Why Grade the News Yourself?

            News seems transparent, easy to judge for quality. It’s all public, on the record, open to verification. Television even provides the illusion that you are the reporter, “seeing” reality for yourself rather than relying on someone else’s description.

            And you can trust Pete Wilson can’t you? And Dana Hall? And Jennifer Aguirre? And Dennis Richmond? They certainly seem honest and sincere when they “visit” your living room.

            Likewise, underneath dignified mastheads held aloft by columns of print and photos, the Chronicle, Mercury News, the Contra Costa Times and Oakland Tribune and Santa Rosa Press Democrat look worthy of trust.

            But appearances can deceive. The camera may not lie, but if you’ve ever edited a videotape or selectively aimed your camcorder, you know that it can totally misrepresent reality. 

The most important news is the hardest to evaluate

            A core problem of news is that the stories easiest to judge are usually the least important. The sports scores will be the same. And probably the number killed in an accident or homicide.

            But that’s just the “spot” news--stuff provided to all reporters in press releases from the team, the league or the police department.

            It’s much harder to judge the enterprise story the other papers or stations didn’t cover. Or the investigative report, or the scoop. Or any report taking an angle deeper into the day’s issues and events. These are the most valuable stories. And you can’t fact-check one newsroom’s coverage against another’s.

Two key quality questions

            Answers to two fundamental questions determine quality. The first: Were the stories presented the most important of the day? Or were more consequential issues and events taking place that were not reported (perhaps because they were considered too boring to maximize audience, or because they were hidden by powerful actors, or because they would simply take more time to discover and report than any newsroom chose to expend)? The second question: Were the events and issues that were chosen reported accurately and with enough context to make sense of them?

            No one can answer the first question. No one has a list of the day’s most important events to compare coverage against. But you can measure whether a particular paper or station went after important topics in a serious way, or whether it larded the newscast with celebrities, entertainment, and fender-benders. You can measure the news value of the topics pursued.

            The second quality question is more manageable. To check accuracy you’d have to call the sources and ask about quotes. That would consume a lot of time. But it’s not hard, however, to count sources and record their expertise. Context is measurable.

            Taking anything apart is a great way to understand it. News is democracy’s most essential commodity. Kick its tires. 

Once you’ve stripped away the dramatic music, and omniscient above-the-Bay graphics, the handsome “talent,” the high-tech set, the authoritative masthead and jazzy layout, you may find only press releases and images donated or staged by attention-seeking parties, plus emergencies fed the media through scanner radios. What you may not see is just as important--investigative reporting, consumer reporting that names names, trend stories covering the most important aspects of life in the Bay Area.

Or you may discover a team of serious and talented journalists worthy of your trust. Whichever, you’ll see the news through new, more critical, eyes.

One more thing. If your favorite source of news is doing a great job, tell them (we’ll supply addresses), tell your friends and tell us (we’ll publish your results). And if the source you favor doesn’t look so good once you’ve taken a closer look, let them know they need to improve to keep your business, and warn us and others.

--John McManus