First Annual Report Card on News (posted 1/27/02)
You may be tempted to think that one newspaper or television station’s reporting is about as good as another’s.
If you quickly click through newscasts, yes, you’ll see many of the same stories. And the stories above the fold of the front page of local newspapers will also resemble each other. When a U.S. surveillance plane collides with a Chinese fighter jet, everyone will report it.
But if you care about local news, or you watch or read closely, you’ll find surprisingly large differences among the most popular Bay Area media. None have the seriousness of purpose of a paper like the Washington Post, but two match the Post in almost every other aspect of excellence we measured. No local news outlet flunks, but one comes close. And two others are much more interested in “rubber-necking” than informing you.
In the largest effort ever to rate a metropolitan area's news media head-to-head, Grade the News systematically analyzed 2,261 stories produced by the seven most popular local news organizations, plus the Post. We examined each newsroom’s best work--stories selected for the front page and local front in print, and the first half hour of the premier evening newscast. These are the most read and watched--the most influential. The patterns we found were so consistent, it’s very unlikely they can be explained by chance--that we caught a particular station or paper on one bad day after another.
We slowed down television, taping newscasts and studying each story. We took a tape measure to newspapers and a stopwatch to newscasts. We recorded every story’s topic, whether it was local or not, whether it was fair, how many sources were quoted (even how many were experts), whether the reporting focused on a single isolated event, or stepped back to provide us the big picture, whether the story showed investigation or enterprise, or was the result of someone holding a press conference or feeding the media a press release. For newspapers, we called sources and checked the accuracy of quotes.
| We did this because a democratic society depends on news. Consumer Reports evaluates cars, cameras, computers, even tuna, but news is our most essential commodity. That’s because uninformed citizens are dangerous. Not just to themselves. Uninformed citizens are easily manipulated. They leave policy decisions on our air, water, schools, transportation, economy, even whether we are at peace in the world--to special interests. The most dangerous of all are those who think they are informed, but aren’t--the ones who watch or read junk journalism. |
"Our republic and its press will rise or fall together." Joseph Pulitzer, 1904 |
We didn’t judge matters of taste--the aesthetics of videography, or layout or graphics or photos, or the clarity of the writing. These are quite important, but everyone’s yardstick differs. Further, no matter how elegant the writing or photography, if the stories ignore what’s important or the reporting is shallow or unfair, it’s second-rate news. We only measured where we felt we could hold up journalism’s codes of ethics and match them with newspapers and newscasts so that everyone would agree on the results.
Second, in order to level the field between television and newspapers, we didn’t measure volume. Newspapers simply have much more space for news than television has time. This also means we didn’t evaluate the quality of many valuable sections of newspapers, such as business, editorials, lifestyle/culture, etc.
The best news in the Bay Area, by our measures, is reported in the paper many deride as “The Comical.” Perhaps it once deserved that moniker, but when we took a calculator to it over the last year, the San Francisco Chronicle graded out on top. We gave it a strong A-. On a 4 point scale, it’s GPA (grade point average) was 3.75. The only area of weakness was in the area of choosing newsworthy topics--events and issues that affect the well-being of many Bay Area residents--on its front pages. It rated a B. But that was as good as any in the region.
| The San Jose Mercury News ran a very strong second, with a 3.55, also an A-. It fell behind the Chronicle only in two areas--enterprise and civic contribution. The first refers to the amount of active newsgathering that doesn’t rely on press conferences and releases, nor react to events. Civic contribution measures how well the news keeps an eye on what government is doing in our name. With less than a fifth of the circulation of the Chronicle, the Contra Costa Times scored almost on par with its larger competitors. It earned a B+, with a GPA of 3.46. |
Check out the newsworthiness index
|
More good news. Each of the three papers improved its scores from the first and second time we sampled them. And since merging with the staff of the San Francisco Examiner, the Chronicle has begun to turn out as many or more project stories and series of stories as the Mercury. These deep, abundantly and diversely-sourced reports help put an issue in perspective. Their greater frequency in the Mercury over the years may have much to do with that paper’s superior reputation.
| Because we score news on how the time or space was used rather than its absolute quantity, television has as much opportunity to excel as print. Channel 2 earned a solid B with a GPA of 3.07. It fell slightly behind the three newspapers in choosing newsworthy issues and events and way behind in reporting on its own initiative, but otherwise nipped the heels of the leaders. |
Check out the local relevance index
|
In fairness, Channel 2’s “Segment Two”, which is usually enterprise reporting, comes just after the half-hour break in the 10’O Clock News and thus falls outside of our 30-minute “top story” sample. It’s also only fair to mention that Channel 5’s scores are diminished slightly in our comparisons because it has no hour-long newscast. That means it’s the only station whose sports segment--which gets less credit for importance--is routinely captured in the sample.
| Oakland-based Channel 2 clobbered its broadcast competitors across the board. The next highest grade was Channel 7’s C- based on a 1.7 GPA. Channel 4 also earned a C-, with a 1.67 GPA. Channel 5 brought up the rear with a D, on a GPA of 1.1. Both Channels 4 and 5 had so few sources in their stories that their context scores were in the F range. Many stories were source-less. This denies viewers the opportunity to evaluate the authority and bias of those providing the information. It’s poor journalism. Channel 7 also short-sourced its stories, earning a D- on this index. In contrast, Channel 2 earned an A-; its stories had multiple named sources and experts were common. |
Check out the accuracy index
|
| All four stations devoted more time to crimes, fires and accidents--an ambulance-window view of the Bay Area--than any newspaper. Three of the four, virtually ignored government and politics, despite their fundamental importance. Channel 2 was the exception. Even when a gentler measure was used--giving stations credit for assessing people’s reaction to government policy rather than showing “talking heads” in meetings, Channels 4, 5 and 7 largely boycotted the process of self-government. |
Check out the civic contribution index
|
Looking over 2,261 stories, we couldn’t help but be impressed with the reporting talent in all seven newsrooms. We couldn’t identify a single weak reporter. Those who showed poorly in some reports, shined in others. The key element appeared to be adequate time to gather news and enough time or space to tell it. Despite the extraordinary profits of all seven news outlets, some had too few reporters chasing too many stories.
