by David Hall
Counterpoint is a new regular feature that will provide an opportunity for those who disagree with CJR on a particular issue to express their point of view. In this issue, David Hall states the case against running Best Newspaper rankings. Hall has been the editor of four newspapers, most recently the Cleveland Plain Dealer. He was editor of The Denver Post in 1986 when that paper won the Pulitzer Prize for public service.

When new management took control of the Columbia Journalism Review, hope soared that CJR would finally become the authoritative critical review of journalism that was promised years ago. Editor & Publisher wallows in tedium, American Journalism Review sells sizzle, Presstime concentrates on reinventing newspapers, and The American Editor rolls annually through a checklist to satisfy all ASNE pressure groups. The Quill is at least utilitarian. The best critical reporting comes from Nieman Reports.

What a disappointment cjr delivered in November. It raised the standard of triviality for daily newspapers. CJR's attempt to designate "America's Best Newspapers" is a scary leap by the magazine right into the rush-hour traffic of superlatives. This rating game is hype without substance. Rating newspapers and offering cryptic justifications offers no help to editors and publishers trying to solve their problems, which are usually local and more complicated than a national survey with glib conclusions.

CJR has long tolerated the philosophy that journalism can be practiced in a petri dish. Its arrogance, however, has been mostly harmless. Editors read and shrugged. The magazine's attempt to rate newspapers is not harmless, and the November article establishes no journalistic reason for the undertaking.

The New York Times is a great newspaper for its range of coverage, its superb op-ed page, and its coverage of culture as news. Yet many stories are too long and ponderous; its editorial page is turgid and pretentious. Its discovery of trends in popular culture and politics occurs too frequently. cjr's judges called the Times "head and shoulders above everyone else." That exaggerated, unsupported cliché -- a devotion to industry folklore -- reminds readers of CJR's historic bias and arrogance.

The Wall Street Journal is cited for "the depth with which it covers a niche." The Journal's front page recently carried stories about skull surgery, military preparedness, new cancer vaccines, and the use of old technology to create new music sounds. "Politics & Policy" often does more explaining in three-quarters of a page than The New York Times does throughout its A section. The Journal's editorials stimulate thought and debate on issues well beyond business. CJR shows its ignorance by characterizing the Journal as a niche publication.

CJR's listing of "America's Best Newspapers" will linger for years. When moldy and out of date, it will be cited as the definitive ranking of the best daily newspapers. Three things will happen because of this list, none good.

1. The newspapers listed will seize bragging rights that can be milked for a decade of promotion. Was that a purpose of CJR? To be a standing agate line in self-congratulatory ads?

2. Some ranked newspapers will improve, some will decline. But an everlasting truth in American journalism is, you can't live down a good reputation.

3. More imitation will occur among newspapers in coverage and design -- especially design, the least-understood skill of editing. Today's newspapers are so much more alike in content and appearance than they were twenty years ago. Editors go to the American Press Institute to learn the optimum point size of a cutoff rule; they import writing coaches to do the jobs of assignment editors, then tolerate talk about silly subjects like environmental leads; consultants help start sections patterned after a newspaper 800 miles away, where the consultant's last effort failed.

Copying another newspaper's techniques becomes easier than thinking.

"America's Best Newspapers" compounds another malady that newspaper editors should resist: the fad that everything must be ranked. Some editors run phone-in polls and publish the results, a betrayal of journalistic principles that no disclaimer can absolve. CJR's editors candidly admitted their ranking "wasn't a perfect process." CJR's process was a peer review and the methodology, however flawed, was disclosed. The introduction says, "We believe there is shared value for all in recognizing benchmark performances." Okay. What are the benchmarked criteria? How should performance be measured, say, if a newspaper wanted to bring headlines up to New York Times standards? How would an editor and publisher know which standards and objectives to choose -- and from which of the "best" newspapers? Over what span of time should benchmarking be done?

The CJR survey is sad because it represents another trivial pursuit when American newspapers are beset by problems -- diminished reporting standards, timid editing, pretentious writing, poor layout, shaky readership, confusion between the responsibilities of journalists and business departments, and the surrender of newshole to trivial stories in trivial sections.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe