PUBLIC
SUPPORT FOR THE WATCHDOGS IS FADING
BY
ANDREW KOHUT
The
biggest gap between the people and the press is over the way news
media play their watchdog role. Almost all journalists are sure
that media scrutiny of politicians is worth the effort because
it prevents wrongdoing. But the percentage of Americans thinking
that press criticism impedes political leaders from doing their
jobs has increased from 17 percent in 1985 to as much as 31 percent
in 1999, when the public was especially angry over the media's
handling of the Lewinsky scandal. In the center's most recent
survey, 25 percent subscribe to that view, while the number saying
they value the press's watchdog role has fallen to 60 percent
from 67 percent in 1985. Many Americans see an ill-mannered watchdog
that barks too often -- one that is driven by its own interests
rather than by a desire to protect the public interest.
News
audiences now question not only the way the press does its job,
but also its basic values. This was not the case when I first
began doing in-depth surveys about the media fifteen years ago.
Back then I was commissioned by the Times Mirror Company to get
to the bottom of the newly minted press "credibility crisis."
We found the American public roundly critical of the way the press
did its job: too sensational, too pushy, too rude, too uncaring
about people it covers, said our respondents, both in focus groups
and in extensive nationwide polling.
Major
news organizations, however, were still credible to the overwhelming
majority of Americans; most saw them as moral, professional, and
caring about the interests of the country. There was greater public
regard for the watchdog role. We concluded that the people excused
some press excesses because they valued media vigilance. The many
polls we have taken since have documented how much the news media's
public standing has slipped.
Americans
are now more critical of press behavior than they were in the
mid-1980s. The percentage who feel that journalists are insensitive
and over-aggressive is ever higher. In 1985, 35 percent thought
that news organizations cared about people they cover. That figure
fell to 21 percent by 1999. The number who believe the press usually
gets the facts straight slipped from a modest 55 percent in 1985
to a mere 37 percent in more recent surveys.
All
bad news. But the news about the public's loss of respect for
the basic values of the news media is worse. In 1985 the press
was seen as "moral" rather than "immoral" by 54 percent to 13
percent. In the most recent survey, as many see the news media
as immoral as moral -- 40 percent to 38 percent. Similarly, there
has been a threefold increase in those who say major news organizations
lack professionalism, from 11 percent to 32 percent. And today,
Americans are divided -- 45 percent to 38 percent -- over whether
the news media protect or hurt democracy. In 1985, the public
saw the press as a caretaker of democratic values by a two-to-one
margin.
The
way the press plays its watchdog role is central to these shifts
in opinion. The media make the news rather than just report it,
say most Americans. In covering personal and ethical behavior
of public figures, 24 percent feel the media report only the facts,
while a huge 72 percent believe news organizations are driving
the controversy rather than simply covering the story.
The
public views extensive coverage of scandal in high places as pandering
to partisan and tabloid audiences rather than as attempts to protect
the public interest. They see audience- and career- building,
where the press would have them see crusading journalism.
Little
wonder that the credibility of major news organizations has eroded.
In 1985 only one in seven said they disbelieved major news organizations.
Currently as many as one in four give the mainstream news media,
such as the broadcast networks, low believability ratings.
For
a long time journalists themselves sharply disagreed with the
public's criticisms of the way the media carry out their watchdog
responsibilities. But more recently they have come closer to the
public's point of view. A 1999 survey found journalists still
valuing the press watchdog role. Yet majorities in local news
organizations agreed with the people that the media often drive
the story -- not just report it -- in the coverage of personal
lives and wrongdoing in high places. Members of the national media
in the survey were divided on the question, but more of them held
the public's opinion than in previous polls.
Over
the last two decades, it's clear that media coverage of the troubles
of Gary Hart, Marion Barry, Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, Dan Rostenkowski,
Jim Bakker, the Keating five, John Tower, Jim Wright, Bob Livingston,
Hillary Clinton, and of course, Bill Clinton, have made an unfavorable
impression on news audiences. It's fair to say that most Americans
don't want the press to ignore stories involving such figures,
but rather to pursue them without the excessiveness, frequent
lack of fairness, and increasingly transparent exploitation.
Andrew
Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and
the Press, writes regularly for CJR about public
attitudes toward the media.
