Why Readers Mistrust Newspapers

By Thomas Griffith

One way to find out what is wrong with newspapers is to get a job as a paper's ombudsman, whose duty it is to hear out and do something about reader complaints. On the Kansas City Star and Times, Donald D. Jones as ombudsman listens to an average of 20 callers a day, 90% of them complaining about what they have read. He is convinced that "readers don't trust us--newspapers, radio, television, magazines. They don't trust any of us."

Only about 30 of more than 1,700 daily papers have ombudsmen. Those given the job are apt to be experienced newspaper hands like Jones, who was his paper's city editor. In a recent speech in Phoenix, he asked fellow editors to heed the eight complaints he hears most often from the public.

Inaccuracy. "Errors of fact do more to undermine the trust and confidence of readers than any other sin we commit. A city editor I knew used to say: 'A story is only as good as the dumbest error in it,'

Arrogance. Readers "see reporters and editors trying to set themselves up as a privileged class." He finds readers surprisingly aware of the pressures and problems in gathering news, and even understanding of error. But, he says, "what they can't understand is the extremes to which many reporters and editors will go to keep from saying, 'We were wrong.' "

Unfairness. "Readers are quick to pick up on hatchet jobs. They don't like them. Often those readers get on libel juries."

Disregard of Privacy. Jones does not find much concern about the privacy of public figures. Readers do resent disregard for the "feelings of individuals like themselves who for no fault of their own are thrust into the news. They resent photos that show grief-stricken families or that hold someone up to ridicule."

Contempt for Local Areas. When newspapers and TV stations are chain-owned, as most of them now are, local business, political and cultural leaders "feel alienated, left out." Chains are regarded as the news equivalents of fast-food joints. "Everything is fried in the same batter, a batter packaged in New York or Los Angeles and shipped in." (For Jones, the point is "delicate"; his paper was sold in 1977 to the New York City-based Capital Cities Communications.)

Insensitivity. Offensive references to race, religion and sex are less frequent now, but papers are "a long way from perfect."

Glorification of the Criminal and the Bizarre. "We put the funeral of the head of a biker gang on Page One and relegate the funeral of a civic leader to the death page . . . The readers don't like to see the actions of a few protesters being given front-page play. Too often they feel the opinions of the majority are given scant attention."

Bad Writing and Editing. This includes colorful writing that buries the news in the sixth paragraph. As a colleague of Jones' puts it, if a nuclear accident hit an American city, some writer would begin his story: "Yesterday, Mrs. Minnie Johnson, 72, could not find her little black and gray kitten, Mittens."

Perhaps Jones' catalogue gives a distorted view because he is listening primarily to grousers. But their complaints have the ring of being widely shared. He cites a Gallup poll showing more hostility to the press than at any time since Gallup began asking the question. Sometimes the press responds that no one loves the messenger who brings bad tidings, a complacent defense that concedes no mistakes.

It might be argued that the press and all institutions are under attack by a public that finds them too big, too arrogant and too unaccountable. People find themselves helpless to alter what they think wrong and feel frustrated. But never mind if attacks are sometimes unfair. Jones has provided a useful checklist to remedy some of the faults the public complains about. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.