .8 y z. 8...-1.. e. :1}: ii : \ 37-: 8.3.}... ‘ ~ \ ‘1‘: I . 2'. . i t .1 iflhagyfiriyflufi . fax 13.13%. €111.25 ?. I:!V:x:..:-17\o?....va »1\t?71¥18$ .. . flufiu...l.f§:.uxxd,é:¢ixill:. Roch—821.514; 3:77 igua- nUfln.’€1-Z. .. . rfiquu 18.1“.“ .11..- , \‘Kkvpx I%. T .\T, \‘1. 1.\1 .WWXa‘JXIibJa IfinszYv-VI‘n \31 '1 t]. . 2w 1.7: an“... fining} 1&1fi4fi3 - .7 . $143.8 .3." $2.18....- 381‘ ,. \ u . ugh: kxpfnxl‘lcncflieoflsl \ ( 8 {-118 3% 8mm“; Liirxirxzrggt . I“. §{u13._§t ‘I «L. R. 1&8 .1911 \Txxtflfig‘flfl h . .31 .3 .3! .3380 1.. , \ . .. 4 . .t. l. . s . .r . . . 10.- ,. . 7 : 481.”?qu hwy). » . 8 , v .3 nun-fig , . u. ., lul . 8'93; 1 \\X T\. . . 2 . .u :13 , .1. I . INTI. 6141?. .5 23.8.:s.1~2% .- . «all . (1.3 a... 3!: $85,218 a . 7!- .lhtgm. 2”“. )1. 1.1.. : in. .nflfit 3 \~\ _ .8 .a 3 .8 . 33.3. . .. . _ . , . , , . git-8g. . a. 5518?! it: ,1t\!v unfit: I. 3.253.)... 1355§31§15 g 81. A )1! , . in“ 3.1.8.8883. . 5; 2 . finale RN. . f $715881? . 718.135.311.48. , . y - , . . .8::.:51$.§.x!1:fi£9m.518.x..01157fl8g8111mfihflucn3-2; .. , a .8...” . fluvavzhfimusl ,iflv‘hwsfifig. \Ii3gaflfl \szszsikua. 8 t!!!- , . . , « hwgfigfiyinfiali: ‘5 In... , \.:fi. :1. 8 . {8.07. Y ybfi,wf§1)13h.§) \VThuUuw! ~11. i§}$\§...v§tv ’63:“... . I , , . 2 , . . .3 1. .urv . . .91.. :1 \ 914.573.8887. Taxi lziggfggsmi. w . . , . a r v... 3! It: :8." . 81 a T x . 711.13.111.13... : 71213682113810.2188} £38.51 . , n . . _ . 588$”an .. . 2. I . .9 _ . .288, 8.8%.? .8. 14.3%. , figflmgggg; , . .. . .8 , . . . «.588 1‘8. .13.. , . . . 18.9817. . )2... lg... 8091801873511 . . i 8...-It . . ., 2..-$88.88... 1.32.1... .8. ..; . Lyifliumlz. 1a.}.‘ykufig s :n . %E% 28.59.. . 2. s. .18 ,1?:§281¢9§§33 What a?» «fig. 3. . . 351% . . , u. - . : 8585!“;8.5§83k.uf J. 132.51.81.38"? 209mm ixggrrfiyt 3&3 Y... 78088813»; :28! .5 will. 0’ 8.; 8. . . , . 1 , {0.85-4.71 . fixwicgfiggfl 1.48 581,17 ) loo-(nt- 331118177 3 . 3.3! 314.1 JV 8 .8.-.38.: P8388...- 25: 1.8... #53251... g t, L. . 31hr .I%h§§ 1. zfiulzfggflégi. 28$... , 2;: l , a . , .. . , Iirhlilztrtirlls u n. u)?“ igalvzz.:£x .358 , {H.258} 3. l. 8 1‘. 8 8r v.1. .3 . , - £3? , a? . 511.51 311, .7191 0“; ti . 258...... . 8 . . y 8 .81: Viaéuun) £529.... l...:i.:t:l...:..$..:x 8.8812171 it’d-his. .. . 111.3%} gilt...“ 51.5 3). 3.58.88.85.52: 33315.3... 5 Lawn”... o.1.l-.)u3:l'-...§19’1§§'3NH . . 1818.21.31. 1.? a: 1:318 . . 18.8.85... 73.525. Elisa: q “9.481;.33 .[ . . 1.8.7.1):1185118. . firgswxill vial-53.3.. vi .8! :8:- 3L....8.v$l.’88‘,\.8.v.~.|l~§’r7 .ll’ 311182-383 , {88895218.}...28802 ésgg. . . 801.818.89.88“? :7 . . I) 4'. .1. if» .1 . EAIIE? 009.1% titan .88! 2:1 18.888... gigftth‘. 569832.".(88‘5 . .8 1818885885881...- tlysi: 1|; :5 fl; §§§é£5||§zu :8 8 x , . y}; .1: - 8 .8 ~ . \ 113:3: .8318); DA. a x. 12183891388): 08 . fig 28-82.82.184}. i .’§\‘~.\ . f‘zfit‘x (1510. ”“54? fit‘ , ‘81:}! {58368110885388.1881}. . 1 . .2. :1 2 . - .8., _. _ 1881.88.52.181888 .. .. 28.x! . .3: . 88.8?3»? hmun-n.5,???88......883xn581888888381 £5,338.83 «8.834.815.38883311 , .8. . 2... . a1 I a?! .‘ 2 . a .C 8v. . . IL . .- uuvnuvfifiwaa. In}; 3.. a . . .1 ... ., 8 ..f.. p ii a . .. ......... . a: .. 8a). 8px;-a ., . 8.: x. ., - - 3. 1 ,8. 8 \tW‘..... .18.” U”! .8.... 2 8 ,, Hi, ‘— Vi; ”rt 2:: ll/fl/WWLWWfl/Wi/IIWM/Ii I / 5413 _ , ‘91: 01“”.an ‘h 9.1»; (.3 ‘ ’m @ 53in Mmewwma! This is to certify that the thesis entitled A READERSHIP SURVEY ASSESSING THE EFFECTS AND INFLUENCES OF A NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM presented by James M. Bernstein has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mas ter' 8 degree in Journalism /?[Z%t~A/\/ (c: «L (/ Major professor \/ Date November 3, 1982 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES . am your record. FINES W1” be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. m; 23 '88; If“) If") “' DEC 9am 33 5 We" '39” A READERSHIP SURVEY ASSESSING THE EFFECTS AND INFLUENCES OF A NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM BY James M. Bernstein A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism 1982 ABSTRACT A READERSHIP SURVEY ASSESSING THE EFFECTS 3 AND INFLUENCES OF A NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM By James M. Bernstein The purpose of the study was to determine the accountability perceived by a newspaper audience regularly exposed to a newspaper ombudsman program and a news criticism column. It was hypothesized that those with greater awareness of an ombudsman would have higher perceptions of newspaper accountability, and more frequent column readers would have higher perceptions of newspaper accountability. A cross-sectional survey research design was used and telephone interviews were conducted with 393 respondents in Louisville, Ky., from March 23, 1981, to March 25, 1981. The findings support the hypothesis that those with higher awareness of the ombudsman have higher perceptions of newspaper accountability. No support existed for the hypo- thesis that more frequent column readership would result in higher perceptions of accountability. The findings may be connected to the promotion of the ombudsman program by the newspapers. Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. M QW Ditjctor of ThesisJ' ‘ AEting Chair School of DEDICATION This is dedicated to my parents, Madeline and Sylvain, who instilled in me the importance of education. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Input from dozens of people made this study possible. Failure to mention all of them here is the result of a lack of space and a faulty memory. Their efforts are greatly appreciated despite omission of their names. Among those who deserve singling out is my thesis director, Dr. John Abel, whose demands seemed unmeetable at times, but whose encouragement made the attempts worthwhile. Thanks also go to the other two members of my thesis committee, Dr. Stan Soffin and Dr. Howard Bossen. Their meticulous editing and insightful comments have been appreciated. A mention of a few employees of the Louisville news- papers is appropriate here, too. Senior editor Carol Sutton, former ombudsman Frank Hartley, former news critic Bob Schulman and Mark Schneider of the papers' corporate analysis and research department all went beyond the call of duty to supply information I needed for the study. Finally, I'd like to thank Lynn for being nearby the last few years. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1. 2. INTRODUCTION LITERATURE REVIEW . Review of Twentieth-Century Press Criticism Review of Research Literature on Newspaper Accountability METHOD Development of Accountability Scale Construction of Interview Schedule Pre-Test Sampling Interviewer training Data collection Analysis of data RESULTS Demographic Characteristics Sample Description Across Pertinent Variables Newspaper Readership iv Page vi . viii ll ll 19 24 24 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 37 39 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter Column Readership Awareness of Ombudsman Perception of Accountability Knowledge of Current Issues Tests of the Hypotheses Summary of Readership and Accountability Data . Summary of the Tests of the Hypotheses. Predicting Perceived Accountability . 5. DISCUSSION Summary of the Results Interpretation of the Results Limitations of the Research . APPENDICES A. Interview Schedule B. Topics Discussed In Focus Group Interview Sessions C. Standing Column Listing Editors and Ombudsmen. D. Editors' Columns E. News Criticism Column Examples BIBLIOGRAPHY . Page 39 42 44 47 48 59 60 6O 65 65 66 7O 74 77 78 79 82 86 Table \0m\lO\U1-I>UON H‘ r4 ta N H‘ c: l3. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Page Factor Loadings, Principal Factors With Iterations, Unrotated. . . . . . . . . . . 28 Factor Loadings With Varimax Rotation. . . . 29 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample. . 38 Newspaper Readership . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Readership of News Criticism Column. . . . . 4l Column Readership Verification . . . . . . . 42 Awareness of Ombudsman Program . . . . . . . 43 Reliability Analysis for Fairness Factor . . 45 Reliability Analysis for Complaint Factor. . 45 Two Items of ”Complaint” Factor. . . . . . . 47 Knowledge of Current Issues. . . . . . . . . 48 Differences in Perception of Accountability Among Three Levels of Awareness of the Ombudsman Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Differences in Perception of Accountability Among Three Levels of Awareness of the Ombudsman Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Difference in Knowledge of Current Issues Among Four Levels of News Criticism Column Readership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Differences in Knowledge of Current Issues Among Three Levels of Awareness of the Ombudsman Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 A. Scheffe contrasts between ”aware, can describe" group and ”aware, cannot describe” group and levels of significance . . . . . 53 B. Scheffe contrasts between ”aware, can describe” group and ”not aware” group and levels of significance . . . . . . . . . . 53 vi Table l6. 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page C. Scheffe contrasts between ”aware, cannot describe” group and ”not aware” group and levels of significance Chi-square Test--Frequency of News Criticism Column Readership by Amount of Formal Education, in percent. . . . . Chi- square Test--Frequency of News Criticism Column Readership by Level of Household Income, in percent . . . . . . Chi—square Test-~Awareness of Ombudsman Program by Amount of Formal Education, in percent. Chi—Square Test-—Awareness of Ombudsman Program by Level of Household Income, in percent Differences in Perceived Need for Someone to Complain to Among Four Levels of News Criticism Column Readership Differences in Perceived Need for Someone to Complain to Among Three Levels of Awareness of the Ombudsman Program . Correlation Matrix of Nine Variables for Total Sample Regression Coefficients for Eight Independent Variables with Perceived Accountability. Analysis of Variance Test of Regression With All Variables in the Equation vii 53 55 55 56 56 58 58 64 64 Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Distribution of Accountability Scores. viii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION What would have happened had Janet Cooke not been given a Pulitzer Prize? Conceivably, inaccurate biographical information transmitted by Associated Press to its members about Janet Cooke would not have been sent; The Toledo Blade's editors, troubled that the AP information conflicted with their information about Cooke, a former employee, would not have pointed out the discrepancy to AP executives; AP execu- tives would not have checked with Cooke's employers at Thg Washington Post about the discrepancies; and Ben Bradlee would not have forced Cooke into a confession. In essence, Janet Cooke might still be working for The Washington Post, having avoided the embarrassing revela— tions that were triggered by her winning a Pulitzer Prize. She could have escaped the resulting ignominy had her fictitious story about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy not been so poignant and believable. The truth may have caught up with her eventually, but without the prize and the accompanying notoriety, Janet Cooke could have remained as an employee of the Post. This distinct possibility raises an important question: How many journalists have concocted stories, passed them off 1 2 as fact, and gone undetected by their employers and readers? The answer, of course, is nearly impossible to obtain, unless some journalists have desires of self-ruination. But cases exist in which reporters using questionable methods have remained in journalism, despite their modus qperandi. More recently, however, these techniques are being revealed and, in some instances, journalists punished. New York Daily News columnist Michael Daly wrote a seemingly firsthand account of a street battle in Northern Ireland shortly after the Cooke-Washington Post affair. The story, however, was exposed as a fabrication, Daly having used a composite and a false name to identify his story's central character. Teresa Carpenter wrote a series of stories for the Village Voice about Dennis Sweeney, the man accused of murdering former U.S. Representative Allard Lowenstein. The story contained several quotes from Sweeney, apparently obtained in a personal interview. But Carpenter had not talked to Sweeney, relying instead on several people who had been close to him.1 These two incidents and the Janet Cooke episode forced journalists to examine the ethics of using literary license common to fiction, license that at times has resulted in fabrication. Although arguments have been made for both sides, several ”mainstream” journalists have been critical of lPaul Blustein, "Some Journalists Fear Flashy Reporters Let Color Overwhelm Fact," The Wall Street Journal, May 14, 1981, p. l. the use of composite characters and doctored quotes.2 But though Daly and Carpenter can be criticized, they cannot and have not been easily punished. Daly eventually was forced to - -- l . A~- - resign his position with the DailygNews, but not before admitting to having used composites and pseudonyms several g times.3 Carpenter, on the other hand, received a Pulitzer Prize for her feature-writing series, one story of which was the one about Sweeney.4 Unlike Janet Cooke, both Daly and Carpenter went unpunished for using questionable journalistic techniques. Daly ultimately paid the consequences; Carpenter, though, was rewarded for the stories generated from her method. There are other recent cases of journalists ”mal- practicing" but going unpunished for transgressions. The Washington Post published in its gossip column, ”The Ear," a story about the Carter administration wire-tapping a Blair House room inhabited by President-elect Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. When confronted with a libel suit by the former president, the Egg; apologized and retracted the story, admitting it was an unsubstantiated rumor. The Egg; made no claim to have taken punitive action with the person or persons responsible for printing a rumor. Two incidents in 1982 indicate that questionable ZIbid. 3Paul Janensch, ”Policies that guard against the stretching of truth in news stories,” The Courier-Journal, May 17, 1981. 4 Blustein, ”Some Journalists," p. 1. journalistic techniques are no longer being overlooked or unpunished, once discovered. The New York Times revealed that free-lance writer Christopher Jones had fabricated a story about his travels in Cambodia, a story that appeared in The New York Times Magazine. The Times was unable to take punitive action against Jones, but had considered litigation.5 However, widespread publicity about the incident certainly will prohibit Jones' attempts to get other free-lance work. In May 1982 reporter Frank McGrew, a 15-year employee of the Atlantic City Press, was dismissed by the paper for reporting the business of a union meeting without having attended the meeting. McGrew's account, which was erroneous, apparently would have given readers the impression that he had been there. In addition to its action against McGrew, the paper apologized publicly to its readers and to the union.6 In all likelihood unethical journalistic practices occur daily, but go unpublicized and unpunished because they are never discovered. But even if they were discovered, should unethical journalists be punished? After all, consti— tutional protections exist for publishing falsehoods as long as the journalist has not been reckless or negligent in his pursuit of a story. And what law says a journalist cannot 5"N.Y. Times Freelancer admits fabricating story," Editor & Publisher, February 27, 1982, p. 20. 6”Phony column results in reporter's dismissal,” Editor & Publisher, June 19, 1982, p. 30. make up a story? Should it be determined that unethical journalists should be punished, to what extent should they be punished? Dismissals or forced resignations work for staff members, but what about free-lance journalists? And does the threat of punishment result in prevention? Absent rules and laws to deal with the unethical journalist, several journalism organizations have adopted codes of ethics designed to guide their members. But despite the existence of codes, they are unenforceable. In fact, journalists are not even required to subscribe to the codes in some instances.7 Journalism may be unique among the so— called professions in that its practitioners do not answer to an organization, a licensing group or the public. Instead, journalists must rely on self-control-- individual and organizational--in order to account for their actions. Whether over drinks or lunch, or in the more formal atmosphere of a convention, journalists spend a surprising amount of time discussing the right ways to do their jobs. Some have argued that no other occupation equals journalism in self-criticism.8 But leadership in self-criticism has not translated into high levels of honesty and ethics in the opinion of the 7David M. Rubin, Peter M. Sandman, and David B. Suchsman, Media: An Introductory Analysis of American Mass Communi- cations, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., I976) pp. 77-79. 8 Ibid., p. 79. public. Two recent public opinion polls conducted by the Gallup organization ranked journalists seventh and ninth in ethical standards. Among those occupations ranking higher than journalists are clergymen, dentists, doctors, police and 9 bankers, each more formally controlled by codes of conduct than journalists, and as a result, exposed to greater scrutiny by the public than journalists. Assuming that journalists desire an improved public image for their attempts at self-control, the answer may lie in greater exposure to the public of journalism and its ethical considerations. Historically, the journalism profes- sion has been reticent to explain to the public how the profession works. But in the last fifteen years journalism has made increasing attempts to provide the public the same opportunity journalism requires of other institutions: the opportunity to examine and point out transgressions. News- paper ombudsman programs, local and regional press councils, and increased coverage of the media by the media illustrate the 15-year trend. The purpose of this study was to determine the effec- tiveness of a pioneering effort begun in 1967 to allow public scrutiny by the newspapers in Louisville, Kentucky, Th3 Courier-Journal (circulation 182,705) and The Louisville Times (circulation 147,472). The Louisville newspapers' attempts to be accountable to their readers have incorporated 9Gallup, George, The Gallup Poll, a news release, September 20, 1981, Princeton, New Jersey. several aspects: 1) an ombudsman program, which allows readers to contact a full-time employee of the newspaper when they have complaints about editorial fairness and accuracy, delivery or advertising; 2) a news critic, whose responsibili- ties included writing regular columns, evaluating the work of the area news media, including those owned by his publisher}0 and 3) weekly columns by the newspapers' executive editor and by the Iimgg' managing editor. The ombudsman program at the Louisville newspapers was the first of its kind, started in June 1967 and prompted by an 11 article in The New York Times Magazine. In that article, author A.H. Raskin charged that newspapers failed to ade- quately respond to reader complaints and often neglected to cover stories fairly and adequately. The solution, Raskin said, was the establishment of a "Department of Internal Criticism" at each newspaper, a department designed to examine the standards of the newspaper and to act as a public protector.12 As conceived by the executive editor of the Louisville neWSpapers at the time, Norman Isaacs, the ombudsman was to 10The news criticism column, which began in January 1974, was discontinued in March 1981, when columnist Bob Schulman resigned to take another position. As yet, he has not been replaced. llJohn Ed Pearce, "Herch Hangs It Up,” The Courier- Journal Magazine, August 26, 1979, p. 30. 12A.H. RaSkin, ”What's Wrong With American Newspapers?” The New York Times Magazine, June 11, 1967, p. 28. respond only to reader complaints. Other newspapers--most notably The Washington Post and the St. Petersburg Times-- have established their own ombudsman positions, but the responsibilities at those newspapers are self-executing. That fl is, the ombudsman may, in fact, respond to reader outcry, but 3 most of the ombudsman investigations have been the result of a problem perceived by the individual ombudsman or by members of another internal department. This distinction, said the current executive editor of the Louisville newspapers, makes the Louisville ombudsman program more effective. For example, the executive editor of The Courier—Journal and Louisville Times, Paul Janensch, said the Janet Cooke incident would have been uncovered sooner had The Washington Post had an ombudsman who answered complaints. "There was criticism from the (Washington,) D.C. community (about the 'Jimmy's World' story);'Janensch said. ”If the Egg; had an ombudsman that listened to complaints, it would have come to light much sooner. The Janet Cooke incident would have been handled differently here.”13 (The Egg; ombuds- man position traditionally has been self-executing. That is, rather than take complaints, the ombudsman evaluates the newspaper's performance as he sees fit.) Only after Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer Prize for her story did readers of The Washington Post receive an explanation of how the story happened. 13Interview with Paul Janensch, The Courier—Journal and Louisville Times, December 23, 1981. The differences among the approaches to the ombudsman concept seem to be at the core of the controversy over whether newspapers should have such a program. Although the 18,000- word report by Washington Post ombudsman Bill Green may have restored some credibility among readers, many editors around 3 the country apparently believed that had the program worked properly, suspicions about the Cooke story would have been investigated shortly after the story was published. This type of failure by ombudsman programs has eventually led to claims that they are merely public relations gimmicks-- l4 "window dressing,‘ as one editor put it. On the other hand, ombudsman advocates say that editor's attitude illustrates the arrogance with which many editors View their readers. As Los Angeles Times media critic David Shaw asked: ”Why shouldn't the media wash its own dirty linen in public--just as they wash everyone else's dirty linen in public? Wouldn't that be fair play and good public relations?”15 One must also ask whether it would make any difference, for it seems only natural for journalists to wonder whether they risk anything by exposing themselves to the public. Could a backlash or backfire result from the exposure of transgression? The purpose of this study was to determine how two co-owned newspapers' attempts to ”wash its own dirty 14David Shaw, ”Ethics in journalism,” St. Petersburg Times, October 4, 1981, p. 3-D. 15Ibid. lO linen in public” affected and influenced the public's per- ceptions of the newspapers. Has the attempt by The Courier- Journal and Louisville Times to explain journalism and the function of the neWSpapers, to be openly and actively responsible to readers, and to be self-critical, worked? In other words, do the means justify the end? Chapter 2 f LITERATURELREVIEW This section is divided into two parts. The first part is a review of some of the criticisms and evaluations of the press written during the twentieth century. It is not an exhaustive review, but rather intended to give the reader an idea of how the concept of self—criticism and accountability evolved. The works included in this part are primarily nonscholarly. The second part is an exhaustive review of the scholarly articles written about newspaper accountability programs. It is intended to provide the reader information about the research that has been conducted so far, and why this study was necessary and justified. This part of the review concludes with the statements of the hypotheses and the rationale for them. Review of Twentieth-Century Press Criticism Public scrutiny of the press is not a recent phenome- non in American journalism; criticisms have been aimed at the press since "the dawn of newspaper publishing,‘ the earliest ll 12 having come from the government.1 Government criticisms of the press continued throughout the twentieth century, most notably during the New Deal and Vietnam eras. Most of the press criticisms originated by governmen- " tal officials seem, of course, politically oriented and J motivated. Though ostensibly critical of network television news because of the ill effects its coverage was having on the American public, Vice President Spiro Agnew was in fact more interested in the success of Nixon administration poli- cies than the improvement of the quality of network news coverage.2 Agnew's criticisms, directed at the most powerful news media, epitomized the Nixon administration's perception of a threat from the news media. Likewise, thirty years earlier, Roosevelt administration officials took aim at news- papers that editorialized against New Deal economic policies.3 Despite these better known examples of government- initiated criticism of the press in the twentieth century, the bulk of the press evaluation literature in this century considers the press from the perspective of a social and cultural institution. The works reviewed in this section emphasize this perspective. Although they are representative lEdwin Emery and Michael Emery, The Press and America, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978), p. 481. 2Spiro T. Agnew, "Television News Coverage,” Vital Speeches, December 1, 1969, pp. 98-101. 3Emery and Emery, The Press and America, p. 481. 13 of this type of criticism, they are but a few of the works written about the press in the last eighty years. They were chosen because they represent typical media criticisms of the period. P One of the first press evaluations of this century was a fifteen-part series written for Collier's magazine by Will Irwin.4 Irwin provided American readers with a unique, behind-the-scenes look at the state of American journalism. Impartial and detached, Irwin gave many Americans their first glimpses at the decision-making processes in some of the most important American institutions. His careful documentation of the relationship between publishers and American corpora— tions presaged a burgeoning symbiosis of the press and the nation's corporate structure.5 The press-business relationship was the theme of other news critics of the first half of the century. Former news- papermen Silas Bent and George Seldes, liberal holdovers from the Progressive Era, both saw political implications in the social and cultural roles the press played during the late 19208 and throughout the 19308. In his book Ballyhoo, Silas Bent urged publishers to be cautious as they developed relationships with business institutions. He was especially concerned that the influence of advertisers on the press would stifle investigative reporting. However, Bent saw some 4Will Irwin, "The American Newspaper: A Study of Journalism in Its Relation to the Public,” Collier's, January 21-July 29, 1911. 51bid., January 21, 1911, p. 15. l4 attributes of "big business" he thought could benefit news- papers. For example, he believed newspapers had fallen behind in the deve10pment of new production techniques, saying the increase in efficiency and quality would be great enough to outweigh the risks of standardization.6 f George Seldes, on the other hand, was far more skepti- cal of the press, its relationship with and mimicry of big business, and its influence on society and government policy. Three books Seldes authored illustrate his skepticism: Lords of the Press, in which he accused publishers of using 7 editorial pages to attack the labor movement; You Can't Print That, where he said publishers were influencing American foreign policy through their editorials;8 and Never Tire of Protestigg, in which Seldes summarizes his earlier charges that newspapers were negligent in their reporting of the relationship between lung cancer and cigarette smoking.9 Seldes makes valid points in all three works, but his tendency to use individual examples to make universal con- demnations sometimes detracts from his credibility. Perhaps the most important contribution Seldes has made to criticism of the press is his depiction of the establishment press as self-righteous, self-serving and self—aggrandizing, the 7George Seldes, Lords of the Press (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1927). 8George Seldes, You Can't Print That (New York: Payson and Clarke Ltd., 1929). 9George Seldes, Never Tire of Protesting (New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1968), p. 71. 15 antithesis of the image the press has tried to preserve. It is that theme that contemporary press critics have emphasized. One of the major evaluations of the news media during the twentieth century was conducted in the late 19403 by a group of individuals who had no involvement with journalism. 5 The Commission on Freedom of the Press was composed of social scientists and university professors primarily, a fact that drew great criticism from journalists. However, the com- mission's detractors failed to mention the fact that the commission had been underwritten by Henry Luce, the publisher of Eigg. The commission's report addressed many of the same issues and problems discussed by Irwin, Bent and Seldes: sensationalism, the influence of advertisers and the rami- fications of chain ownership and monopolies. Rather than express a desire to eliminate any practices of the media barons, the commission stated clearly that it wanted to achieve a method through which the consuming public could scrutinize these practices. It was also clear that the commission opposed the government's providing the method for public scrutiny. The commission said increased self— regulation and increased public awareness of the press's functions would insure a free and responsible press. More laws, it said, would not solve the problems. ”Everyone concerned. . . should put forth the effort to make the press accountable,” the commission wrote. ”If it does not become so of its own motion, the power of the government will be 16 used, as a last resort, to do so."10 The call for accountability and responsiveness to media consumers was repeated throughout the commission report. The increase in concentration of ownership, accompanied by advancing technology in the electronic media, prompted com- p mission members to be cautiously optimistic that the public would be heard and eventually well-served. The commission recognized the possibility that radio and television would provide more channels of communication for Americans. But it feared those channels would not be managed by new ownership. Its members were aware that tech— nology had resulted in ”a trend toward concentration,”11 a trend exacerbated by the advantages of Operating on a large scale and the elimination of small ownerships, usually because 12 of high labor costs. The commission also made accusations of omission by the press. ”By a kind of unwritten law,” the panel said, "the press ignores the errors and misrepre- sentations, the lies and scandals of which its members are "13 guilty. Through ”vigorous mutual criticism" the press could avoid further government actions and reduce regulations, 14 the commission said. 10The Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947), p. 80. 11Ibid., p. 48. lzIbid. 13Ibid., p. 65. 141bid., p. 94. 17 If the press is to remain accountable--and it must be if it is to remain free--its members must discipline one another by the only mgans they have available, namely, public criticism. 5 Public criticism of the press by members of the press existed at the time of the commission report, though it was not prevalent. One of the better known forums was a column in The New Yorker called "The Wayward Press.” Robert Benchley 1! started the column in 1927, but the column's greatest popu- larity came when his successor, A.J. Liebling, wrote it from 1945 to 1963. Liebling is best remembered for his ability to spot the symptoms of ailing newspapers and for his concern over the dwindling number of daily newspapers in metropolitan areas.16 He also predicted the dominance of television in presidential politics in a column just before the 1960 17 election. Liebling gained notoriety among readers of The New Yorker, but most Americans were deprived of his insight into a powerful institution because of the magazine's limited circulation. One of the better known modern—day critics of the news media is Ben Bagdikian, a former Washington Post ombudsman and now a professor of journalism at the University of California at Berkeley. Bagdikian has developed many of the same themes as George Seldes: skepticism of the influence 15Ibid. l6A.J. Liebling, Press, 2nd ed. (New York: Ballentine Books, 1975). ljlgig., p. 41. Liebling's original column appeared in The New Yorker, October 29, 1960. l8 advertisers have on the press, especially at the local level; reliance by editors on press agents, news releases and managed news; and the unholy alliance between the establishment press 18 The latter, Bagdikian believed, could U and the government. be seen in the still developing relationship between the 3 press and the presidency, a relationship that flowered as L presidents realized the power of television.19 H Evaluations of the press for the public have increased in the last fifteen years, as press criticism has gained wider acceptance among news organizations and their audiences. The tendency, though, has been to develop media beats rather than criticism columns, as witnessed in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, where media reporter David Shaw writes regularly about trends among news organizations. Reportorial in style rather than critical, Shaw's stories frequently appear on the front page of the paper instead of the opinion page and they run as long as six thousand words, a length unheard of for a newspaper story.20 But press criticism columns and media beats not- withstanding, greater acceptance of media evaluations is seen most through the increase in ombudsman programs in the last fifteen years. l8Ben Bagdikian, The Effete Conspiracy and Other Crimes By the Press (New York: Harper and Row, 1972). 19Ibid., pp. 95-102. 20David Shaw, Journalism Today (New York: Harper's College Press, 1977), p. 7. Shaw had been allowed to write at that length for stories he covered for the Times prior to taking over the media beat. He said he was expected to cover the media in the same depth. 19 Review of Research Literature on Newspaper Accountability In 1967 The Courier—Journal and Louisville Times started their ombudsman program, the first formal attempt by publications with a non—specialized audience to be respon- 1 sible to their readers.21 Since 1967, readers have been 1 given the opportunity to complain about news content to one individual at the papers. In essence, that individual serves as a go-between for readers and members of the editorial staff. Three ombudsmen now serve the Louisville newspapers, one each for news, advertising and circulation. Another expansion of the Louisville newspapers' accountability program came in 1974, when the Times hired journalist Bob Schulman to be the first full—time news critic 22 Schulman's column, published employed by a U.S. newspaper. several times each week on the opinion page of the Eiggg, ran until March 1981, when Schulman resigned. The column usually dealt with timely journalism issues of regional interest, and often criticized the Louisyille dailies. The news criticism column has been discontinued, but the ombudsman program stays on in Louisville. And other newspapers have followed the lead of The Courier—Journal and Times. One researcher estimated there are ombudsmen at 35 21”Ombudsman in Louisville,” Time, July 6, 1970, p. 44. 22”Media critic Schulman helped fill a serious gap,” The Courier-Journal, March 7, 1981, editorial page. 20 North American newspapers.23 In 1973 William Barnett reported that eight of 134 newspapers that responded to his mail questionnaire indicated they had ”genuine" ombudsmen, that is, _ employees who took reader complaints and responded to them.24 2 Two years later a survey of accountability methods f revealed more newspapers implementing a variety of account- ability systems, and 12 of 135 newspapers questioned had ombudsmen.25 The next survey of ombudsman programs showed no substantial increase in their number, but did show an expanded and strengthened role for those programs already in exist- ence.26 Another study looked at an ombudsman program at an individual newspaper and evaluated how members of the news staff perceived the ombudsman. The researchers' results suggest the possibility for internal success for an ombudsman program at a paper where one does not exist. They also suggest the possibility of initial resentment by staff members, followed by eventual support once the program was proven 23Richard P. Cunningham, "Guidelines established for newspaper ombudsmen," Editor and Publisher, May 22, 1982, p.12. 2['William L. Barnett, ”Survey Shows Few Papers Are Using Ombudsmen,” Journalism Quarterly 50 (Spring 1973): 153-156. 25Keith P. Sanders, ”What Are Newspapers Doing To Be Responsive to Readers' Criticisms? A Survey of U.S. Daily Newspaper Accountability Systems,” News Research for Better Newspapers 7 (July 1975): 148—168. 26Suraj Kapoor and Ralph Smith, ”The Newspaper Ombudsman-- A Progress Report,” Journalism Quarterly 56 (Autumn 1979): 628-631. 21 27 The researchers also suggested research be effective. done to determine public reaction and acceptance of newspaper ombudsmen, and it is on this suggestion that the present study was conducted. The essence of the study is to determine the attitu- 4 dinal effects of the accountability program at the Louisville newspapers and the extent of reader support for the first accountability program at an American newspaper. The Louisville newspapers were chosen for their apparent origi- nality and thoroughness; the study incorporated the entire Louisville program, including the ombudsman and the news critic. The following research hypotheses were tested: H1: The greater frequency of readership of the news cr1t1c1sm column, the greater the perception of accountability. H2: The greater the awareness of the ombudsman program, the greater the perception of accountability. These hypotheses were developed to determine the relationship between reader participation in the account- ability program and readers' perception of accountability by the Louisville newspapers. These relationships have never been tested, though logic would indicate that people who read the news criticism column or who are aware of the ombudsman program would consider the newspaper accountable. 27David R. Nelsen and Kenneth Starck, "The Newspaper Ombudsman as Viewed by the Rest of the Staff,” Journalism Qparterly 51 (Autumn 1974): 453-457. 22 H3: The greater frequency of readership of the news criticism column, the greater the knowledge of current issues. H4: The greater the awareness of the ombudsman program, the greater the knowledge of current issues. These hypotheses extend the findings of a previous 28 which evaluated the effects of 3 study by McKown and Brinton, newspaper content dealing with a controversial issue on an H audience not involved in the issue. The researchers found support for the hypothesis that the greater amount of exposure a reader had to an issue, the greater knowledge of the issue the reader would have. Here it is believed that people who participate in the accountability program to a greater extent are more highly exposed in general to the newspapers and should have greater knowledge of current issues. H Frequency of readership (news criticism column) will be greater among more highly educated individuals than lower educated. 5: H6: Awareness of the ombudsman program will be greater among more highly educated individuals than lower educated. Frequency of news criticism column readership will be greater among individuals with higher incomes. H8: Awareness of the ombudsman program.will be greater among individuals with higher incomes. The last four hypotheses were tested to determine the relationship between participation in the accountability program and two demographic characteristics--education and 28James E. Brinton and L. Norman MbKown, ”Effects on Newspaper Reading on Knowledge and Attitude,” Journalism Quarterly 38 (Spring 1961): 187-195. 23 income--that have been connected to higher newspaper readership.29 29Leo Bogart, Press and Public: Who reads What, When, Where, and Why in American Newspapers (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981), pp. 66-71. Chapter 3 V METHOD This section provides detail about how the study was conducted and is divided into two parts. The first deals with the methods used up to and including data collection. Information about development of a measuring instrument for accountability, construction of the interview schedule, (A copy of the interview schedule is in the Appendix.) sampling, interviewer training and data collection is provided. The second part of this section deals with the analy- sis of the data after it was collected. Information about the major statistical tool used in the study--analysis of vari- ance--will be provided, as well as post—hoc tests conducted to discover significant variation across levels of awareness in the ombudsman program and readership of the news criticism column. Development of Accountability Scale Although several studies available have quantified the accountability programs and systems in existence at American newspapers, an extensive search of the literature failed to reveal one that attempted to determine a method 24 25 for measuring accountability. One of the focal points of the study, then, was to develop a scale that would allow the measurement of accountability by the Louisville newspapers as expressed by attitudes of Louisville residents toward the ‘{ newspapers. 5 For the purposes of the study, ”accountability” was defined as follows: a state in which an organization or individual takes responsibility for its own actions by either criticizing itself openly or opening channels through which others can give criticism. In essence, accountability relates to the feedback or complaints an organization receives as a result of its actions. Furthermore, it is a function of how much opportunity for feedback an organization allows. It was believed a precise way existed to determine the criteria for accountability and an attempt was made to design a procedure for developing the criteria. A summative, Likert-type scale was constructed to measure perception of accountability for the following reasons: 1) it allowed testing of an attitude without mani- festation of the attitude; 2) the range of responses with a Likert scale allowed more precision than other scales; 3) summated scales are usually very reliable; and 4) they are adaptable to a variety of attitudes. The first step in the development of the Likert-type accountability scale was assembling an item pool, each item to eventually be judged by a respondent over a five-point, ”strongly agree—to-strongly disagree” continuum. Items were assembled from two focus-group interview sessions, the first 26 on November 6, 1980; the second, on November 10, 1980. Each focus-group session had five participants. The total of ten panel members was equally divided between men and women and consisted of people who described themselves as regular 1? readers of a daily metropolitan newspaper. That is, panel g members read the newspaper or parts of it every day. The L panel was made up of both students and non-students, and its members had no knowledge of the research and no direct personal involvement with the interviewer. The panel interviews began with a brief, general description of the research, what was to be achieved, and procedure through which it would be achieved. Interviewing in each of the hour-long sessions began with broad, general questions, eventually narrowed to specific areas mentioned by panel members and finally focused on panel members' attitudes toward specific components of the Louisville newspapers' accountability program. (See Appendix for the topics and questions discussed.) Fifty-six attitudinal items were assembled from the transcripts of the tape-recorded sessions to form an item pool. The item pool was administered to students in a begin- ning news writing class of 184 on January 30, 1981. The students were asked to respond over a five-point scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) to the statements extracted from the focus-group interviews; they were told to base their responses on the newspapers they read most often. A total of 146 usable responses were collected, coded, keypunched and verified. 27 The data were then factor analyzed in an attempt to: I) discover the dimensions of accountability and 2) reduce the number of items that comprise the dimensions. The factor analysis helped determine if there were latent aspects of accountability that had so far only been manifested through 56 individual items. Varimax rotation was used in the factor analysis. This type of rotation provides maximum variance in the columns of the factor matrix and tends to produce high and low factors. The purpose, then, was to maximize the variance explained by the factors. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Requiring that a variable explain at least eighteen percent of a factor, but no more than eight percent of another, the analysis revealed one factor made up of nine items and another item on which two items loaded heavily (64 and 61 percent variance explained). The former was identified as the "fairness" dimension and the two-item factor was called the "complaint" dimension. Each set of items was subjected to separate item-to- total corrected correlation reliability analyses. The alpha reliability estimate for the nine-item factor was .76572, with correlations for each item of at least .31. The alpha estimate for the two-item factor (because the SPSS reli- ability program requires at least three items, another was added in order to perform the analysis) was .83835 with correlations for both items of at least .64. Together the items of the two factors comprised the accountability scale that was placed in an eighteen—question interview schedule, 28 Table 1 Factor Loadings, Principal Factors With Iterations, Unrotated Fairness Complaint Item Factor Factor Newspapers ignore controversial issues .43 -.22 Newspapers will not take a stand on some issues because of fear of offending some people .34 -.21 Newspapers should have a full-time employee to whom readers could complain about the neWSpaper -.24 .44 Newspapers should have a full-time employee who listens to reader complaints and acts on them. -.38 .40 Newspapers do not give all sides of a story .48 —.08 I don't believe many stories in the newspaper .50 -.06 Newspapers do not provide in-depth coverage on important issues .42 -.09 Newspapers are influenced by special interest groups .47 -.12 Newspapers are influenced by advertisers .28 -.22 I am skeptical of newspapers in monOpoly positions .38 -.23 Newspapers print only what they want to print .46 -.27 29 Table 2 Factor Loadings With Varimax Rotation Fairness Complaint Item Factor Factor Newspapers ignore controversial issues .56 -.01 Newspapers will not take a stand on some issues because of fear of offending some people .49 -.12 Newspapers should have a full-time employee to whom readers could complain about the paper .00 .80 Newspapers should have a full-time employee who listens to reader complaints and acts on them —.10 .78 Newspapers do not give all sides of a story .47 -.10 I don't believe many stories in the newspaper .48 —.07 Newspapers do not provide in-depth coverage on important issues .44 -.02 Newspapers are influenced by special interest groups .55 -.05 Newspapers are influenced by advertisers - .47 .03 I am skeptical of newspapers in monopoly positions .52 -.05 Newspapers print only what they want to print .55 -.ll 30 which is explained in the next section. Construction of Interview Schedule The data collection method used for the study was telephone interviewing with cross-sectional design. The interview schedule opened with a standard introduction for the interviewer to read, one in which the interviewer identi- fied him-herself, mentioned who he/she was representing, and explained the reason for the call. The first two questions were closed-ended questions designed to find out the number of days the respondent read each of the Louisville newspapers. They were placed at the beginning of the interview schedule because they dealt with information not of a particularly sensitive nature and because answers to the questions would serve as a guide to subsequent questions. The first question dealt with readership frequency of the morning newspaper, The Courier-Journal; the second ques- tion, with the afternoon paper, The Louisville Times. If the respondent said he/she did not read the Eiggg, the inter- viewer was guided to the ninth question, one on ombudsman awareness. If the respondent indicated he/she read the Eimgg at least one day a week, the interviewer went to the third question, one dealing with readership of the news criticism column that appeared in the Eiggg. The fourth and fifth questions were closed—ended multiple-choice questions, designed to help verify readership of the news criticism column. Respondents were asked to name 31 the author of the column and the name of the column; in each instance they were given five choices. The next questions were three of the four open-ended questions in the interview schedule, each dealing with a L reaction to the news criticism column. The sixth question asked the respondent what he/she liked about the column; the seventh, what he/she did not like; and the eighth attempted ! to solicit reaction toward the column's recent discontinuation. The ninth question asked the respondent if he/she were aware of the ombudsman program. If the respondent said ”yes," he/she was asked to give a brief description of the program, requiring another open-ended response. Usually any response involving the word "complain,' or something to that effect, was satisfactory. If the respondent was not aware of the ombudsman program, the interviewer was guided to the tenth question, the Likert-type accountability scale. Respondents were requested to indicate how each of the statements of the scale reflected their feelings about the Louisville newspapers by telling the interviewer whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. For nine of the items, ”1" was "strongly agree" and ”5” was "strongly disagree." Polarity was reversed for two of the items. A ”don't know“ or "neutral" response was recorded as "3.” The four items following the accountability scale were multiple-choice questions about recent issues and events in the Louisville newspapers. The questions were based on articles that appeared in both papers on the front page and 32 the first page of the ”Metro” sections; the articles were all local or regional in nature and appeared in either editions of The Courier-Journal or Louisville Times on March 13 or 14, 1981. 5 Because the accountability scale was a crucial part A of the study, it was placed ahead of the issues and events questions on the interview schedule. Respondents who ter— minated either during the issues questions or the demographic questions that followed still would provide usable data in terms of the thrust of the study: the effects of the column and the ombudsman on the perceptions of accountability. Standard demographic questions were asked at the end of the interview: those pertaining to education level, age, and income level. Respondents were asked how much education they had completed, requiring the interviewer to circle the appropriate category; they were asked how old they were, a response that required merely filling in the age; and respondents were queried about income without having to reveal their actual income, telling the interviewer whether his/her household income was more than a particular level. Interviewers were instructed to record gender after thanking the respondent and hanging up. Pre-test. The interview schedule was pre—tested Thursday, March 12, from 7 to 9 p.m. The interview schedule was administered to 20 respondents whose names were randomly selected from the October 1, 1980, metropolitan Louisville telephone directory. The interview schedule was essentially 33 identical to the one described above, except the issue and events questions were taken from March 4 and 5 issues of the Louisville newspapers. The interview schedule took as little as five minutes K to administer and as long as seven (during actual data A collection for the main study eight minutes was needed at 1 times to administer the interview schedule). Following the pre-test, the interview schedule was revised, primarily to add or delete words for easier reading and clarity. Sampling. A total of 1,200 telephone numbers were drawn from the October 1, 1980, metropolitan Louisville telephone directory through a systematic random sample tech- nique. The Louisville directory included all of Jefferson County (of which Louisville is the county seat) and parts of adjacent Oldham and Bullitt counties; it did not include adjacent counties in Indiana: Floyd and Clark. The area surveyed, then, was the metropolitan Louisville area in Kentucky. In addition to the systematic random selection pro- cess, a ”plus one” technique was employed in an attempt to ensure that unpublished telephone numbers were included in the sample. The process was as follows: a telephone number was chosen through the systematic random sample process and one was added to the last digit of the number. For example, if 452-6420 was chosen from the directory, 452-6421 was called by the interviewer; if 775-7739 was chosen, 775—7740 was called. 34 The numbers were placed on ”status sheets" (25 on each), which provided each interviewer space to indicate the date and time a call was placed and the status of the call (completed interview, refusal, no answer, terminate, etc.). H Interviewer training. The twenty interviewers used during the three-day data collection period were all members i of Pi Sigma Alpha, a national political science honorary, and all were students at the University of Louisville. All had conducted telephone interviews prior to collecting data for this study, most recently for an election survey for WHAS-TV, Louisville. The organization received a fee for its services, but individual interviewers were not compensated. Between eight and ten interviewers participated each night of data collection. Because of the relative amount of experience they had, training consisted primarily of ex- plaining the purpose of the study; providing a detailed explanation of the status sheets and the instruction sheets; going over the format of the interview schedule; and answering questions about the study and the data-collection process. The training session lasted approximately a half-hour each night, although interviewers who had received training previously were allowed to begin collecting data on the second and third nights of interviewing. They were later joined by the new interviewers following the completion of training. 35 Data collection. Interviewing took place from 7 to 10 p.m. on three consecutive days--Monday, March 23, through Wednesday, March 25. Interviewers were instructed to allow each number to ring five times before indicating "no answer]' F The first night interviewers made 298 calls, com- pleting 111 interviews on telephones provided by the clas- sified advertising department of the Louisville newspapers. The number of previously uncalled numbers dialed Tuesday was 512, 162 completions. On Wednesday 334 previously uncalled numbers were dialed and 120 interviews were completed. The first two nights were devoted primarily to calling previously uncalled numbers, although interviewers were instructed to call back numbers for which they received a busy signal or no answer. Interviewers called back ”no answers" only after they had completed dialing all 25 numbers on a status sheet. With the exception of five numbers, every number called the first two nights that was busy or for which there was no answer was called back at least once within either the first two nights of interviewing or the first 1% hours of the third night. The first half of the three-hour interviewing period Wednesday was devoted entirely to calling back numbers that had been tried on Monday and Tuesday. When enough callbacks had been made to indicate that there would not be adequate cmmpletions to attain the desired sample size, interviewers were instructed to resume calling previously uncalled numbers. In all, 1,144 numbers were dialed. Interviewers reached 136 non-resident telephone numbers, including business 36 and ”junk” numbers, and 129 disconnected numbers. Of the 879 calls for which there was a potential respondent, 393 interviews were completed; 48 were terminated; 43 lines were busy; there were 198 "non answers"; and there were 197 H refusals. The completion rate was 44.7 percent, calculated by dividing the number of completions by the number of calls for which there was a potential respondent. Analysis of data. Data were analyzed with a Control Data Corporation Cyber 170 Model 750 computer at Michigan State University in East Lansing. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was used. The major statistical tool used to make comparisons among three levels of ombudsman awareness and four levels of column readership was analysis of variance. Scheffé post—hoc comparison tests were conducted to isolate the source of significant variations when they were found. Chapter 4 RESULTS This section is divided into four parts: a descrip- tion of the sample according to demographic characteristics; a sample description based on responses to readership, aware— ness, accountability and issue variables; a report of the results dealing with the hypotheses being tested in the study; a final summary of the results; and additional analyses on prediction of perceived accountability. Demggraphic Characteristics A majority of the respondents were male. More than half the sample displays the following characteristics: less than 50 years old, high school graduates, and in households whose incomes are less than $25,000. The mean age for the sample was nearly 43 years, and the median was just over 40; respondents' ages ranged from 18 to 86. (See Table 3.) 37 38 Table 3 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample A. Gender of Respondents n PCT. Male 210 53.4 Female 183 46.6 TOTAL 393 100.0 B. Education Level of Respondents n PCT. Less than high school degree 96 24.4 High School degree plhs 210 53.4 College degree plus 54 13.7 Graduate degree 23 5.9 Missing Data 10 2.5 TOTAL 393 100.0 C. Income Level of Respondents n PCT. $15,000 and under 129 32.8 $15,001 to $25,000 105 26.7 $25,001 to $35,000 38 9.7 More than $35,000 61 15.5 Don't know 16 4.1 Missing Data 44 11.1 TOTAL 393 100.0 D. Age Level of Respondents n PCT. 18 to 34 157 39.9 35 to 49 73 18.6 50 to 65 96 24.4 Over 65 51 13.0 Missing Data 16 4,1 TOTAL 393 100.0 Mean: 42.9 Median: 40.1 -A w‘. .-. 39 Sample Description Across Pertinent Variables This portion of the results section reports the fre- quency of readership of both Louisville neWSpapers and the A news criticism column; amount of awareness of the ombudsman program; and aggregate scores on the accountability and issues 1 variables. Newspaper Readership All respondents were asked how many days a week they read each newspaper, The Courier-Journal and The Louisville Times. Readership of the morning newspaper, The Courier- Journal, exceeded the afternoon Times among those in the sample. Nearly 50 percent of the respondents said they read The Courier-Journal every day, while almost 40 percent said they were everyday Times readers. (Everyday readers for The Courier-Journal read seven days a week; the Times publishes six days a week.) The number of respondents who said they read the Times every day equalled the number of respondents who said they never read the Times; 18 percent of the respondents said they never read The Courier—Journal. (See Table 4.) Column Readership Only those respondents who said they read The Louisville Times were asked the question referring to 40 Table 4 Newspaper Readership Readership of The Courier-Journal DAYS A WEEK n PCT. 0 70 17.8 1 63 16.0 2 17 4.3 3 26 6.6 4 7 1.8 5 7 1.8 6 14 3.6 7 183 46.6 Missing data 6 1.5 TOTAL 393 100.0 Readership of The Louisville Times DAYS A WEEK n PCT. 0 157 39.9 1 35 8.9 2 14 3.6 3 11 2.8 4 10 2.5 5 7 1.8 157 39.9 Missing Data 2 .5 TOTAL 393 100.0 41 frequency of readership of the news criticism column. Even though the column appeared once a month in the Sunday Courier—Journal, it originated and ran more frequently (twice a week) in the Eiggg. p More than 45 percent of the respondents said they read the news criticism column at least once a month, 12 percent said they never read the column, and more than 40 percent did I not respond, representing those who said they never read the afternoon paper. (See Table 5.) Table 5 Readership of News Criticism Column n PCT. Twice a week 89 22.6 Once a week 47 12.0 Once a month 43 10.9 Never 47 12.0 Don't know 9 2.3 Missing Data* 158 40.2 TOTAL 393 100.0 *The news criticism column normally appeared in The Louisville Times, so respondents who said they did— not read the Times were not asked the column readership question. This accounts for the missing data: In an attempt to verify respondents' claims to have read the news criticism column, interviewers asked two 42 Inultiple—choice questions about the column, one dealing with tjhe name of the column (In All Fairness), the other with the {Lame of the columnist (Bob Schulman). Nearly two-thirds (62%) of those who claimed to have read the column could name p Iieither the name of the column nor the writer. (See Table 6.) Table 6 1 Column Readership Verification n PCT. Can name both 25 6.4 (lan.name the columnist 44 11.2 Can name the column 3 .8 Can name neither 117 29.8 ldissing data* 204 51.9 TOTAL 393 100.0 *Those in "missing data” include respondents who said they did not read either The Louisville Times or the column. Ianareness of_Ombudsman All respondents were asked about their awareness of the ombudsman program at the Louisville newspapers, regard- less of newspaper readership or column readership. In annother attempt to verify a respondent's answer, interviewers asked those who said they were aware of the program for a description of the program. Respondents who mentioned ideas 43 such as "complaining to the paper" or "handling corrections" were considered more aware of the program than those who either could not describe the ombudsman's function or who described it incorrectly. ("Eyeballing" some of the data 3 indicates most of those less aware of the program could not describe the ombudsman's function rather than incorrectly describing it.) Respondents who said they were unaware of the program were considered the least aware. Using these determinants, results show more than half (55.77.) the sample unaware of the program, while slightly more than one-fifth (22.97.) of the respondents were most aware of the ombudsman. (See Table 7 .) Table 7 Awareness of Ombudsman Program n PCT. Aware, can describe 90 22.9 Aware, cannot describe 66 16.8 Not Aware .219 55.7 Don't know 12 3.1 Missing Data 6 1.5 TOTAL 393 100.0 44 _P_erception of Accountability An ll—item Likert-type scale was administered to determine respondents' perception of accountability by the 1: Louisville newspapers. (See Method section for information on development of the scale.) Nine items made up the "fair- ness" factor, and two items, the "complaint" factor. The ' alpha reliability estimate after data collection for the "fairness" factor was .71738; for the "complaint" factor it was .74054. However, when combined into one factor, the alpha reliability estimate was .67558. As a result of the higher reliability estimate attained when the two—item complaint factor was deleted, subsequent data analysis was conducted with the nine-item factor and the two-item factor separately. Scores on both factors will be reported. (See Tables 8 and 9.) Possible scores on the nine-item scale ranged from 9 to 45, the higher score indicating maximum perceived account- ability. The actual range of the scores for the 393 respon— dents was 10 to 42; normal distribution in the accountability scores was observed. (See histogram in Figure 1.) As mentioned above, two items were deleted from the accountability scale because of the increased reliability attained. It is also believed that the items--both dealing with whether the Louisville newspapers should have an employee who performs the duties of an ombudsman--addressed a moot issue because, in fact, the newspapers have such an employee. However, the results on the responses are reported 45 Table 8 Reliability Analysis for Fairness Factor Corrected Item-Total Item Correlation Newspapers ignore controversial issues .36655 Newspapers will not take a stand on some issues because of fear of offending people .37291 Newspapers do not give all sides of a story .38788 I don't believe many stories in the neWSpaper .43204 Newspapers do not provide in—depth coverage on important issues .46641 Newspapers are influenced by special interest groups .44305 Newspapers are influenced by advertisers .37207 I am skeptical of newspapers in monopoly positions .28191 Newspapers print only what they want to print .39537 Table 9 Reliability Analysis for Complaint Factor Item Newspapers should have a full-time employee to whom readers could complain about the paper Newspapers should have a full—time employee who listens to reader complaints and acts on them Corrected Item-Total Correlation .28779 .30661 46 Figure 1 Distribution of accountability scores have 1" o 13. )1. 22. 73. 35. 5t. 57. I? . D A a v § A I § «I A ls v a A ’J up poop»; ( 6) $44144eooe4ntu ( 1“, :444c4o44 ( q) t—w-o ant-«H aHI—I CHH ant-4H CHI-4 tHH mu 44!!!!l8W‘ ( q, I 444o¢lools4~4¢coi ( 1',” l I . Q4“¥Q‘néoo..-JQLDOJOo-l‘uu‘dfl.‘ ( 26’ I Q¥¥¥OO+~¥¥400lilfiU ( 17, 1 4 an“- -. a“ o-Od-vbu4.64445-AA-54DJ4QQQ...‘ ‘ 32’ o-‘“'\. u-.‘; c-oo““ .u‘o.“ ( 21) QU¥‘4“‘¥‘..¥.§'...‘...‘..‘ ‘ 27, -..~¢ 1" u. no---.‘.o.lu6&-aa‘-..A ‘ 21’ o. loc‘dtfl-O .— club... . ' ‘A"-‘...‘¥““““‘.‘ ( tuoololt4ltlotllutl ( 19, lake"wathwnamkthmqtn¢~ahh§h4Hlmuachhthuh I A f'. v A [A v Q 4. fl '0 v :HHH .HO‘. EHH U—«H «0-H “49-. :1—0—; or '. . . .IJ. a-...LA4.:.-‘3.I.tq.‘.....a 4.).cJ44m-na ‘ 3! , ....._ “you...“al-AI ( 15’ ooo¢o¢¢¥¥ucovvlilooootlittloolot‘ ( 33) . .a s» .a......4.a..n ‘ 11,.) . .1..- - -........-- 4.! .‘~-~4 ( 18) «'46.: ( 5) .“d,, ( 5, 37) ono.90000.:009009cool'oooooooooloooooooo0.10.00.09.01 J" 2" "I 'HI ‘2 47 here because they indicate strong support for the ombudsman concept. An overwhelming majority of respondents agreed with the statement: ”Newspapers should have a full-time employee to whom readers could complain about the paper.” An even larger majority agreed with the statement: ”Newspapers should have a full-time employee who listens to reader com— I plaints and acts on them." Although these two items may not indicate that a respondent perceives the newspapers as accountable, they seem to show a desire for this type of program. (See Table 10.) Table 10 Two Items of ”Complaint” Factor Item SA A D SD DK Newspapers should have full-time employee to whom readers could 64 278 30 3 18 complain (16.3%) (70.7%) (7.6%) (.8%) (4.6%) Newspapers should have a full-time employee who listens to reader complaints 63 284 29 2 15 and acts on them (16%) (72.3%) (7.4%) (.5%) (3.8%) Knowledge of Current Issues Respondents were asked four multiple-choice questions dealing with local and regional issues current during the week the interviews were conducted. More than 90 percent of 48 the respondents were able to correctly answer at least one of the questions, but few could answer all of them correctly. (See Table 11.) Table 11 Knowledge of Current Issues SCORE n PCT. 0 23 5.9 1 137 34.9 2 137 34.9 3 75 19.1 4 21 5.3 TOTAL 393 100.0 HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCORE: 4 LOWEST POSSIBLE SCORE: 0 MEAN: 1.832 MEDIAN: 1.766 STANDARD DEVIATION: .981 VARIANCE: .962 Tests of the Hypotheses The first two hypotheses dealt with the effects of the two components of the Louisville newspapers' account- ability program on the accountability perceived by the readership. H1: The greater frequency of readership of the news criticism column, the greater the perception of accountability. 49 H2: The greater awareness of the ombudsman program, the greater the perception of accountability. These hypotheses were developed to determine the rela- tionship between reader participation in the accountability program and readers' perception of accountability by the Louisville newspapers. It may seem logical that people who read the news criticism column or who are aware of the ombuds- man program would consider the newspapers accountable, but until this study, these relationships had not been tested. An analysis of variance showed no significant difference in accountability scores among four news criticism column readership groups. (See Table 12.) This apparent lack of difference in perceived accountability among those who read the column twice a week, once a week, once a month, and never indicates that readership of the news criticism column has little influence over whether individuals believe the newspapers are accountable. Significant differences among the three levels of awareness of the ombudsman program did exist. (See Table 13.) Those who said they were aware of the program and could describe it scored higher on the accountability scale than those in the other two groups-—aware and cannot describe and not aware. Scheffe post-hoc comparisons found that these differences were significant at the .05 level, but the dif- ference between the ”aware, cannot describe” group and the ”not aware" group was not significant. (See Table 16.) This indicates that awareness of the ombudsman program does influence perceived accountability of the newspapers. 50 Table 12 Differences in Perception of Accountability Among Four Levels of News Criticism Column Readership Group Means (Standard Deviations) Reads Twice Reads Once Reads Once A Week A Week A Month Never Reads 27.9551 27.1489 27.3488 28.1489 (4.8662) (4.9694) (5.3669) (5.5246) SUM OF MEAN F F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARE RATIO PROB. Between Groups 3 34.8027 11.6009. .441 .7236' Within Groups Total 222 5833.5026 26.2770 225 5868.3053 Table 13 Differences in Perception of Accountability Among Three Levels of Awareness of the Ombudsman Program Group Means (Standard Deviations) Aware Can Describe Aware Cannot Describe Not Aware 29.3778 26.3333 26.3151 (5.4496) (4.9438) (5.1586) SUM OF MEAN F F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARE RATIO PROB. Between 2 639.8508 319.9254 11.862 .0000 Groups Within 372 10033.0825 26.9707 Groups Total 374 10672.9333 51 H3: The greater frequency of readership of the news criticism column, the greater knowledge of current issues. H4: The greater awareness of the ombudsman program, the greater knowledge of current issues. As mentioned earlier, these hypotheses are extensions of a previous study by McKown and Brinton that found support for the hypothesis that the greater amount of exposure a reader had to an issue, the greater knowledge of the issue the reader would have. It is believed that peOple who parti- cipate to a greater extent in the accountability program are more highly exposed to the newspapers in general. An analysis of variance shows no significant dif- ferences in knowledge of issues among the four news criticism readership groups. (See Table 14.) Those who read the column frequently (twice a week or once a week) correctly answered no more current—issue questions than those who read the column less frequently (once a month or never), indicating that the amount of column readership has no relationship with knowledge of current issues. As it was with accountability, awareness of the ombuds— man program was related to knowledge of current issues. (See Table 15.) Significant differences existed between: 1) the "aware, can describe" group and the "aware, cannot describe" group; 2) the "aware, can describe" group and the ”not aware" group; and 3) the ”aware, cannot describe” group and the ”not aware" group. (See Table 16.) These results indicate a relationship between awareness of the ombudsman program and knowledge of current issues. 52 Table 14 Differences in Knowledge of Current Issues Among Four Levels of News Criticism Column Readership — Group Means (Standard Deviations) Reads Twice Reads Once Reads Once A Week A Week A Month Never Reads 2.1573 1.8723 1.9302 1.7747 (.9641) (1.0346) (1.0094) (.8961) SUM OF MEAN F F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARE RATIO PROB. Between Groups 3 6.0245 2.0082 2.115 .0991 Within Groups 222 210.7587 .9494 Total 225 216.7832 Differences Three Levels Table 15 in Knowledge of Current Issues Among of Awareness of the Ombudsman Program Group Means (Standard Deviations) Aware Aware Can Describe Cannot Describe Not Aware 2.3778 2.0000 1.5616 (.9311) (.9446) (.9185) SUM OF MEAN F F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARES RATIO PROB. Between Groups Within Groups Total 2 44.6760 22.3380 26.043 .0000 372 319.0734 .8577 374 363.7493 53 Table 16 A. Scheffé'contrasts between "aware, can describe” group and "aware, cannot describe" group and levels of significance M Dependent variables Contrast Significance HO Knowledge of current issues ' .3778 g .05 reject Perception of newspaper _ accountability 3.0445 .05 reject B. Scheffe contrasts between "aware, can describe" group and "not aware" group and levels of significance Dependent variables Contrast Significance H Knowledge of current issues .8162 .05 reject Perception of newspaper accountability 3.0627 .05 reject C. Scheffé’con’trasts between "aware, cannot describe" group and "not aware” group and levels of significance Dependent variables Contrast Significance H Knowledge of current issues .4384 .05 reject Perception of newspaper accountability .0182 n.s. accept 54 H5: Frequency of news criticism column readership will be greater among more highly educated individuals than lower educated. H6: Awareness of the ombudsman program will be greater among more highly educated individuals than lower educated. 7: Frequency of news criticism column readership will be greater among individuals with higher incomes. H8: Awareness of the ombudsman program.will be greater among individuals with higher incomes. These four hypotheses were tested to determine the relationship between the two components of the accountability program at the Louisville newspapers and two demographic characteristics--education and income-—that have been con- nected to newspaper readership. To make cross-tabulation more manageable, seven original education categories were collapsed into four categories. Four income categories were also used. A chi-square test showed no significant relationships between readership of the news criticism column and the two demo- graphic independent variables. (See Tables 17 and 18.) But both independent variables were significantly related to awareness of the ombudsman program. (See Tables 19 and 20.) Difference of proportions tests were performed for each significant relationship to determine if the difference were ”true” or a function of the disproportionate frequencies in some of the cells of the contingency tables. Again, it was necessary to combine categories in the original 3 x 4 tables. The four education categories were collapsed into two: those with up to some college education and those with a college degree or above. The four income categories were also collapsed: those with incomes up to $25,000 and those 55 Table 17 Chi- square Test--Frequency of News Criticism Column Readership by Amount of Formal Education, in percent. ———. 4— M Less than College High School High School Degree Graduate Degree Degree Plus Plus Degree Reads Twice A week 31.7 41.3 33.3 41.7 Reads Once A week 26.8 18.8 26.7 8.3 Reads Once A Month 17.1 17.4 23.3 41.7 Never Reads 24.4 22.5 16.7 8.3 n=41 n=138 n=30 n=12 X2= 8. 596 with nine degrees of freedom Not Significant Table 18 Chi-square Test--Frequency of News Criticism Column Readership by Level of Household Income, in percent Less than , College High School High School Degree Graduate Degree Degree Plus Plus Degree Reads Twice A Week 38.4 30.6 36.4 48.8 Reads Once A Week 17.8 27.4 27.3 12.2 Reads Once A Month 20.5 19.4 13.6 22.0 Never Reads 23.3 22.6 22.7 17.1 n=73 n=62 n=22 n=41 2_ X 6. 767 with nine degrees of freedom Not Significant 56 Table 19 Chi-square Test--Awareness of Ombudsman Program by Amount of Formal Education, in percent Less than High School High SchOol Degree Degree Plus Aware Can Describe - 4.4 22.9 Aware, Cannot Describe 12.1 21.9 Not Aware 83.5 55.2 n=91 n=201 X2= 71.807 with six degrees of freedom p c .00001 College Degree Graduate Plus Degree 43.1 73.9 19.6 0 37.3 26.1 n=51 n=23 Table 20 Chi-square Test--Awareness of Ombudsman Program by Level of Household Income, in percent $15,001- $0-15,000 25,000 Aware, Can Describe 15.7 21.2 Aware, Cannot Describe 16.5 17.2 Not Aware 67.8 61.6 n=121 n=99 X2 22.671 with six degrees of freedom p < .00]. $25,001- $35,001 35,000 Plus 31.6 42.4 18.4 23.7 50.0 33.9 n=38 n=59 57 with incomes of $25,001 and more. Requiring a .05 significance level and a one—tailed test because the direction of the difference had been pre— dicted, a Z score of more than 1.65 was necessary to reject the following null hypotheses: 1) there is no difference between the two education groups in awareness of the ombudsman program; and 2) there is no difference between the two income groups in awareness of the ombudsman program. For the education hypothesis a Z score of 6.45 was achieved, allowing a rejection of the null hypothesis. For the income hypothesis, the Z score was 3.66, and again, the null hypothesis could be rejected. As a result, support can be found for both hypotheses involving awareness of the ombudsman program and the demographic variables. Finally, data analysis was performed using the two- item ”complaints” factor as the dependent variable and column readership frequency and ombudsman awareness as the independent variables. H9: The greater frequency of readership of the news cr1t1c1sm column, the less the perceived need for someone to complain to at the newspaper. H10: The greater awareness of the ombudsman program, the less the perceived need for someone to complain to at the newspaper. It was believed that the more a person knew about the Louisville newspapers' accountability program, the more likely the person was to believe there was no need for an employee to answer reader complaints. In neither the case of column readership nor ombudsman awareness was there a signi- ficant difference in perceived need for the newspapers to 58 have someone to complain to. (See Tables 21 and 22.) Table 21 Differences in Perceived Need for Someone to Complain to Among Four Levels of News Criticism Column Readership Group Means (Standard Deviations) Reads Twice Reads Once Reads Once A Week A Week A Month Never Reads 7.9326 7.9149 7.9535 8.0638 (1.3964) (1.3486) (1.3444) (1.2581) SUM OF MEAN F F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARE RATIO PROB. Between Groups 3 .6710 .2237 .123 .9465 Within Groups 222 403.9706 1.8197 Total 225 404.6416 Table 22 Differences in Perceived Need for Someone to Complain to Among Three Levels of Awareness of the ombudsman Program Group Means (Standard Deviations) Aware Aware - Can Describe Cannot Describe Not Aware 8.0222 7.9242 7.8630 (1.5212) (1.2442) (1.2487) SUM OF MEAN F F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARE RATIO PROB. Between Groups 2 1.6288 .8144 .469 .6262 Within Groups 372 646.4672 1.7378 Total 374 648.0960 59 Summary of Readership and Accountability Data More than half the respondents in the study said they were reading The Courier-Journal, Louisville's morning news- paper, regularly (at least four days a week). About 44 percent said they were reading the evening Louisville Times regularly. Of those who said they were reading the Times, more than 45 percent said they read the newspaper's news criticism column at least once a month. However, only slightly more than one— third of those who said they read the column could name either the columnist and/or the column title. The results show more than half the respondents said they were not aware of the ombudsman program. More than half of the nearly 40 percent who said they were aware of it could describe it accurately, thereby indicating a greater level of awareness. Respondents' scores on the nine—item Likert—type accountability scale were normally distributed with a mean of just more than 27 of a possible 45. More than three-fourths of the respondents could not answer correctly more than two of the four questions about regional and local issues current at the time the interview schedule was administered. The results also show strong support among respondents for a full-time employee at the newspapers who answers reader complaints. 60 Summary of the Tests of the Hypotheses The major findings of the study are: 1) no signifi- cant relationship exists between frequency of news criticism column readership and either perception of accountability or knowledge of issues; 2) a significant relationship exists between awareness of the ombudsman program and both perceived accountability and knowledge of issues. Those who are most aware of the ombudsman program have greater perceived account- ability and greater knowledge of issues than those who indicate lesser awareness. Awareness of the ombudsman program increased as levels of education and income increased. On the other hand, there were no significant relationships between readership of the news criticism column and levels of income and education. Predicting Perceived Accountability Additional analyses, correlation and regression, were performed following the previous analyses. A zero-order correlation analysis provided further examination of the relationships among certain variables; a regression analysis was performed to predict perceived accountability of the Louisville newspapers by respondents. The nine variables used in the analyses were the dependent variable, the "fair- ness” factor, and eight independent variables: column readership, ombudsman awareness, the ”complaint” factor, 61 education, age, income, Courier-Journal readership, and Louisville Times readership. The nine-item fairness factor was significantly related to five other variables. (See Table 23.) This variable, perceived accountability, was related to readership of The Courier-Journal (r=.l36), readership of The Louisville Iiggg (r=.152) and awareness of the ombudsman program ' (r=.221). Perceived accountability was also related to level of formal education (r=.393). Age was negatively related to the perception by respondents that the newspapers are accountable (r=—.159). Other significant relationships should be noted from the data: 1) news criticism column readership is related to both readership of The Courier-Journal (r=.273) and The Louisville Times (r=.283). 2) ombudsman awareness is also related to readership of the newspapers (r=.256 for The Courier-Journal; r=.243 for The Louisville Times). 3) awareness of the ombudsman program is related to readership of the news criticism column (r=.237). 4) education, age and income are positively related to reading The Courier-Journal (r=.150, .160, .151 respectively); only education is significantly related to reading The Louisville Times (r=.l44). 5) a significant relationship exists between income and awareness of the ombudsman program (r=.18l). 62 oo.H mmo. oaooaH oo.H mam. moo.l oo.H omo.l mmH.I oaa. oo.H ow<~2ibmonvm uouomm Nmo.l H©H.I moo. Hao.l oo.H Houumm mmoaufimm unflwamfioo awe. omo. mam. HNN. omo. oo.H mwo. NMH. 00H. moo.| «no.1 5mm. oo.H mmoaoum3< deemuoomom cmamwsbfio QESHOU Hm>ma mo. was moo. mqo. qaa. NmH. moo. mam. mwm. oo.H waflomom mafia oaaw>mflsoq um unmowwflcwflm ma NmH. A p Hma. 00H. one. omH. 0H0. omm. mum. «No.1 oo.H wdflwmmm HmGH50h nuowusoo oEooaH mw< COHumosom Houowm mmocuflwm Houomm uawmamaou mmououm3< amEmwSLEo maflwmom casaoo wdflwmom moSflH oHHH>mHDOA waflomom HmCHSOhluoflunoo mm manmfi mHaEwm HMUOH Mom moanmflum> mafiz mo xfluumz coaumamuuoo 63 A multiple regression analysis was performed to predict the perceived accountability of the Louisville news- papers by respondents. In this analysis the nine-item "fairness” factor was treated as the dependent variable and the eight other variables of the correlational analysis as independent variables. The analysis shows the relative influence of each of the independent variables on the depend- ent variable, controlling for other independent variables in the equation. The indirect relationships among all variables can be examined in the correlation matrix. Five of the eight independent variables in Table 24 were significant at the .05 level: readership of both news- papers, income, age, and awareness of the ombudsman program. Table 24 also shows that the eight independent variables influencing perceived accountability of the Louisville newspapers account for 15 percent of variance. The multiple R for these variables is .38. Table 25 summarizes the analysis of variance test for the regression. 64 Table 24 Regression Coefficients for Eight Independent Variables with Perceived Accountability Courier-Journal Reading .2897 Louisville Times Reading .3116 H Column Readership -.5030 Ombudsman Awareness .9689 Complaint Factor -.4620 Education .4349 Age -.4941 Income -.4642 R2 = .15 Table 25 Analysis of Variance Test of Regression With All Variables in the Equation df Sum of Squares Mean Square F R=.38 Regression 8 882.729 110.341 4.473 R2=.15 Residual 208 5131.546 24.671 p(.000 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION This section includes a brief summary of the major findings reported in the previous section, a discussion of the possible interpretations of the results, a discussion of the limitations of the study that the reader should know, and suggestions for future research. Summary of the Results The major findings of the study include: —-Significant differences in perceived accountability exist among levels of awareness of the ombudsman program at the Louisville newspapers. The mean score for the nine—item ”fairness” factor was highest for the group made up of respondents who were most aware of the program. ——The group with greatest awareness of the ombudsman program has significantly greater knowledge of current local and regional issues than groups with lesser awareness. —-Two demographic independent variables, education and income, were significantly related to awareness of the ombudsman program. --No significant relationships exist between frequency 65 66 of news criticism column readership and perception of account- ability and knowledge of current issues. --No significant relationships exist between readership of the news criticism column and two demographic independent variables, education and income. --Significant positive correlations exist between readership of both Louisville newspapers and awareness of the ombudsman program. --Significant positive correlations exist between readership of both newspapers and perceived accountability. --Five of eight independent variables are significant predictors of perceived accountability: readership of Thg Courier-Journal, readership of The Louisville Times, income, age, and awareness of the ombudsman program. --The eight independent variables indluencing perceived accountability explain 15 percent of the variance in perceived accountability. Interpretation of the Results The positive relationship between readership of the two Louisville dailies and both ombudsman awareness and perceived accountability was to be expected, particularly when one considers the amount of promotional activity the newspapers have given the ombudsman system. Every issue of both newspapers has a standing column that lists the names and numbers of various editors, all three ombudsmen and the purpose of having ombudsmen. The papers have also provided 67 the address of the National News Council for readers who cannot get satisfaction from the ombudsman. (See Appendix.) Executive editor Paul Janensch and Louisville Times managing editor Leonard Pardue have also taken several opportunities to explain what the ombudsman program is about in their columns. These occasions have arisen recently when the papers' ombudsman retired and in the aftermath of the Janet Cooke incident. (See Appendix for copies of columns.) The constant promotional effort through the columns and the prominent display of ombudsmen and National News Council responsibilities surely help explain the relationship between readership and ombudsman awareness, and as a result, ombudsman awareness and perceived accountability. The lack of a significant relationship involving the news criticism column as either an independent or dependent variable might also be explained through the newspapers' promotional efforts or lack thereof. Although 45 percent of reSpondents said they read the column at least once a month, it appears that respondents have not connected the column and attempts by the newspapers to be accountable. The newspapers did not promote the column as greatly as they have the ombuds- man program, and no attempt has been made to replace columnist Bob Schulman, who resigned in March 1981. That a positive relationship exists between readership and perceived accountability might also be explained by a loyalty factor. It seems likely that people who read the newspapers frequently would see the papers in a more favor- able light or their readership might not be justified. 68 Conversely, infrequent or non—readers of the newspapers would feel no attachment to them, and, therefore, no compulsion to respond favorably about the newspapers. The aforementioned explanations would indicate that p an ombudsman program would do little to attract new readers , to a newspaper, at least not alone. On the other hand, an ombudsman may work well as a public relations device with 1 current readers. This is not to suggest (as ombudsman critics have) that it is merely a public relations gimmick. However, it is to point out, as former Washington Post ombudsman Bill Green did in August 1981, that the newspaper industry has to listen to its consumers if it is to retain them. ”The newspaper industry is not a growth industry,” Green said.1 Interestingly, initiation of the Louisville ombudsman program came at the time when the organized consumer movement was growing. Among the responses by businesses to increased consumerism of the 19608 was seeing things from the customer's viewpoint. In a similar manner, the primary function of the newspaper ombudsman is to listen and respond to the consumer point of view. It is possible, then, to see the newspaper ombudsman program as an outgrowth of consumerism, which has been described by Kotler as "the ultimate form of the 2 marketing concept.” It is doubtful, however, that newspaper 1Association for Education in Journalism, "Proceedings of Elected Standing Committee on Professional Freedom and Responsibility,” East Lansing, Mich., August 11, 1981. 2Philip Kotler, Marketing Management, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980), p. 695. 69 executives in Louisville have consciously used the ombudsman program as a marketing technique, even though it may serve that purpose. In 1971 publisher Barry Bingham Jr. said newspapers' survival depended on greater openness to readers by journal- ists. He suggested that journalists should be more willing to admit mistakes in order to restore reader confidence, I implying that doing so may even help circulation. Opening lines of communication with readers, Bingham_said, would keep editors from treating the newspaper business like an occult ritual which the layman cannot hope to understand.”3 For Barry Bingham Sr., practical reasons for being Open with the public existed, though in 1973 he found loftier principles were also involved: A free society cannot endure without a free press, and the freedom of the press ultimately rests on public understanding of, and trust in, its work.4 More recently, executive editor Paul Janensch said the motives for having the ombudsman come from the realiza- tion that the newspapers are dominant, a monopoly in the market.5 The inference here is that the newspapers have philosophical reasons for having the program: ”it's the right thing to do.” But the need to offset the typical 3Barry Bingham Jr., "Does the American Press Deserve To Survive?” The Quill, January 1971, pp. 13—17. 4Barry Bingham Sr., "Birth of a Media Council,” Columbia Journalism Review, March-April, 1973, p. 43. 5Interview with Paul Janensch, The Courier—Journal and Louisville Times, 23 December 1981. 7O criticisms of monopolies--the practicality--is also present. In summary, a number of observations can be made: --The promotion of the Louisville ombudsman program may be a possible reason for the positive relationships among 3 newspaper readership, ombudsman awareness and perceived accountability. --The lack of promotion of the news criticism column may 1 account for no significant relationships in hypotheses involving news criticism column readership. --Though certainly not obnclusive, an ombudsman-like program may be a way to retain readership. Conversely, it is unlikely to attract new readership. --Reasons Louisville newspaper executives have given for having an ombudsman and similar programs are both practical and philosophical, though it is doubtful that the Louisville ombudsman program was actually conceived for strictly practical purposes. Limitations of the Research The limitations of the study relate to methodological considerations. Although the methodological problems exist, it is not believed they detract from the major findings of the study: those who are most aware of the ombudsman program believe the Louisville newspapers are more accountable than those with lesser awareness and awareness of the program and perception of accountability are positively related to readership of the newspapers. 71 l) The response rate of 44.7 percent is considered low for a telephone administered interview schedule, and therefore subject to error on a systematic basis rather than randomly. 2) The focus group interview sessions were not conducted with people from the Louisville market. Because of time and financial limitations, the focus groups were held with indi- viduals from the greater Lansing, Michigan, area. Ideally, the participants in any future focus group should be from the market in which the main study is conducted. 3) The 56 attitudinal items collected from the focus group interviews were also not administered to people from Louisville for the factor analysis, again for time and financial reasons. It has been suggested that in this stage of the scale development process researchers use 10 respondents for every item to be factor analyzed. For this study three reSpondents participated for every item. 4) The reader should be careful not to generalize the data reported here for other newspapers that have ombudsmen. 5) The SPSS manual warns against using the pairwise deletion option used in the regression analysis for this study because of the possibility of computational inaccura- cies.6 However, because the alternative, listwise deletion, would have resulted in too great a reduction of usable cases for many variables in the regression equation, the pairwise 6Jae-On Kim and Frank J. Kohout, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975), p. 353. 72 option was used. It should be noted that the computational anomalies suggested by the manual did not occur. Although the methodological shortcomings do not detract from the major findings of the study, they do suggest possibilities for future research of newspaper accountability programs. This study is apparently the first attempt to dis- cover the influences and effects ombudsman programs and other 1 evaluation techniques have on newspaper audiences. As a result, fine-tuning the scale development process is not only necessary in subsequent studies, but encouraged. Because the number of ombudsman programs has increased during the last five years, attempts to determine their impact should be undertaken, particularly in markets where the program is as widely publicized as in Louisville. A study of account- ability in newspaper markets where no programs exist should be considered. Even though the Louisville program is not effective in attracting new readers, the relationship between perception of accountability and newspaper readership indicates the possibility that it is effective for retaining readers. Newspapers whose strategies emphasize high reten- tion of readers might explore implementing an ombudsman or readers' representative program, first measuring subscribers' perception of accountability, their desire for an ombudsman- like employee at the newspaper, and the relationship between the perception and the desire. Newspapers that are making greater attempts to attract new readers may also use the accountability scale to determine whether a program would be likely to influence the 73 decision to subscribe. Future research should also include comparisons between newspapers whose ombudsmen write columns and news- papers where they do not. And comparisons could be made between self—executing ombudsman programs, like the one at The Washington Post, and reader-executing ones, like the Louisville program. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Interview Schedule 74 APPENDIX A Interview Schedule ACCOUNTABILITY STUDY COLS. 1-3 BERNSTEIN: 452-6420 1M ( INTERVIEWER NAME# ( PHONEO ( CALLBACKS: l 2 3 4 5 INTRODUCTION: Hello, may I speak with the man of the house? IF RS IS NOT HOME, ASK TO SPEAK WITH A HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO IS 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER. IF PROPER EESPONDENT: Hello, I'm calling for the School of Journalism at Michigan State University. newspapers and I have a few questions I'd like to ask you. 1. First, how many days a week do you read the Courier-Journal? 011) (_l_) Q_£_) {41) (_3_) L41) (_2_) 01L) How many days a week do you read the Louisville Times? (__0_)(co'ro9)(_1_)(_;_)(_1_) <_g_><_s_)(_§_) How often would you say you read the news criticism column in the Louisville Times? Twice a week, once a week, or once a month? (1)mmslnm (3)mmlumm (gjnx ( 2 ) ONCE A WEEK (_3_) NEVER (GO TO 9) Now, I have some questions about the news criticism column... Was the writer of the news criticism column: (_l_) Leonard Pardue (_4__) Gordon Anderson (_2_) Tom Mathews (_§_) Paul Janensch (___) Bob Schulman (_§_) DR Was the name of the news criticism column: (_l__) News and Views (__4__) Newswatch ( 2 ) As We See It ( ) Watchdog on the Press ( 3 ) In All Fairness ( DK V What do you like about the news criticism column? ( ) ( ) ( ) What do you not like about the news criticism column? ( ) ( ) We're doing a study of the Louisville 10 75 PAGE 2 8. 10. Earlier this month the news criticism was discontinued. How do you feel about the column being discontinued? ( ) ( ) ( ) Are you aware of the program at the Louisville newspapers called an ombudsman program? ( 1 ) YES (GO TO 9a) (_g_) NO (GO TO 10) ( ) DK (GO TO 10) 9a. Could you give me a brief description of the program? ( ) ( ) I'm going to read some statements a person might say about newspapers. I'd like you to tell me how these statements reflect your feelings about the Louisville newspapers by telling me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each statement. (READ EACH STATEMENT: CIRCLE RESPONSE) SA A D SD DK a. Newspapers ignore controversial issues. 1 2 4 5 3 b. Newspapers will not take a stand on some issues because of fear of offending people. 1 2 4 5 3 c. Newspapers should have a full-time employee to whom readers could complain about the paper. 5 4 2 1 3 d. Newspapers should have a full—time employee who listens to reader complaints and acts on them. 5 4 2 1 3 e. Newspapers do not give all sides of a story. 1 2 4 5 3 f. I don't believe many stories in the newspaper. l 2 4 5 3 g. Newspapers do not provide in-depth coverage on important issues. 1 2 4 5 3 h. Newspapers are influenced by special interest groups. 1 2 4 5 3 1. Newspapers are influenced by advertisers. l 2 4 5 3 j. I am skeptical of news- papers in monopoly positions. 1 2 4 5 3 k. Newspapers print only . what they want to print. 1 2 4 5 3 COLS. ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PAGE 3 7 6 COLS . Now some questions about recent events in the news... 11. In an attenpt to strengthen their contract negotiating power, Jefferson County police have: ( l ) Threatened to go on strike ( 4 ) Called in sick ( 2 ) Participated in a ticket- ( 5 ) None of these writing slowdown ( 3 ) Taken part-time jobs ( 6 ) DK 24 l2. The largest single reduction in the state budget announced by Governor Brown was in spending for: ( 1 ) Transportation ( ) Environmental protection ( 2 ) Energy ( 5 ) None of these ( 3 ) Education A v DR 25 —-.——— 13. The number of utility workers on strike at Louisville Gas and Electric Company was: 04L) 1,000 ( 4 ) 4,000 ( 2 ) 1,400 (_2_) None of these ( 3 ) 2,700 ( ) DK 26 14. What did the Bullitt County Board of Education vote to remove from county classrooms? ( l ) newspapers ( 4 ) the Ten Commandments ( 2 ) encyclopedias ( 5 ) the First Amendment ( 3 ) graduation diplomas ( ) DR 27 Now just a few more questions... 15. How much education have you completed? ( l ) UP TO 8TH ( 5 ) COLLEGE DEGREE ( 2 ) 9TH - 12TH 6 ) GRADUATE WORK A ( 3 ) HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE ( 7 ) GRADUATE DEGREE — — ( ) SOME COLLEGE ( ) REFUSED 28 16. What is your age? ( ) (ROUNDED TO NEAREST YEAR) ( 99 ) REFUSED 29-30 17. Is your total annual household income more than $15,000? (_____) YES (GO TO 17a) (__1_._) NO (GO TO CLOSING) 173. Is it more than $25,000? (__) YES (GO TO 17b) (__2__) NO (GO TO CLOSING) 17b. And finally, is it more than $35,000? ( 3 ) NO (__4__)YEs 31 (5 )DK ( 6 ) REFUSED Thank you very much for your help. 18. RECORDSEX: ( 1 )MALE ( 2 )FEMALE 32 APPENDIX B TOpics Discussed In Focus Group Interview Sessions APPENDIX B Topics Discussed In Focus Group Interview Sessions 10. .__.L Ways newspapers read by each panel member are responsible to the reader. Ways newspapers respond to reader complaints and problems. The necessity of newspapers to respond to reader complaints and problems. Ways newspapers should respond to their readers; ways they could be accountable. The idea of having a newspaper employee handle reader complaints. The effectiveness of printing corrections as a way of being accountable to readers. The effectiveness of "letters to the editor" as a way of being accountable to readers. Bias in newspapers toward special interest groups and advertisers. The idea of press councils at the local level. The idea of news criticism in the newspaper. APPENDIX C Standing Column Listing Editors and Ombudsmen APPENDIX C Standing Column Listing Editors and Ombudsmen an]: QIourirf-Eoumal - (uses 135-560) For Information latest sports scores: 582-4871. . Wart to know your congressman’t address or the winner of the 21st Kentucky Derby? Our Reader’s Service Department will cmswer your questions. it’s open 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Call 582-4545. For more extensive research on a tee basis, call the library, 582-4603. Managing Editor . David Hawpe (in charge of The ' Courier-Journal news operation), 582-4613. - To report a news item ' or story idea - City News: For news about the metropolitan area, except Southern lndiana, call Bill Cox, 582-4691. Regional News: For news about Kentucky and Southern Indiana, call Stephen Ford, 582-4657. ' Pictures: Michael T. Martinez, 582-4680 Business News: , Phil Moeller, 582-4651. Sports: Stan Slasher, 582-4361. Accent: Maureen McNerney, 582-4667. - Weddings and Engagements: - Linda Watkins, 582-4667. ,Clwrch Notices: George Buchanan, 582-469]. Obituaries (call after 2 p.m.): Bob Redmon . louisville-area deaths. 582-4624 or 582-4656 .‘ " All other deaths. - 800-292-3570 (toll free) Have a complaint? ‘ News li you have a question or‘com- plaint about news coverage, call Bob Crumpler, News Ombudsman, 582-451). ‘ It you have a specific complaint about the accuracy or fairness at news reporting, and have failed to get satisfaction from the paper, you are invited to take the com- plaint to the National News Coun- cil. The council is an independent, non-governmental body. Include a copy of the 'article and . copies of any correspondence with the newspaper. Address: I lincoln Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10023. Phone: (212) 595-94ll.'. - ” Circulation _ it you h‘avea problem regarding service, or it your paper is not de- 3 livered, call 582-2211. ' Newspaper replacement service is available from-7 a.m. to 10 a.m. daily and 7 a.m. to noon Sunday. it you have a persistent Service problem, call Circulation Ombuds- man Bill Chambers, 582-4355. . Advertising it you have a complaint about ad- vertising, call Advertising Ombuds~ man Lenora Mulrooney, 582-4384. APPENDIX D Editors' Columns 79 APPENDIX D Editors' Columns Policies that guard — against the stretching of truth in news stories Belfast met battle between Brit- lsh aoldlers and Irish The story. by columnist Mlchael 1' Daly duct-thee how the soldiers shots sls-yearold lad lnth the leg. bullets Instead of the rubberm ones l-ued tor crowd dls penal. tral character In Dely's The other case,— In serious but sttu 8mm; — involves a New Rep. Allard bowenstsl Peasants story — Includ- In; one that says Lowenste had asexual een nay — scarftohohesedonspnsonln- tervlew ot the accrued by Mia; Carpenter. ’ . It turns such person as Christopher Spell In the entire British Army Ml: Carpenter has never met Dennls Whey. ehllsdldhtrlng his comma killed on an ear“? patroL J - / .7 cxccutlve edllor _2_'uncnlnumal - Louisville Times Labeling the Duly " pack 0! lies" and "vtclmlsly nauti- British," me Dally found 14 tebrlmu’ons uncle Summoned bar: I: to New York. the pa nstoph r S ll was a 1 name. He nked to reign when he couldn‘t ”must: the The Village Voice story was challe friend and a brother ol tow ensteln. They de- nled that Lowensteln. n dlvorced father at three. had teens horn conceded th t a; so '83 the one about Dennla Sweeney. Nelther Daly nor Ml. Sweeney see reconstruction an uslngs' pseud- onym -- I've done a lot at .11. No '\ Ml. Swee told The uNew York Times: “1 do n p polled to manure each use every plece o! lhlorrnsuon to Its source. arrogant. but I do mean to sound Quil- nt." ‘ I'd say I'you sound srropnt. Ml: .dan soon you. Michael Daly. anrt° I'd llke to oemphasize to Her-Journal olumes we have pollcles spinal the —,tech- at me tern We pretcr to Identity sources and central characters tn our 80 ear PAGE - N . \ 7 - 8 No complaints Bob Crumpler, new ombudsman} is loyal friend, defender of readers 0n anonymous sources: “We be-' ~ LEONARD lleve that Our readers are entitled to . p ARDUE knowahe source of. the intormationfl Times Managing '9 PM .81“! that only in rare in- \ Editor Man there ~lit-wand reason. ~, , ~ Wmttellingthem." ‘ “ - ' ,. Olaecuracy'Weshouldtakev’ E. _ - c'are'jb' check lntoruiation we re-‘ Bob,Crumpler starts work July 20 as the ombudsman or the news de- partments of The Louisville Times and The Courier-Journal. . He succeeds Frank Hartley, who re.iired. In that job. Grump- will try to— answer readers' questions and re- solve their complainm. ' _ No brag, just tact— Cramp will be. an‘ effective ally of the readers. I base that prediction on 18 years of obseidtng and working with him. his assets are common. sensomd good judgment. an un- Ibendu allegiance to clear, gram- matical writing and to accurate, fair reporting. a loathing for cant and pomposity, and a kind and gentle disposition. He is both bulldog and. SLBe For the past eight years he has been "assistant tmanaging edlto rot ’ The la, and for much of that time ’3 written an internal news- letter; ”behind the Times.” A sam- pling‘reveais his prejudices: . y. SflPhoto by Dan Dry -; BOB CRUMPLE . (Continued) 81 “Many ‘mistakes are avoidable. . They. can be, avoided by asking questions, by not asuming. by not thinking we know more than we do, ' by checking. by being determined not to be wrong.” ' . 0n writing: “We want stories written with style and grace and transitions that carry readers smoothly through to the end. “We favor writing that is concise, clear and vivid. Writing that is spe- cific. Writing that avoids abstract tions, jargon, officiaiwe'. cliches. » “We should always try to yake it 7 'easy for the reader. . And: “We often pick at what seem to be little imam [in 'behind the Times’] because we believe they 1 often make us look bad, turn. read- ers off or: stop them in midstream.” . Those excerpts suggest Crump’ s qualities as an editor, but reveal little of him as a person. ‘ He likes poetry, bakes bread, loves children. grows vegetables and plays tennis with determination and enthusiasm. The son of a Methodist minister, he sings snatches of hymns .at odd moments with what I would caliafaircountrytenor. r'~ Hegrewupinsrnaiitownsin WastVirginiafiewenttoMarshall' University. served in the Army Air Corps during World War II. and worked for newspapers in West Vir- ,ginia before joining The Courier- Journal as areporter in 1950. Three .years later he took a job in the 'Generai Electric -.’Co s pubiimla- {bans office. but returned to newspa- 9319;; work a a Times reporter in Hewasanasistantcityeditor' from about 1957 to 1964, when he ,becamecity editor, a job he held for ‘_ yum nine years before being promoted to assistant managing editor. _ For all those years on The Times, he’s risen early. When he was ask. tant city editor, he came to work at 5 a.m. He says people used to ask him what he did when he got up at 4 a.m. ' “Wonder why I didn't have a job with better hours," he recalls. 'As ombudsman, he'll have such a job. He'll do it well. ‘ o r . . A‘departnre — Dick Fenion is leaving The Times. He'll begin work soon as a sports columnist for. The “Columbus Dispatch in Columbus, Ohio, his- hometown. He’ s been Times sports editor since 1973 and a sports staffer here since 1962. He’ 3 a graceful and insightful writer, and wewlshhimwebestinhisnewjob. Leonard Pardua' a column appears on y.“ . . ' - ~r --.‘ 7 .' -- 4.4-um" ..; .., .. . . . i I J l I l l APPENDIX E News Criticism Column Examples 82 APPENDIX E News Criticism Column Examples An _0_1d press, dilemma: when to expose, When to shield?" ENEWS MEDIA’S Job in an open “yr: a giving Intorrna ormation. not keeping se- y secrets t. Public opinion polls show that most Ameri- canswant the rate abstain from prying out government only when national gove secretthat several other papers had decided to respect.lt raisedaanew nestion. Whenlstigoodtortheprearto tei'l la- than it knows? The bou' ' ng negotiations. they much as said. “Hell. because of the public- ity we may lose this guy. Mr. Schulmans column on media performance appears regularly in The Louisville Tim and monthly in the Sunday or holiday CourierJo emor sa st a dirty. B t what public need was served that couldn't h without rising the tions and en- tuc editors. kincluding The Courier-Journal a. who support that View ThrswasonecaseoftheaortWarren Dennis had in mind when. while president of the University ol Cincinnati. he warned spinst trying to make every stage of every public act "take place, u it were. in Macy's ndow. mere fact of dlscustona known at the wrong can prevent a desirable deckrion from ultimately being ca ou " n . Butltlsrislrytoshiftfromsapedflc case to a broad generallntlon. And there are ”using points In the arguments or those who ride with The Louis-ville Times in the negotiations cstory— itself the occasion 1aceaarlo. for a journallstl Stale ournal of Frankfort. Caving- ton‘s Kentucky Post and"“ The Associated Press were amo th oeeedltors or porters knew of the negotiations with Georgia' s Folds Some had the lnlorrnation under a pledge , 3F ’ \ . :‘ , An editor's "IvindOW” is not unlike a store’u nit prematurely, but others no fldentlality,bu had liaredaorn orall of elnlorrnation with about 69 state lesbia- tokeep them adeal that would require special salaryon amngernenls. George Gra raves. the thoughtful Times reporter in Franklort. who broke the says, ”If anybody's to blame forth storys getting out. it should be the governor "How much do I expose?" 83 himself. use he told so many people." Graves adds that he probably was among the last to find out. "With 60 legislators and i of Folds's identity. and then confirming i which was harder. Graves n with a report tuchy Post it told of Brown's negotiations ,tohireanati onaledlyraspect development official from a‘ Southern state. but nveno further details. The Post'ss'ccounthaditaowanovell' '9. 8 5 3 2 E: 5 8 '1 9 is was a 4 deal.” Knue decided to withhold the name 3% ES 5 35 3 s 3 But circu ; thought It more unimportant to give the flats crakc Hmanfrmwbehm witha"__‘ namenotknowato ourreaders rsl'anywsy *~ Men n'time.Gravusf:lsuitWoftheGeol~ I, uan'sldentityforThe ry arrangements to be oflered oids. , , -";'. lava-r Earlier, Graves foundso charily when. totalkme with Folds. he told lay" a i in man has rly gotten outoi-state lob offers. “That ta woul not unnecessarily complicate the chance of Foids' K tacky.” says v Endorsement of The Times‘ decision comes mAi Smith. the Western Kentucky publisher now at i‘ve.discovered" says Smith. “that lob negotiations in public office are pneraliy a _ 84 The funnies can get tickliSh if Dick Tracy Is doing his slit-eyed duty there on e comics of The Louis; ville 11m m5. and the Winrd of id showing. the pomposity of little men withpo Over 'among The Courier-Journal comics, you have Gil mrp re things cfor a gridder beca h studies “ballet. and there's Tani:o McNa- mara. ing the grosne. fcom- merclalizzi rsport. All tightly tied into e So why0 rshouldn't Doonsbu ury be cs.too — even if nwbury does satirize real people. ink cleans ff lite. what m ”men: with Doonesbury strips fea- ng an imagnary version at an ABC-TV re rter ta before letting the sequences appear.A eight news parspe esequences either were withheld until afierth //é what the answer to that says about the nature of the tonal [n lndlanapolis. the solution at the P Doonesbury strips) was to publish them all In a clump late opinion page. Editor Eugene Puliiam ha d an accompanying note saying he didn‘t like esestripseb obiigl thev voice of therea The Courier-Journal is among very few newspape rsal( ong with Pul- ilam's Muncle. Ind. paper) in which Doons aburywas already running in the opinion section. where cartoonists. writers pop off or switched (for last week only) tram fenders and P189 the comic: to the commentary opposite the editorial pa . One worry was the awkward timing The final campaign week was a poor or merciles roasting oi Rea- gan's intellectual gear in newspapers lee of wi an bl . But editors’ 0 what they saw as the problem of Doonesbury on Reagan unavoidably lsed anew the question of where in newspaper Doonesbury properly belonfi' — and An admirable solution to wor‘rles about the timing of Doonabury's Rea- tucky chairman m invited to produce a rebuttal. and chairman Porgy did so charmingly: He wrote sly- ly that he was forgetting the usual poll- cy 0! not responding “to comic strips or Courier-Journal editorials." and he set forth a scenario for a Trudeau voy- age through Jlmmy Carters brain. ' .But the editorial word from The Wall Street Journal is that Trudeau's work should not be on opinion pages Putting Doonesb ry there. the paper last week. “makes it into a kind of out-and-out serious issue" ouid be kept in its place strip. a licensed exploration of the in- congruous and the ." Trudeau wants Doonesbury run mics. Ills distributing wo ys to hit more young~adult readers. Here. 50 per cent of them “untaifrea read the coutnrlcpagesb only ll percent“usu- ally" read the op-ed pages. I”(IonSIdering Doonesbumry for the com lespag‘a raises. firstth age of whether social comment ebelongs there at all. The quick0° answer is that some kind of social mment has always been there Astrip called Little Nemo off socety in lilll. lt's c vative type like General Bullmoose un- til an“ICapp turned cause a aiming at the Kennedy lib- erals of “liyideebport.” In 1955. a Rex organ run on the menace of non- doctor coroners inspired a big 0.! ln-‘ vestigative But as a sec-J comment noted upon in Pogoan fanciful animals or make- belleve names “to protect the inno- cence" and to keep the real world from popping oo Trudeau‘ s unflinching approachto even and personalities is not tound in (Continued) 85 $756 mm) lei/7R” Mm SiiooId there be hrseporoie r'uIeI— and separate [I‘M Or ‘ Doonesbury’ and ‘fPedntns ’ 5'“ . ‘any of the social-cornmen tary comics used here. Trudean' s uniqueness is as a toth comic-stripper in the world oi the edi- torial carton oosunisis. auchas asliugh Haynle. M a Tlmecnv cover story said in 1778, Trudean' “combines editorial-page yaw mum I'VIIG VII!" ity and runny-paper The funny-quotient in the [oulsviile dailies' comies nu held up well since I ast counted five yea ago. 1 Times comics, only four are unfunny WWW” Cflwélfi [WW 150/4 GUI/C #551? W4 WWW story-linersm in The at it's in. mm rudeauisoftenhmniestoiall. but cal em the alkaline side hi the line dividlli‘i what people expect in the corals from-i what may delight them emon i133.“ page but Jar them among a: BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bagdikian, Ben. The Effete Conspiracy and Other Crimes By the Press. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Bent, Silas. Ballyhoo. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1927. Bogart, Leo. Press and Public: Who Reads What, When, Where and Why in American Newspapers. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumIASSociates, 1981. Brown, Lee. The Reluctant Reformation. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1974. The Commission on Freedom of the Press. A Free and Responsible Press. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947. Emery, Edwin, and Emery, Michael. The Press and America, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978. Kim, Jae-On, and Kohout, Frank J. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975. Kotler, Philip. Marketing Management, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980. Liebling, A.J. Press, 2nd ed. New York: Ballentine Books, 1975. Rubin, David M., Sandman, Peter M., and Suchsman, David B. Media: An Introductory Analysis of American Mass Communications, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976. Seldes, George. Lords of the Press. New York: Blue Ribbon Books, 1938. Seldes, George. Never Tire of Protesting. New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1968. Seldes, George. You Can't Print That. New York: Payson and Clarke Ltd., 1929. 86 87 Shaw, David. Journalism Today. New York: Harper's College Press, 1977. Periodicals Agnew, Spiro T. ”Television News Coverage." Vital Speeches, 1 December 1969, pp. 98-101. Bagdikian, Ben H. ”Keep Up Criticism.” American Society of Newspaper Editors Bulletin. October 1972, p. 1. Balk, Alfred. ”Minnesota Launches a Press Council." Columbia Journalism Review, November-December 1970, pp. 22-27. Barnett, William L. ”Survey Shows Few Papers Are Using Ombudsmen." Journalism Quarterly 50 (Spring 1973): 153-156. Bingham, Barry Jr. "Does the American Press Deserve to Survive?” The Quill. January 1971, pp. 13-17. "Birth of a Media Council.” Columbia Journalism Review. March-April 1973, PP. 43-57. Blankenburg, William B. "Newspapers' Use of Internal Criticism." News Research for Better Newspapers 5 (March 1971): 86-97. Brinton, James E., and McKown, L. Norman. "Effects of Newspaper Reading on Knowledge and Attitude." Journalism Quarterly 38 (Spring 1961): 187-195. Brucker, Herbert. "A Conscience for the Press.” Saturday Review. 9 May 1970, pp. 59-61. Cunningham, Richard F. ”Guidelines established for news— paper ombudsmen.” Editor & Publisher. 22 May 1982, p. 12. Harwood, Richard. ”Press Criticism: Who Needs It?” American Society of Newspaper Editors Bulletin. February 1972. Irwin, Will. "The American Newspaper: A Study of Journalism in Its Relation to the Public." Collier's. 21 January - 29 July 1911. Jensen, Jay W. ”A Method and a Perspective for Criticism of the Mass Media.” Journalism Quarterly 37 (Spring 1960):261-266. 88 Kapoor, Suraj, and Smith, Ralph. ”The Newspaper Ombudsman-— A Progress Report.” Journalism Quarterly 56 (Autumn 1979): 628-631. Larzarsfeld, Paul F. ”The Role of Criticism in the Management of the News Media." Journalism Quarterly 25 (June 1948). Mencher, Melvin. "Journalism Teachers: A Failure of Nerve and Verve." Nieman Reports 26-27 (Winter 1970): pp. 18—22. Nelsen, David R., and Starck, Kenneth. "The Newspaper Ombudsman as Viewed by the Rest of the Staff." Journalism Quarterly 51 (Autumn 1974): 453-457. ”N.Y. Times Freelancer admits fabricating story.” Editor & Publisher. 27 February 1982, p. 20. ”Ombudsman in Louisville.” Time. 6 July 1970, p. 44. Pearce, John Ed. ”Herch Hangs It Up.” The Courier-Journal Magazine. 26 August 1979, pp. 29—36. ”Phony column results in reporter's dismissal.” Editor & Publisher. 19 June 1982, p. 30. Raskin, A.H. "What's Wrong With American Newspapers?" The New York Times Magazine. 11 June 1967, p. 28. Rogers, Theresa F. "Interviews By Telephone and In Person: Quality of Responses and Field Performance.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (Spring 1976): 51-65. Sanders, Keith P. ”What Are Daily Newspapers Doing To Be Responsive To Readers' Criticisms? A Survey of U.S. Daily Newspaper Accountability Systems.” News Research for Better Newspapers 7 (July 1975): 148- 168. Starck, Kenneth. ”Needed: Criticism From Within." Grassroots Editor 13 (November-December 1972): 23—26. ”Watchdog, Stay Away From My Door." The Progressive. March 1973, pp. 30—35. Newspaper Articles Blustein, Paul. "Some Journalists Fear Flashy Reporters Let Color Overwhelm Fact." The Wall Street Journal. 14 May 1981, p. 1. 89 Janensch, Paul. "Policies that guard against the stretching of the truth in news stories." The CoUrier-Journal. 17 May 1981. "Media critic Schulman helped fill a serious gap.” The Courier-Journal. 7 March 1981, editorial page. Shaw, David. ”Ethics in Journalism.” St. Petersburngimes. 4 October 1981, p. 3-D. Other Sources Association for Education in Journalism. ”Proceedings of Elected Standing Committee on Professional Freedom and Responsibility," East Lansing, Michigan, August 11, 1981. Gallup, George. The Gallup Poll, a news release. Princeton, New Jersey, 20 September 1981. Hartley, Frank. The Courier-Journal and Louisville Times. Interview, 11 June 1986. Janensch, Paul. The Courier—Journal and Louisville Times. Interview, 23 December 1981. PBS. ”Behind the Lines,” 19 February 1975, Harrison Salisbury. IllllWillWlllHl/WIWIIllllWWII“JillllllllHH/ll