Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

HOLDING THE NEWS MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE: A STUDY OF MEDIA REPORTERS AND MEDIA CRITICS IN THE UNITED STATES

By Susanne Fengler

J&MC

The last decade has witnessed a significant, albeit understudied, increase in media reporting and media criticism in the U.S. news media. An exploratory study of leading media reporters and media critics in the United States indicates that these journalists have considerable potential as instruments of media self-regulation. Their impact on other media professionals, however, is partially left unexploited, mainly because of the peer orientation of media critics and media reporters. News medianewspapers, magazines, broadcast journalism, and websites with journalistic contentusually start worrying about ethics only in times of crisis, says French scholar of mass communication Claude-Jean Bertrand.1 In fact, codes of ethics, ombudsmen, press councils, and journalism reviews have been created during times of great social disaffection and increasingly angry disillusionment among the public about the news media, when people have a growing sense of being baffled and misled, as Walter Lippmann once put it.2 For example, the first code of ethics for journalists was created in 1923, shortly after World War I, following criticism about the influence of political propaganda and the advertising industry on news media content.3 Ombudsmen, press councils, and local journalism reviews, meanwhile, flourished in the United States during the social upheavals of the late 1960s and early 1970s.4 They all can be called instruments of media self-regulation because ombudsmen, authors of journalism reviews and of codes of ethics, as well as members of press councils, are generally media professionals who engage in monitoring, investigating, and analyzing developments in journalism and in the media business. As such, they expose mistakes, point towards potentially harmful developments, and encourage attention to ethics among journalists. Bertrand describes press councils, codes of ethics, journalism reviews, ombudsmen, and some nongovernmental institutions concerned with media issues as media accountability systems, defined as any

J&MC Quarterly Vol. 80, No. 4 Winter 2003 818-832 2003 AEJMC

Susanne Fengler teaches at the departments of mass communication at Freie University Berlin (Germany), Fribourg University, and University of Lugano (Switzerland). Data for this article appeared in the authors Ph.D. thesis, published in German under the title Medienjournalismus in den USA (Konstanz: UVK, 2002).
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

818

non-State means of making media responsible towards the public. Since the State should not participate in monitoring the news media, except by delivering the threats that media often need to start the process of selfregulation, Bertrand urges media owners, media professionals, and media consumers to hold the news media accountable.5 But then, because media consumers often prove too apathetic or unorganized,6 Bertrand emphasizes the importance of self-regulation by media owners and media professionals, who are asked not only to hold politics, business, and other systems of society accountable, but also to inquire if media professionals fulfill their primary responsibility, which is to provide a good public service.7 The goal of media accountability systems is thus to improve the services of the media to the public; restore the prestige of media in the eyes of the population; diversely protect freedom of speech and press; obtain, for the profession, the autonomy that it needs to play its part in the expansion of democracy and the betterment of the fate of mankind.8 To reinforce media accountability by means of media self-regulation, media professionals are limited to moral pressure. But their action can be reinforced by the authority of media executives or persisting legal obligations, adds Bertrand.9 In addition to the systems mentioned before, Bertrand includes media reporting and media criticism in his list of media accountability systems. He emphasizes that specialized journalists should monitor the news media and write critically about them for a mass audience. Since the news media have become one of the nervous systems in the social body, the public needs to be informed about them. Some journalists must specialize in that field so as to cover its news well and investigate uncompromisingly. But Bertrand says: With exceptions (usually due to ideological animus or business rivalry), media do not criticize each other: blind eyes are turned on the failings of colleagues. Self-criticism is almost unknown. ... In this profession, as in others, solidarity sometimes verges on collusion.10 Although written more than fifty years later, his conclusion recalls the 1947 Hutchins Commissions critique, issued after its inquiry into the social responsibility of the U.S. media: We recommend that the members of the press engage in vigorous mutual criticism. Professional standards are not likely to be achieved as long as the mistakes and errors, the frauds and crimes, committed by units of the press are passed over in silence by other members of the profession.11 Bertrands accusation about a lack of media criticism is no longer valid. Since the mid-1990s, there has been an absolute explosion of the genre12 of media reporting and media criticism in the United States.13 Leading newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe now regularly report about developments in journalism and the media business, as do magazines like Time and The New Yorker. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times, Felicity Barringer of the New York Times, and Cynthia Cotts of the Village Voice have become well-known for covering the news media. They call their relatively new beat the media beat and describe themselves as media reporters, media writers, media critics, or media columnists, while they speak about their journalistic work as media reporting or media criticism.14
HOLDING THE NEWS MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE

819

Today, media issues are also discussed in the broadcast media like CNNs Reliable Sources, the National Public Radios weekly On the Media, and productions with a regional focus, such as Beat the Press in the Boston area. Finally, many online media have been established for such critiques. Among them are media consumers sites like Mediachannel.org and Websites for media professionals, such as Jim Romeneskos MediaNews, now part of the Poynter Institutes Website.15 In a special edition of the Columbia Journalism Review describing the booming media beat in March 2000, James Boylan concluded: At the turn of the century, media critics are blossoming like spring.16 It could be argued that the impetus for this increase in media reporting and media criticism has again been a growing public discontent with the news media.17 For example, the excessive reporting about the O.J. Simpson case and about the affair involving former President Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky stirred intense criticism. The news media might have reacted by monitoring each other more intensely; at least, many of the media scandals discussed in the late 1990s have been investigated and publicized by the news media themselves. For example, the Boston Phoenix was involved in exposing Mike Barnicles and Patricia Smiths plagiarism and invention of quotes in the Boston Globe.18 When the Los Angeles Times entered a profit-sharing agreement with one of the subjects of its reporting, the sports center Staples Arena, the paper was caught by one of its local competitors and the L.A. Times reacted with the publication of an in-depth, selfcritical report about its own failure.19 Similarly, the New York Times published long, self-critical pieces recently after reporter Jayson Blair was discovered to have fabricated quotes and interviews.20 Obviously, not all mistakes and errors have been passed over in silence. Media economics also helps explain the increase in media reporting. The last decade was marked by numerous big-time media mergers involving, for example, CBS and Viacom, or AOL and Time Warner, and by a boom in the media business due to new media technologies like cable and satellite television and the Internet. Finally, media professionals themselves have increasingly become a topic in the news media. Jonathan Yardley already laments: The good intentions ... have gone seriously awry. The laudable idea that the press should police itself in the best way it knows howby covering itself with the same objectivity and thoroughness it tries to bring to all other subjectshas been twisted, and diminished into just another variation on the culture of narcissism, celebrity and gossip.21

Literature Review

While many more media professionals now write and comment on the media, little research has been done so far on media reporting and media criticism as a media accountability system. The bulk of academic literature available deals with the history of media reporting and media criticism, or with single high-profile media critics.22 Half a dozen content analyses examine how the news media covered the news medias work with reference to specific events, such as a war or political campaigns.23 Merger and acquisition activities have also been studied. Pieper and
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

820

Hughes found that Time and CNN generally restricted their coverage of the merger of their parent companies to the business aspects of the transaction, i.e., the consequences for the stock market. They left it to competitors the Washington Post and The Nation to question the consequences of the deal for the independence of the newsrooms at Time and CNN.24 Similarly, Turow found allusions to self-censorship in the newsroom of Time with regard to the companys business strategies.25 Robinsons 1983 content analysis of articles on media issues in leading newspapers found that most news media, with the exception of the Washington Post, shied away from criticizing themselves. Instead, print media emphasized the problems of the broadcast media, while national organizations covered the local media.26 Northington, having surveyed two dozen journalists on how they reacted to being criticized in trade magazines like the Columbia Journalism Review, found that journalists generally did not change their professional behavior.27 The media reporters and media critics specifically have not been studied so far,28 but ombudsmen have been surveyed several times. Research indicates that the ombudsmens interest in remaining on good terms with their peers and the news organization can interfere with their potential as instruments of self-regulation.29 Also missing in the context of media reporting and media criticism are studies about media owners and media managers as well as media consumersif and how they follow the media beat, and what they make of the information they receive there.

This exploratory study of leading media reporters and media critics in the United States involved interviewing media reporters and media critics about three key issues: (1) How do these journalists cover peers and employers; are blind eyes still turned on the failings of colleagues and bosses? (2) Do they address a general audience, an insider audience of media professionals, or both? (3) To what extent do they regard media reporting and media criticism as a media accountability system? The total number of media reporters and media critics in the United States is small. A comprehensive list on the website MediaNews names 32 media people (media reporters and media critics) and 37 media critics from alternative weeklies.30 For this study, 30 media reporters and media critics were selected. This sample included: (a) journalists presumed to have widest reach within the peer group, because they are most widely read by other journalists, according to Weaver and Wilhoit;31 and (b) journalists who have been proven innovators in the field of media reporting and media criticism: for example, the media critic from the Village Voice, which was a pioneer in media criticism in the 1970s; Jim Romenesko, whose website MediaNews has been ground-breaking in
HOLDING THE NEWS MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE

Method

821

providing online articles on media issues; and one of the editors of the now-defunct Brills Content, which sought to pioneer as a media consumers magazine. In addition, journalists from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and the American Journalism Review (AJR) were interviewed because, in contrast to the other interviewees, they explicitly address an insider audience with their trade magazines. From the sample of 30, 21 journalists agreed to be interviewed in person. None of the full-time TV and radio media reporters responded or agreed to participate in the study. The interviews took place in the United States in November and December 1999.32 The average length of the interviews was 50 to 60 minutes, with the longest one taking about two hours. The tapes were later transcribed by the author. Nine interviewees described themselves as media writers or media reporters, with the task of objective reporting about the content of the news media and the development of the media industry.33 They will henceforth be referred to, for the sake of brevity, as media reporters. For example, Felicity Barringer, of the New York Times, described herself as a media reporter. That involves covering journalism, the business, and lots of other things, but I abhor commenting on my colleagues and my profession. I just describe what they do . Whats happening with corporate earnings and mergers ... whats happening in the coverage of a major news event ....34 Twelve interviewees emphasized their critical approach by describing themselves as media critics or media columnists. They will be described as media critics.35 They said their task was to comment on the content of the news media and the structure of the media industry; they offered critiques36 or opinions,37 or provided checks and balances on the news media, as the New Yorkers Ken Auletta put it.38 However, no clear-cut distinction between the two role models has yet emerged in this nascent beat. For example, at one point media reporter Mark Jurkowitz also referred to himself as a media critic.39 All but 2 interviewees covered or criticized the news media full-time.40 Of the 21 journalists, 17 wrote for leading newspapers, magazines, and online publications, and could therefore potentially reach large audiences.41 Two interviewees, Mark Jurkowitz and Geneva Overholser, reported having worked as ombudsmen for some years, but both had stopped doing that long before the interviews took place.

Findings

Peers and Employers as the Subject of Media Reporting and Media Criticism. As discussed earlier, the work and the decision-making processes of journalists have become a more frequent subject in the U.S. news media in the last decade. Many media professionals react to the public criticism with high sensitivity, according to most interviewees. For example, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post said you inevitably anger and alienate many people in the business who would otherwise be your friends. People are wary around you, even in your own newsroom ....42 Dan Fost said that as the San Francisco Chronicle media critic he would face a lot of scrutiny by the fellow journalists who followed his columns. So you have got to make sure that you got it right.43
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

822

Establishing a professional distance from peers was described as being difficult by the interviewees, because they already knew many of the people they write about. This was very different from covering a foreign country, for example, or a government agency. [Y]ouve been through a lot of what theyve been through, said Felicity Barringer, the New York Times media reporter.44 Dan Kennedy, the Boston Phoenix media critic, stated that it took him an awful long time really getting comfortable and confident in going after other journalists. I know how difficult the job can be. Sometimes you are going after people who are more accomplished than you are. But then you have to step back and think, gee, if a movie critic just trashes a Stanley Kubrick film, that doesnt mean that the critic thinks he should be a better director than Stanley Kubrick. I have to put myself in the same slot.45 Many interviewees indicated that they felt a responsibility for the consequences of their writing. Cynthia Cotts of the Village Voice expressed sympathy for the use of anonymous sources on the media beat because simply to be suspected of being a source for someone like me could jeopardize that persons job. Likewise, freelance journalists who she criticized had to fear for their livelihood afterwards, which made her more cautious when criticizing their work.46 Similarly, Mark Jurkowitz was aware of his influence on peers and other media organizations, and was cautious to criticize small publications, for example.47 On the other hand, Cynthia Cotts described puff pieces that media journalists do, including me. She explained that writing only critical pieces diminishes the chance of anyone ever talking to me.48 Many interviewees identified strongly with fellow journalists. David Shaw, the Los Angeles Times media reporter, said: [A]ctions that I might have previously regarded as a result of some carefully calculated decision, or perhaps even a conspiracy, are very often a product of ignorance and stupidity and inefficiency ... .49 Like most other interviewees, Ken Auletta was convinced that mistakes made by journalists were often a result of the high business pressure in todays media companies, led increasingly by managers unfamiliar with journalism.50 Covering ones own employer was likewise described as a challenge, since you are certainly aware of your relatives.51 However, all interviewees stressed their efforts to avoid the impression that youre trying to further the interest of your own newspaper or company that owns your newspaper.52 Howard Kurtz always disclosed his affiliations, and said he would make an effort to be tougher on CNN as well as the Post, because of his connection there.53 David Shaw said that he would sell the Los Angeles Times shares he regularly received as soon as possible.54 On the other hand, the interviewees also reported that although they were inside the building, they were treated no differently by their own employers than any other reporter.55 Mark Jurkowitz recalled covering the scandals involving his colleagues at the Boston Globe, Mike Barnicle and Patricia Smith: You are hoping that your own publisher will talk to you, which sometimes he didnt. I got the same press releases .56 Dan Fosts experience covering the sale of the San Francisco Chronicle was similar.57
HOLDING THE NEWS MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE

823

Still, these journalists conceded that their employers business interests might influence the way they covered the problem of media concentration. All regarded media concentration as dangerous for journalism. Nonetheless, journalists from smaller publications who were not part of a large media conglomerate, like the Village Voice, the Boston Phoenix, the former Brills Content, and the trade magazines AJR and CJR, seemed more eager to tackle the issue of ownership and its consequences.58 They also complained about the quality of media reporting in the major news media: [I]t is always the business implicationswhat does this mean for stockholders .... Its never, what is this going to do with the diversity of opinion ....59 Meanwhile, media reporters from large newspapers like the New York Times and the Boston Globe doubted that media concentration would be a number-one topic for their audiences. Mark Jurkowitz said that since the public has never really cared about this issue, writing about the stories that do not get covered was difficult: You are trying to prove the negative. He added: My problem with it is, I just dont see how you turn back the clock any more.... Everythings been deregulated.60 In sum, the interviews indicate a high degree of peer orientation. The media reporters and media critics considered the implications of their work on fellow journalists arguably more than they might when they covered politicians or businesspeople, with whom they did not share a professional background. This does not necessarily imply that they are softer on media professionals. The harsh reactions of media professionals to Howard Kurtz, for example, indicate that he is hardhitting. And the account the interviewees offered about how they strove to cover their own employers as objectively as possible can be taken as proof that they seek to achieve impartiality even under difficult circumstances. On the other hand, only a few interviewees were as frank as Cynthia Cotts, who even admitted to writing puff pieces. And many interviewees conceded to producing too little coverage of the commercial interests of our bosses and the subtle pressures that that imposes on journalism,61 because these journalists apparently assumed that this would interfere with the business interests of their employers. Additional research will be needed to determine whether journalists apply the same ethical standards to members of the Fourth Estate as they do to representatives of other social groups. Media Users and Media Professionals as Target Groups of Media Reporting and Media Criticism. Of course, the journalists from AJR and CJR focused on a professional audience. But many interviewees adhered to Bertrands thesis about a relatively passive general audience. The majority of both media critics and media reporters doubted the publics interest in media reporting and media criticism, generally because they received little feedback from the popular audience, and a lot of feedback from insiders. Tim Jones, for example, was firmly convinced that the majority of his Chicago Tribune readers were more interested in complaining about the media than reading about and understanding the media.62 Few of the interviewees reported a high degree of feedback from the general audience. One exception was Howard Kurtz: Those who

824

JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

think that my primary readers are simply other journalists ... totally misconstrue how interested the general public is in media coverage and media criticism.63 Mark Jurkowitz said he wanted to train the media users to skepticism towards the news media by treating it like a consumer beat in some ways.64 Slates Scott Shuger, who also reported considerable feedback from lay users, described his goal: Readers should ask themselves: Whose interests are being served by this story told in this way and whose are being left out?65 The varying degrees of response from the general audience may result from different ways of covering media issues. Several interviewees said they could attract larger audiences among media professionals with insider stories about media celebrities. Sean Elder, former Salon media critic, gave an example: Tina Brown: Just mentioning her name always gets hits .... [T]hings that are considered a little more fringe, like ... supermarket tabloids ... dont get that much interest.66 While few interviewees admitted explicitly that they pander to media professionals, quite a few seemed to do itand a glimpse onto MediaNews confirms that much media gossip is published in the news media every day. Mark Jurkowitz commented: A lot of the media writing is inside baseball. Its about us, its for us, its gossip about our industry.67 He added: The public is ... interested. But if you only talk about your own industry gossip, they are not going to be interested.68 Those who exploit their peers craving for gossip without regard to the interest of the general public usually get away with it, since media reporters and media critics seldom go after other media reporters and media critics.69 It could even be assumed that media gossip and insider reporting is encouraged by some news media executives, if one considers Dan Fosts account of how his own column was created: I think that is also part of the idea behind having that type of a column in the paper, to be perfectly candid.... By writing about the media, it is sort of a way to get other media reading your paper. [I]t helps the newspapers reputation ....70 In sum, the majority of the interviewees received more feedback from media professionals. This apparently tempts many media reporters and media critics to pander to their professional audience by providing insider news. Those who strove to choose topics relevant and understandable for a popular audience also reported substantial feedback from average media consumers. It could be argued that media reporters and media critics need to watch each other more closely to make sure that their peer orientation does not result in more and more inside baseball. Media Reporting and Media Criticism as a Media Accountability System. The central goals of media accountability systems, Bertrand said, are improving the news medias service to the public, restoring the news medias prestige among the public, and preserving its autonomy from state interference.71 Do the interviewees use moral pressure72 to further these goals? While most interviewees said they had an impact on peers, many said they doubted they have any influence on the media owners and media managers, or the media business in general. Few interviewees were fully confident that they could help improve the news medias service to the public by holding the media
HOLDING THE NEWS MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE

825

accountable. Those who believed they had influence were the bestknown and most respected media reporters and media critics in the United States. For example, the New Yorkers Ken Auletta said he wanted to educate corporate leaders to be more sensitive toward ethical matters.73 The Washington Posts Howard Kurtz stated that the essence of his job was to hold journalists and news organizations accountable. He added that he had often been described by other editors and reporters as having had a bit of an impact. A former editor of Newsweek once wrote a memo to his staff on ethical matters, and included a line, saying: Dont do anything that you wouldnt want to see in Howard Kurtzs column. I have certainly seen instances where media outlets have changed policies, at least in part, because of something that I have written, apologized for stories that turned out to be wrong, for example.74 Meanwhile, many of the younger intervieweeseven those who were aware of their immediate impact on peersconsidered their influence on the improvement of the news media to be limited, and took an explicitly humble approach. They wanted to be reporters, not reformers,75 and could only sometimes help serve readers.76 Sean Elder, from Salon, wanted to keep people honest, but added that he had a little more sympathy for the point of view of the editors, whore just trying to keep their jobs and sell something.77 Eric Alterman, of The Nation, was convinced that the media is large and so amorphous that they can absorb any criticism you make. He said that there had never been a more important time to be a media criticbut that he would not kid himself that it made a whole lot of difference.78 Geneva Overholser saw too much media gossip instead of thoughtful media criticism. Therefore, she asked, [W]hat difference does it make?79 Only the two journalists from the trade magazines emphasized that they also wanted to help restore the medias prestige, at least among colleagues, by trying to write about examples for things weve done well, as Alicia Shepard from the AJR put it.80 And Mike Hoyt from the CJR said that not enough attention is given to the positive side of what journalists do.81 Also, David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times, a veteran on the media beat, was the only interviewee to mention the danger of state interference when he said that media reporting and media criticism was better than nothing. We dont have anything else. I certainly dont want any kind of government regulation.82 Meanwhile, the professional spectators of the news media interviewed here apparently did not regard media freedom as endangered, since almost none mentioned the danger of state interference. In sum, media reporters and media critics disagreed about the purpose of media criticism and media reporting. A minority of journalists considered themselves advocates of the public and adopted a missionary approach to their work. Among this faction were the few well-known media reporters and media critics, who were confident that they could improve the news medias service to the public by holding journalists accountable. The two journalists from the trade magazines who saw themselves also as ambassadors of their profession were another exception. Many of the younger journalists emphasized that

826

JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

while they wanted to inform readers about the news media and teach them to analyze the media, they did not want, nor did they think themselves able, to change or even improve the news media in general, or restore their prestige.

Many long-time prejudices about a conspiracy of silence among media professionals can no longer be considered valid. The journalists on the still-young media beat generally strove to cover the news media, its structure, and even their own employers comprehensively and impartially. They said that as media reporters and media critics, they could have an impact on their peers who have lost jobs or were confronted with changed newsroom policies, for example, after having been criticized by them. This suggests that media reporters and media critics have a considerable potential as instruments of media self-regulation. This potential, however, is not yet fully exploited. Many media reporters and media critics still appeared to be more reluctant to go after fellow journalists, as well as media managers and media owners, than after politicians or businesspeople, for example. The apparent reason for their cautiousness is their dependency on other media professionals as sources, colleagues, and employers. Media professionals are also the most important target group for their writing, since many media reporters and media critics lamented a lack of feedback from the popular audience. And in fact, the expansion of the media beat went along with an increase in media gossip in the news media. Media reporters and media critics might need to be reminded at times that their prime duty should be service to the public, and not their peers. That said, media reporting and media criticism in the news media have emerged from the media boom of the 1990s as a promising media accountability system in the United States. Once the media beat is even more established in the news media, media reporters and media critics might also become more confident in their watchdog roles.

Conclusion

NOTES 1. Claude-Jean Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems (New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers, 2000), 149. 2. Walter Lippmann, Liberty and the News (Reprint, New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers, 1995), 68-69. 3. Mary M. Cronin and James B. McPherson, Pronouncement and Denunciations: An Analysis of State Press Association Ethics Codes from the 1920s, Journalism Quarterly 72 (winter 1995): 890-901. 4. See Everette Dennis and William L. Rivers, Other Voices: The New Journalism in America (New York, Evanston, London: Canfield Press, 1974), 86-96; Norman Isaacs, Untended Gates. The Mismanaged Press (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986); National News Council, An Open Press (New York: 1977). The United States has often pioneered in the use of media accountability systemsprobably because the media are more commercialized there than anywhere else and because people fear
HOLDING THE NEWS MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE

827

State regulation more than anywhere else, according to Bertrand in Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 110. 5. Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 108. 6. Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 19. 7. Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 4. 8. Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 151. 9. Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 107-108. 10. Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 70, 116, 143. 11. Robert Leigh, ed., A Free and Responsible Press. A General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers, Radio, Motion Pictures, Magazines, and Books by the Commission on Freedom of the Press (Reprint Chicago, IL, 1974), 65-67, 94. 12. James Ledbetter, Everyones a Critic, Village Voice, 9-15 September 1998. 13. It should be added that Bertrands criticism about a lack of media criticism in the news media is still relevant for several European countries. In a survey of media experts, academics, and professionals in seventeen European countries conducted in 1998, 88% of those who responded reported only a few and 12% a total lack of media reporters who are monitoring one or several sectors of the media and writing critically about them in their country, see Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 132. 14. Interviews with Felicity Barringer (18 November 1999); Howard Kurtz (22 November 1999); David Shaw (22 February 2000); Cynthia Cotts (16 November 1999). Journalists and critics who comment on fiction and entertainment in the mass media, like movie critics, book critics, and critics of entertainment television or popular music, as well as TV critics, are not discussed in this article. 15. Not all of the new projects proved successful: The media consumers magazine Brills Content was started in 1998 and stopped in 2001 because the magazine could never attract the 300,000 readers it needed to survive. The media website www.inside.comwhich was conceived and edited by prominent journalists, hoping to lure 100,000 registered userscounted no more than 1,200 users after more than a year even in the media hey-days of 2000. See Ken Auletta, Inside Out, The New Yorker, 11 June 2001. 16. James Boylan, A Thousand Voices Bloom, Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 2000, 34-35. 17. Surveys like the ASNE study So Many Choices, So Little Time (1997) or the Pew Research Centers study Striking the Balance: Audience Interests, Business Pressures and Journalists Values (1999) reported a decline in news media credibility among the public. 18. See Dan Kennedy, Get Me Rewrite, Boston Phoenix, 22 May 1998. 19. David Shaw, Crossing the Line (Special Report), Los Angeles Times Magazine, 20 December 1999. 20. See, for example, Dan Barry, David Barstow, Jonathan D. Glater, Adam Liptab, and Jacques Steinberg, Correcting The Record; Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception, New York Times, 11 May 2003. 21. Jonathan Yardley, When Reporters Become the Story, Washing-

828

JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

ton Post, 7 February 2000. 22. See for an overview on the history of media journalism Lee Brown, The Reluctant Reformation. On Criticizing the Press in America (New York: McKay, 1974); Marion Tuttle Marzolf, Civilizing Voices. American Press Criticism 18801950 (New York, London: Longman, 1991). See also David M. Rubin, Liebling and Friends: Trends in American Press Criticism, 18591963 (paper presented at annual conference of AEJMC, Ottawa, 1975); a summary can be found in Herbert Altschull, From Milton to McLuhan: The Ideas Behind American Journalism (New York, London: Longman, 1990). Essays on single press critics and the history of press criticism include William L. Rivers, William Cowper Brann And His Iconoclast, Journalism Quarterly 36 (fall 1958): 433-38; Lina Weiner Hausmann, Criticism of the Press in U.S. Periodicals 19001939: An Annotated Bibliography, Journalism Monographs 4 (1967); Judson Grenier, Upton Sinclair and the Press: The Brass Check Reconsidered, Journalism Quarterly 49 (fall 1972): 427-36; Edmund M. Midura, A. J. Liebling: The Wayward Pressman as Critic, Journalism Monographs (1974); Margaret A. Blanchard, The Hutchins Commission, The Press and the Responsibility Concept, Journalism Monographs 49 (1977); Margaret A. Blanchard, Press Criticism and National Reform Movements: The Progressive Era and the New Deal, Journalism History 5 (2/1978): 33-37, 54-55; Donna Dickerson, William Cowper Brann: Nineteenth Century Press Critic, Journalism History 5 (2/1978): 42-45; Pamela Brown, George Seldes and the Winter Soldier Brigade: The Press Criticism of In Fact, 19401950, American Journalism 6 (2/1989): 85-102; Patrick Daley, George Seldes: Propaganda Analyst, Press Gadfly, American Journalism 13 (1/1996): 520. 23. See, for example, Barbie Zelizer, CNN, the Gulf War, and Journalistic Practice, Journal of Communication 42 (1/1992): 66-81; Jack Lule, The Philadelphia Inquirer Norplant Editorial, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 9 (1992): 91-109; Thomas Johnson and Timothy Boudreau, Turning the Spotlight Inward: How the Leading News Organizations Covered the Media in the 1992 Presidential Election, Journalism Quarterly 73 (autumn 1996): 657-71; Michael Robinson, Fifty Years in the Doghouse: Blaming the Press is Nothing New, Washington Journalism Review (March 1986): 44-45. 24. Christopher Pieper and Karen Hughes: Media-on-Media. The Framing of the Time-Warner/Turner-CNN Merger. Graduate School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin, 1997. 25. Joseph Turow, Hidden Conflicts and Journalistic Norms: The Case of Self-Coverage, Journal of Communications 44 (spring 1994): 29-46. 26. Michael Robinson, Media, Rate Thyselves, Washington Journalism Review (December 1983): 31-33. 27. Kristie B. Northington, Media Criticism as Professional SelfRegulation: A Study of United States Journalism Reviews (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1993). See also Hugh M. Culbertson and Lujuan Thompson, A Comparison of The Quill and Columbia Journalism Review Relative to Three Critical Perspectives, Mass Comm Review (winter/spring 1984): 12-21; Lianne Fridriksson, A Content Analysis of the Darts and Laurel Column in Columbia Journalism Review, Mass
HOLDING THE NEWS MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE

829

Comm Review (fall 1985): 2-7. 28. The Freedom Forum Media Studies Journals Spring 1995 special issue on media journalism and media criticism included a study based on a group of media managers that sought to identify the most influential media critics and TV critics of the mid-nineties. Those leading media and TV critics were Jonathan Alter from Newsweek; Ken Auletta from The New Yorker; Jeff Greenfield of ABC; Jon Katz, formerly Wired; Howard Kurtz and Tom Shales from the Washington Post; David Shaw and Howard Rosenberg from the Los Angeles Times; and the notorious talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The critics were interviewed; however, the results of the interviews were presented without putting individual statements in a broader perspective. See Robert W. Snyder, Jennifer Kelley, and Dirk Smillie, Critics with CloutNine Who Matter, Freedom Forum Media Studies Journal (spring 1995): 1-18. 29. Barbara Hartung, Alfred JaCoby, and David Dozier, Readers Perceptions of Purpose of Newspaper Ombudsman Program, Journalism Quarterly 65 (winter 1988): 914-19; James S. Ettema and Theodore L. Glasser, Public Accountability or Public Relations? Newspaper Ombudsmen Define Their Role, Journalism Quarterly 74 (spring 1997): 3-12, 40; Kate McKenna, The Loneliest Job in the Newsroom, American Journalism Review (March 1993): 41-44; David Pritchard, The Impact of Newspaper Ombudsmen on Journalists Attitudes, Journalism Quarterly 70 (spring 1993): 77-86. 30. www.poynter.org/medianews. However, some of the media people recur among the alternative weeklies, while an important voice like Ken Auletta from the New Yorker is missing in the list. The site also links to 30 TV/Radio columnists and 35 institutions (general media), from the CJR to the Organization of Newspaper Ombudsmen. 31. David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the End of An Era (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996), 16-25. Weaver and Wilhoit have provided a list of newspapers and magazines most frequently read by journalists. All newspapers and magazines from this list with a media beat were included in the sample because they can be assumed to have a wide reach among fellow journalists. 32. Five media journalists had to cancel meetings shortly before the scheduled date and were therefore available for a telephone interview (David Shaw, Jim Romenesko), or an E-mail interview (Max Frankel, Tim Jones, Norman Solomon). 33. Felicity Barringer, New York Times (Business Section); Tim Jones, Chicago Tribune; Mark Jurkowitz, Boston Globe; Howard Kurtz, Washington Post; David Shaw, Los Angeles Times; Alicia Shepard, American Journalism Review. Mike Hoyt, Columbia Journalism Review; Jim Romenesko, MediaNews; and Lesley Elizabeth Stevens, Brills Content, are editors, but agree to the neutral job description of the media reporters. 34. Interview with Felicity Barringer, 18 November 1999. 35. Eric Alterman, The Nation; Ken Auletta, The New Yorker; Cynthia Cotts, Village Voice; Sean Elder, Salon; Dan Fost, San Francisco Chronicle; Max Frankel, New York Times; Dan Kennedy, Boston Phoenix; John Leo, U.S. News & World Report; Geneva Overholser, associated with the

830

JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

Washington Post; Scott Shuger, Slate; Norman Solomon, FAIR!; Michael Wolff, New York Magazine. 36. Interview with Eric Alterman, 16 November 1999. 37. Interview with Michael Wolff, 23 November 1999. 38. Interview with Ken Auletta, 16 November 1999. 39. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 40. The exceptions are Geneva Overholser and John Leo, who also comment on politics and social issues. 41. The four exceptions are the two journalists from CJR and AJR; Jim Romensko, who works for the Poynter Foundation; and Norman Solomon, who works for the media-critical organization FAIR!, where he targets a lay audience with a high interest in media issues. 42. Interview with Howard Kurtz, 22 November 1999. 43. Interview with Dan Fost, 29 November 1999. 44. Interview with Felicity Barringer, 18 November 1999. 45. Interview with Dan Kennedy, 24 November 1999. 46. Interview with Cynthia Cotts, 16 November 1999. 47. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 48. Interview with Cynthia Cotts, 16 November 1999. 49. Interview with David Shaw, 22 February 2000. 50. Interview with Ken Auletta, 16 November 1999. 51. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 52. Interview with Felicity Barringer, 18 November 1999. 53. Interview with Howard Kurtz, 22 November 1999. 54. Interview with David Shaw, 22 February 2000. 55. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 56. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 57. Interview with Dan Fost, 29 November 1999. 58. See for example interview with Mike Hoyt, 16 November 1999. 59. Interview with Dan Kennedy, 24 November 1999. 60. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 61. Interview with Ken Auletta, 16 November 1999. 62. Interview with Tim Jones, 1 January 2000. 63. Interview with Howard Kurtz, 22 November 1999. 64. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 65. Interview with Scott Shuger, 31 November 1999. 66. Interview with Sean Elder, 17 November 1999. 67. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 68. Interview with Mark Jurkowitz, 3 December 1999. 69. The only media writer who has become an object of media criticism himself is Howard Kurtz, the best-known media reporter in the United States, and his colleagues are aware of possible consequences: Kurtz ... is powerful and may write about us some day. (Mickey Kaus, Phony Pose, Oh, We Disclose, Hurts Kaiser, Kurtz Adviser! www.kausfiles.com, 18 June 2000) See also Franklin Foer, The Wayward Critic. Howard Kurtz and the Decline of Media C riticism, The New Republic, 15 May 2000; Steven Brill, Rewind: Conflicted Out, Brills Content, March 1999. 70. Interview with Dan Fost, 29 November 1999. 71. Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 151.
HOLDING THE NEWS MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE

831

72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82.

Bertrand, Media Ethics & Accountability Systems, 107. Interview with Ken Auletta, 16 November 1999. Interview with Howard Kurtz, 22 November 1999. Interview with Lesley Elizabeth Stevens, 17 November 1999. Interview with Dan Fost, 29 November 1999. Interview with Sean Elder, 17 November 1999. Interview with Eric Alterman, 16 November 1999. Interview with Geneva Overholser, 19 November 1999. Interview with Alicia Shepard, 22 November 1999. Interview with Mike Hoyt, 16 November 1999. Interview with David Shaw, 22 February 2000.

832

JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi