Untitled Document

Which Bay Area News
Media Are the Most Ethical?
          How could you possibly decide whether Channel 2 is better than Channel 4, or 5 or 7? Or compare these stations to the two biggest newspapers, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News?
            Wouldn’t it be subjective? A matter of taste?
            There is a more objective way.
            You may know that the ethics of journalism demand that if news executives do nothing else with their time or space, they should empower democracy—help people make decisions on election day. It’s an ethical litmus test.
            Return with us to the two weeks just before California’s first open primary election, in June of 1998. Scores of confusing ballot issues face voters. A gaggle of politicians and special interests are filling the airwaves with barrages of charges and counter-charges.
            One more thing: TV newsrooms are being showered with money. Scores of millions of dollars state-wide are being pumped into local stations as political interests buy ad time. Newspapers only get a small piece of the action.
Constructing an ethical litmus test

1. How much of the newscast or newspaper front pages was devoted to helping citizens make sense of the election?

Was the election as important as sports? weather? the latest murder or fire?

2. Was that time or space well spent?

Did reporters include lots of viewpoints in this wonderfully diverse Bay Area? When political sides engaged in arguments, did the media ask an independent expert to help sort out the counterclaims?

3. Was the coverage fair?

Did reporters get more than one side of the story where there was a political contest?

At Grade the News, we measured each of these questions for the four most popular area TV stations and the two biggest newspapers for the 13 days before the election.

The Results

The San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News both spent more than 20 percent of their space on the front page and local/metro front on political information. Nothing else was nearly as important.

Airing a debate during its election eve newscast, Channel 7 led the TV stations with 16 percent of its news time (the time left after commercials) on state and local politics. For the other three stations, sports was more important.

At Channel 5, crime, weather and sports all trumped the upcoming election. Channels 2 and 4 fell in between. In fact, the time devoted to campaign coverage at Channels 2, 4 and 5 barely exceeded the newscast time consumed by political ads.

Percent of News Time/Space Allocated to Informing Voters

Volume of coverage, does not equal quality, however. To measure quality, we counted the number of sources per campaign story. Also, the percentage of stories in which the reporter quoted an independent expert source to help citizens sort through the blizzard of claims and charges. Here Channel 7 flunked. The Chronicle fell back into the pack, and the Mercury News took a commanding lead.

Number of Sources per Political Story

Percent of Political Stories
with at least one Independent Expert Quoted

The last thing we measured was fairness—were at least two sides given an opportunity to speak. This was a bright spot! Not only did every one pass, but the Mercury, and Channels 2 and 4 were judged excellent.

Percent of Political Stories with More than One Side

We also watched the newscast for more subtle differences. We found three patterns:

The Mercury, alone, consistently took the extra step of trying to help readers make sense of competing political claims. The newspaper went beyond “he said, she said” journalism--that often leaves citizens more confused than enlightened—about half the time.

We noticed that each station was capable of very informative reporting—when it chose to do it. Even stories with lots of numbers-- like regional and 5-day weather forecasts-- were artfully portrayed with compelling computer graphics.

The political reporting was sometimes rich with multiple voices and fresh insights. But more often the campaigns and ballot issues were covered superficially. An hour-long candidate’s debate would be reduced to a sound-bite—usually the most emotional exchange of the night, not the most informative. Astonishingly, some reports borrowed graphics and information from the same political campaigns ads with which viewers were bombed into submission during the commercial breaks.

The Report Card

A Note of Caution

A content analysis like this one tries to objectively describe the basic elements of reporting. But it's only a rough sketch. It may be that although one newsroom averaged 5 sources per political story, all 5 were unable to shed much light on the situation. Perhaps citizens learned more from another newsroom that quoted fewer, but better, sources. Second the grades assigned are based on a necessarily subjective assessment of what constitutes good practice. You might not agree that spending less than 5% of available news time on politics just before an election rates an "F," or that 5 sources per story is "A" quality work while 4 sources is "B."

So What?

How do TV news directors and newspaper editors respond?

How we did this study

Grading Standards