Letting In the Public

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." --Press Critic A.J. Liebling

For decades, that apothegm described a worsening problem in U.S. journalism. As ownership became increasingly concentrated, and increasingly distant from its audience, the opportunity shrank for dissenting views to see print. Now there are some healthy signs of change. Stung by charges of bias and myopia, many news executives are finding new ways to open their pages and air waves to the public.

Pressure for a change had been building for years. Critics of assorted persuasions attacked the press for being successively too passive and too harsh about the Viet Nam War. Watergate reporting and commentary aroused even more heated controversy. But the issue of whether a publication has sole control of what appears in its pages finally came to a head because of an obscure Florida statute that assured political candidates the right to rebut unfavorable editorials.

In 1972, Pat L. Tornillo Jr., a candidate for the Florida legislature, drafted a rebuttal in response to two Miami Herald editorials about him, but the paper refused to print it. Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Herald's refusal and declared the Florida law unconstitutional. Despite the Herald's victory, though, many editors and broadcast executives view the Tornillo case as a challenge. Says George R. Packard, executive editor of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin: "The Supreme Court decision makes it more important than ever for us to seek out and print all sides of every issue."

A number of publications have overhauled their letters-to-the-editor columns, an old but regularly neglected outlet for readers. The Atlanta Constitution expanded the space it devotes to letters by 25% after the Tornillo decision and cut back on bridal notices to make room. The Louisville Courier-Journal and its sister paper, the Times, now run almost every authentically signed letter they receive, good taste and libel laws permitting. The Boston Globe has begun printing different sets of letters in its morning and afternoon editions, doubling readers' contributions.

One of the refreshing results of the movement toward public accountability is that newsmen are more willing to admit mistakes. Papers like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Berkshire Eagle in Pittsfield, Mass., have all allotted space to correcting errors. The Charlotte Observer's "We Were Wrong" column often appears on the paper's front page.

Op-ed pages--journalese for the page of opinion and observations that appears opposite a paper's editorial page--are becoming a familiar format for presenting diverse views. The best page belongs to the New York Times, but many other papers turn out creditable performances. The Cleveland Plain Dealer's new op-ed page, for example, is a pastiche of columns, interpretive wire-service pieces, articles by local community leaders and, occasionally, a well-written letter to the editor. Says PD Editor Thomas Vail: "Motion is coming up from the streets. We try to give access to all levels."

A number of dailies have followed the example of the Louisville Courier-Journal and Times, which seven years ago designated a senior staffer as ombudsman--the person in charge of reviewing readers' complaints about fairness and accuracy. The Milwaukee Journal's "reader contact editor," David Runge, fields written and telephoned protests and asks reporters to provide proof for disputed articles. Cy Liberman. "public editor" of the Wilmington (Del.) News-Journal, writes an independent daily column that has recently slammed his papers' coverage of a proposed downtown mall as "too negative."

Dropping Shoe. Because of federal regulations and pressure from the Federal Communications Commission, broadcasting has been somewhat more accommodating toward dissenting views than print journalism. Local stations airing formal editorials invite rebuttals and often give them equal time. Now more and more of them are beginning to read comments about general news coverage over the air and to put complainants themselves on-camera.

Louisville's WHAS-TV puts on one-minute recorded statements from local spokesmen for all sorts of views 15 times a week. WGBH-TV, the public broadcast station in Boston, turns over a half-hour every day to nonprofit and other community groups to use as they please; its seven-month-old program. Catch 44, is booked solidly three months in advance. Even the networks have begun loosening up their nightly news formats. NBC'S anchor man John Chancellor last spring introduced "Editor's Notebook," an occasional entry designed, as he puts it, for "catching up on stories we never finished, correcting those on which we made mistakes, and generally dropping the other shoe." CBS's 60 Minutes frequently devotes time to listeners' comments.

Though the chances of an average person's getting his views into print or on the air have unquestionably increased recently, some editors wonder whether the quality of public debate has improved much. A few are downright begrudging. "You give space to some of these jerks just because it establishes your credibility," says John G. Craig Jr., executive editor of the Wilmington papers. Cleveland's Vail is somewhat milder: "It's not right to allow everyone to say anything he wants. It becomes an imposition on our readers."

Indeed, public access does bring awkward copy and added costs; air time and newspaper space are expensive, and staff must be used to channel the flow of incoming opinions. But the practice will proably expand even further, partly because it is intrinsically just and partly because editors find it the surest way to deflect charges of unfairness. "There was a time when you could bump into an editor in the barber shop and tell him what was on your mind," says Robert Burdock, Plain Dealer managing editor. "But times have changed. Now letters and other kinds of reader expression let the press know what the public is thinking." Since what the public thinks is news, the press can hardly lose by knowing--and running--more about it.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.