CREDIBILITY AND ELECTION COVERAGE 2004:
Part three of a three-part series

Readers Speak: Local political coverage more reliable than national news

By Ryan Pitts
Spokane Spokesman-Review

Most newspaper readers say local political coverage is more reliable than national news, citing reporters who are closer to sources and media that's more accountable to communities.

An online survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors' National Credibility Roundtables Project found that readers count on local media outlets more than they do any national source. Local journalism isn't free of the flaws people see in the national press, though; readers still spot bias, and many said they wanted more depth in coverage. But they said local media's relationship with the news was on a better footing, with heightened attention to fairness and reliability, and to the needs of the public.

"I think local reporters have a closer connection to local events than national reporters do because they live here, versus national reporters who move from story to story and region to region much more often," said Tony Hallum of Mankato, Minn.

"Local papers know the people they write about; it's more personal and more accurate," said James Evarts of Addison, N.Y.

Bill Felber, editor of the Manhattan (Kansas) Mercury, said these connections keep local journalists aware of how fairly they're playing the facts.

"If I'm unfair in my coverage, the candidate is right down the street, sometimes literally," Felber said. "The candidates' friends all have my phone number, because it's in the local book. I do not believe these aspects alter the basic presentation of material, but I do think that they may alter the tone of the presentation -- make it more factual, less vituperative."

This sort of attentive journalism, said Rudy Romo of Memphis, Tenn., gives local media another advantage: They cover stories that really matter to their communities. "National media tend to catch the scandals, while our local paper tries to actually dig into issues that affect us locally, such as city government budgets, potential changes in state house leadership, etc."

Roland Rieve of Carlsbad, Calif., listens to his local NBC affiliate. "They give excellent coverage on local elections and there is absolutely no bias -- just good clean reporting."

Barbara Siddiqui of Wenatchee, Wash., said she wouldn't trade her local paper for anything. "I appreciate its interviews, its synopses and its willingness to take on the 'good old boy' mentality of our city, state and county officials. Compared to national election coverage? No comparison."

With high praise, however, comes great responsibility. Take political endorsements, for example: Although some readers dismissed them on partisan charges, many said they could tell candidates were interviewed extensively and judged fairly, and that decisions were only reached after plenty of careful discussion.

"I hold the local media to a standard," said Michael Brandau of Beaufort, S.C. "Because they live in our community, I expect them to help solve the problems facing our community, not just report all the squabbles. In fact, due to the local media's influence in the community, I expect them to help lead and promote problem-solving efforts."

Not all reviews of local coverage were so glowing, though. Scot Hughes of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, gave a mixed assessment. "I guess it seems more reliable, but only because the stakes aren't as high, so the volume of rhetoric isn't quite so loud. That's for local races, mostly ... state races are almost as bad as the national ones, and the local newspaper seems to think that getting quotes from both the Democrat and Republican leaders in the Statehouse is good enough for balance."

Some survey responses didn't equivocate at all.

• "The local newspaper ... is a yellow dog Democrat rag. That answers your question about reliability."
• "My Republican-owned local paper is going to slant stories toward the right. The editorial page beats down any one who has a Democratic affiliation."
• "Local newspaper/television/radio is at least as biased as (CBS' Dan) Rather, but without the integrity."

Such scrutiny of local media is nothing new, but this doesn't mean journalists should shrug it off, said Bobbie Jo Buel, executive editor of the Arizona Daily Star.

"In our newsroom, we're certainly talking more than ever before about bias because we know it's a hot-button with readers," she said. "Reporters and editors talk about avoiding characterizations and instead being specific and giving examples to show, not tell."

Buel said getting down to one simple question can put election coverage in proper focus: "How will this piece help a voter make an informed choice?"

As readers try to gather that sort of information, they say they wish they had more sources for local news. Fewer sources means fewer opportunities to corroborate, and some say a lack of competition makes it hard for them to judge the reliability of local journalism.

"I get most of my information on state and local campaigns from the local network news, the local paper, and the Internet," said Brian Spraggins of Spokane, Wash. "I would argue that the reliability is fairly similar. The main thing I lose, however, is the ability to juxtapose what I read here with other news sources."

This smaller pool of sources sometimes leaves the public with less detail than they want. When asked what the local media was missing, readers' answers, of course, were as scattered as their street addresses. But one request was consistent: Give us more depth.

"Local politicians talk with even more platitudes and generalizations than the national ones," said Elizabeth Furdell of Jacksonville, Fla. "I assume most running for office will tout themselves as pro-family, anti-crime, pro-education. I want to know more about how candidates stand on development, traffic, schools, sewers, etc. I don't care if they're religious or not, only that they have some clue about these real concerns ordinary people face."

These concerns put a lot of pressure on local journalists to catch all of the issues, and to get stories right. "Nobody in the world is going to cover the Manhattan City Commission if we don't," Bill Felber said. "Nobody's going to give any heed to the debate over closing Theodore Roosevelt School at 14th and Houston, or the debate over whether to allow the construction of wind farms in the Flint Hills of Kansas, except the Manhattan Mercury. It's the one thing we can uniquely offer that all our potential competitors for audience cannot offer."

Readers seeking to supplement their local coverage often turn to fellow citizens. Some said letters to the editor are a critical part of piecing together the big picture. These readers praised their local papers for facilitating unfiltered debate. Their responses made it clear that many readers don't want to be passive consumers of the news, they want to be involved.

Making that happen is at the core of the local mission, said Bobbie Jo Buel of the Arizona Daily Star.

"No newsroom is big enough to see and hear first-hand what's going on in every corner of its community. Readers are the way we extend our reach," she said. "When they e-mail, write and call, we learn more about what's happening and what's important in our town. We cannot publish an accurate and full report unless we're having conversations with lots of readers."

About This Series

This Readers Speak survey was sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editor's National Credibility Roundtables Project through its Reader Interactive initiative. A total of 39 news organizations sent email to 16,575 regular readers, and 2,543 responses were received from 49 states and the District of Columbia, a response rate of 15 percent.

The results are not scientific; those who responded are likely to be among the more wired and interactive readers that newspapers have. They were polled because they had given their email address to their local newspaper, and comments were taken only online.

The National Credibility Roundtables Project is funded through a grant from the Ford Foundation, and is intended to help the media address the credibility crisis that exists with the public. The Reader Interactive initiative, as part of that project, has assisted newsrooms around the country in setting up reader email networks so that editors can be in better touch with readers. On occasion, the newsrooms involved in that initiative work together on a national Readers Speak survey such as this one.

There are three parts to this series.

Part 1: The latest credibility crisis involving a CBS "60 Minutes" report stains all media; readers suggest ways to solve the problems they see. Also, readers say they get their national election coverage from a wide variety of sources, but most say that coverage has had little or no effect on their decision.

Part 2: Despite the recent surge in interest regarding online Web logs, four of five readers surveyed say they don't read Web logs, or “blogs.” Those who do read blogs urge caution but suggest the new medium offers great potential as a watchdog of mainstream media.

Part 3: Readers rely on a small number of media sources for coverage of local elections, and are much more trusting of that coverage than of national election coverage. Newspapers still play a vital role.