Larry D. Lauer

A reader recently asked me how public confidence in journalism can be restored. I did not have a ready answer, but promised to reflect on my longtime experience and make some observations.

A compelling article in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs argues that Americans are losing confidence in expertise everywhere. Experts are confusing because they disagree with each other. And 24/7 information clutter makes it too hard to sort out the truth. So the result is that a growing number of people just want to find strong sounding leaders they can believe will make their life better. Then, they vote that way and ignore the experts… be they professors, scientists, pundits, or journalists.

Even so, serious journalists remain deeply concerned about the decline of public confidence in their work. To some extent they are indeed victims of this overall changing public attitude about expertise. But they also work for organizations that must be commercially competitive and earn profits. This reality adds additional complications.

In earlier broadcasting days I remember a television production professor of mine pointing to a TV camera and saying, “This is a TV camera. It is used to make programs that deliver audiences to commercials.” At first, news was not seen as a profit center. But as it demonstrated it could become one, “the news” began to change. Producers learned how to attract audiences for commercials that would pay the high cost of news reporting. And they did it by bringing entertainment values into news programming. Gradually they used the power of celebrity and ratcheted-up the pace and drama to make it all more compelling.

But is it possible that by making news more entertaining people now watch it (or read it) mostly for entertainment? Consider that Mr. Trump’s press attacks stimulated a “news war” between the New York Times and the Washington Post and that a colleague told me that he found following it to be quite entertaining. Trump gets his visibility. Television gets viewers. Newspapers get readers. Profits are up. Everyone wins. Except possibly all the serious investigative journalists, and the seriously confused news consumers.

Here are some questions to ponder:

1. Can pressures for more and more news drama be lessened?
2. Can preferring fashion model look-a-like anchors and pundits be changed?
3. Can anchors stop aligning their own celebrity status with entertainment and sports celebrities?
4. Can overall fast-paced, high drama anchoring be slowed down?
5. Can using the term “breaking news” just to add drama be stopped?
6. Can promising “new information after the break” (when only the words change) be stopped.
7. Can legitimate experts be allowed to finish their thoughts instead of constantly cutting them off?
8. Does the profession have the responsibility to explain exactly why consumers must become their own editors?
9. Can “live” TV coverage of clearly outrageous, headline-seeking political events be ended?
10. Can shouting reporter mobs alter their behavior “optics?”
11. Should both the uses and hazards of “insider news leaks” be explained more clearly in the reporting?
12. Should media organizations  underwrite and promote “media literacy” education in schools, universities and community groups?
13. Should news accuracy policy commitments be visibly broadcast and printed?
14. Should news consumers be asked to submit ideas for earning their confidence… on-line and in ongoing focus groups?

The U.S. constitution protects the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know. But this protection did not anticipate today’s “news business,” and its need to be profitable. Some would suggest that expanding public broadcasting and nonprofit news organizations is the answer. But others accurately observe that adequate funding and creeping commercial underwriting influences are also issues in today’s nonprofit world.

Even in an age where faith in educated expertise might be declining, greater public confidence in journalism is absolutely critical to preserving our nation’s democratic future. My conclusion is that both the news consuming public and journalism professionals have shared responsibilities for finding the best way forward.