Author: Douglas F. Cannon

Douglas F. Cannon retired from the Virginia Tech School of Communication faculty in 2023. Before becoming a full-time educator in 2010, he worked in journalism and public relations for 34 years. He was a daily newspaper reporter, weekly newspaper publisher, Army public affairs officer, and public relations counselor. He served as a communication executive for The United Methodist Church from 1984 to 2008 and was president of the Religion Communicators Council from 2008 to 2010 and again in 2012. He is a Public Relations Society of America College of Fellows member.

A radical opinion about political discourse?

Posted on September 4, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

Seven recent news stories illustrate—for me at least—that shorthand political labels don’t clearly communicate where people fall on today’s ideological spectrum. “Liberal,” “moderate,” and “conservative” have lost any clear meaning for me. I think such labels contribute more to misunderstanding than to precise communication.

“Generally,” The Associated Press Stylebook says, “a description of specific political views is more informative than a generic label like liberal or conservative.”

I concur. I advise writers I work with to avoid shorthand labels and to explain clearly the political or social position they are reporting.

I acknowledge at the outset of this long post that many people don’t agree with my opinions about shorthand political labels. Family members, colleagues, and students have regularly told me over the years that I’m wrong or too picky about the use of political labels. They say everyone knows what a “liberal,” “moderate,” or “conservative” is. I disagree. Things that were once part of the conservative agenda, for example, such as limiting the size of government, supporting free trade, and controlling the national debt, are not current priorities among so-called “conservatives.” The seven examples below should illustrate my thinking further.

When I started this essay, I intended to advocate what I thought would be a conservative position. I would echo AP Stylebook guidance about avoiding shorthand labels. Reactions to my ideas over the past week have changed my mind. My thinking appears to be either radical or reactionary.

Nevertheless, I’m content to share my thoughts on this communication challenge. The fun of these essays is trying to explain my viewpoint. I don’t need to convince anyone that I’m right.

Consider the ambiguity that shorthand labels introduce in these examples:

Pope Francis and critics in the American church

Pope Francis communicated accurately in early August what he thought of some American Roman Catholics. He criticized “a very strong, organized reactionary attitude” among some American church members. He acknowledged that “backward-looking people” in the U.S. church opposed his leadership on current moral questions and wanted to reverse reforms brought about by the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965.

American journalists muddled the pope’s message. The Associated Press reported Aug. 28 that Francis had “blasted the ‘backwardness’ of some conservatives in the U.S. Catholic Church.” The Washington Post’s online headline for its Aug. 29 story said, “Pope Francis criticizes ‘reactionary’ conservatives in U.S. Catholic Church.” The New York Times said in its Aug 30 story, “The pope lamented the ‘backwardness’ of some American conservatives who he said insist on a narrow, outdated and unchanging vision.”

The use of conservatives in these three stories doesn’t match my understanding of the word. “Conservatives,” Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary says, want to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.

The Second Vatican Council ended in 1965. Its reforms have been in effect for nearly 60 years—longer than most American Roman Catholics have been alive. Pew Research said in 2015 that the median age of U.S. Roman Catholics was 49. The post-Vatican II church is the only one most American worshippers have ever known. Post-Vatican II doctrines, therefore, are the current tradition. The church members whom Francis criticized are, therefore, not conservatives. True conservatives would want to maintain the post-Vatican II doctrines.

The people opposing Francis are reactionary, just as the pope said. They want to go back to the way things in the church were before the Second Vatican Council.

Calling critics of the pope conservative is inaccurate. “Reactionary conservative” is an oxymoron. If you want to keep what the church is doing now (the conservative stance), you wouldn’t want to go back to what the church used to do (the reactionary stance).

Plan to transform the federal government in a second Trump administration.

The Associated Press reported Aug. 29 on a “constellation of conservative organizations” that want “to gut the ‘administrative state’ (federal bureaucracy) from within” if Donald Trump is reelected president. The group’s plan calls for “ousting federal employees they believe are standing in the way of the president’s agenda and replacing them with like-minded officials more eager to fulfill a new executive’s approach to governing.”

The Aug. 29 story says the plan contains “a mix of longstanding conservative policies and stark, head-turning proposals that gained prominence in the Trump era.” The plan was written by “some of today’s most prominent thinkers in the conservative movement.”

“A new executive approach to governing” doesn’t sound very conservative to me. “Stark, head-turning proposals” would appear to describe something radical.

Views on abortion in Door County, Wisconsin

A Sept. 2 Washington Post story examined how the “Abortion fight unites the left and rattles the right in key Wis. Battleground.” That story used “conservative” and “the right” as synonyms for “Republican.” “Liberal” and “the left” meant “Democrat.” Nevertheless, the facts in the story demonstrated that these liberal and conservative labels were too general to accurately categorize Republican or Democratic voters in Door County, Wisconsin.

“We’ve got disagreements on this (abortion) issue within our own party,” the story quoted one Republican leader as saying. “That’s the challenge: Finding a message we can all agree on.”

Corporate ‘liberalism’ in politics today

A Sept. 3 Washington Post opinion piece said corporate “liberalism” was changing today’s political landscape. The commentary reported results of an academic study of 320 business elites and 670 “ordinary people.” That study found that both Democratic and Republican business elites thought corporate America was moving away from a close connection to the Republican Party.

The commentary equated “the decoupling of business from the Republican coalition” with businesses becoming more “liberal.”— “that is, more deferential to authority and more favorably disposed to bureaucracy and expertise.”

“Conservatism, meanwhile,” the story said, “has moved in the opposite direction and become more populist and mistrustful of institutions.”

I noted that no quotations in the commentary from the research paper itself mentioned “liberal” or “conservative.” The opinion writer introduced those labels. The research analyzed a new way of thinking among Republican and Democratic business elites. The study, therefore, didn’t consider whether executives were liberal or conservative. The research examined the partisan identification of businesspeople with various ideas about how to interact with government. The opinion writer decided that “Democrat” equaled “liberal” and “Republican” equaled “conservative.”

Shifting stereotypes

The seven examples I’ve cited illustrate how empty common political labels have become, as far as I’m concerned. Labels reflect stereotypes. In these seven examples, however, the stereotypes are no longer accurate. The Sept. 3 Washington Post commentary shows that the business community’s political alignment is changing and that Republicans are becoming more populist. Language evolution has not kept pace with such political trends. As a result, American journalists (and others) no longer have a precise shorthand for the shifting social/political spectrum.

Labels like “liberal” or “conservative”—for me at least—are supposed to describe how a person or a movement approaches social or political change. These labels are not tied to specific sets of policies or specific political parties.

Conservatives, in my understanding, aren’t eager to change. They want to maintain (or conserve) the systems and traditions we have now. Moderates accept measured change. Moderates don’t like extreme actions. Liberals are open to more extensive change than moderates and don’t feel tied to traditional ways of approaching things the way conservatives do. Radicals favor throwing out traditions and trying things that have never been done before. Reactionaries want to go back to the way things used to be.

Not a left-right political axis

A further complication to clear communication is that many people—both writers and readers—conceive of our political spectrum today as a horizontal right-left axis. Conservative and liberal are at opposite ends of that horizontal line. Moderate is in the middle.

The political spectrum is really a circle with at least five reference points: reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, and radical. Where a person or issue lands on that circle depends on place and time. The left-right axis eliminates the extremes (reactionary and radical) from our routine political lexicon and, as we saw in the Pope Francis story, limits how people can discuss approaches to social or political change beyond the axis.

Policies vs. approach to change

Because social and political context determines where an issue lands in the political spectrum, viewpoints could be liberal at one point, conservative at another, and reactionary or radical in yet another context.

For many Americans today, for example, traditional conservative policies favor limited government, low taxation, fiscal responsibility, free market capitalism, capital punishment, immigration controls, integrity of elections, and a strong national defense. Traditional conservative policies oppose gun control, abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, government-funded healthcare, and expanded benefits for social welfare programs.

Traditional liberal policies favor government actions to defend individual rights (affirmative action, same-sex marriage, abortion), ensure social equality among all citizens through government-funded benefits, facilitate broad participation in elections, promote equitable tax burdens for all, control access to guns, and protect the environment.

Neither of these issue agendas considers how an advocate approaches change. Some of these policies are in place today. Others are not. Still others were once in place but are no longer.

Therefore, if a person is trying to maintain what we have, I argue that he or she is a conservative. Actions to change what we have could be reactionary, moderate, liberal, or radical. The direction or degree of change determines the shorthand label. Moves to go back to something we had before would be reactionary. Moves toward something completely new would be radical. Small, measured changes would be moderate. Major changes would be liberal.

I know as well that the Republican and Democratic party positions on many political issues have shifted throughout American history. Republican-backed policies were not always conservative. Democratic stands were not always liberal.

After the Civil War, for example, one wing of the Republican Party was called radical for its approach to southern Reconstruction. President Theodore Roosevelt, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, and Vice President Nelson Rockefeller—all New Yorkers—represented the liberal wing of the Republican Party between 1900 and 1972.

Republican policies on such topics as immigration and free trade after the Trump presidency differ significantly from what Republicans supported under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Nevertheless, many Americans identify all those presidents as conservative.

Democrats before the 1960s were often seen—especially in the South—as the nation’s conservative party. Today’s Democratic Party includes U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas; U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; and U.S. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

Manchin and Cuellar are often called conservative because they frequently agree with Republicans on policy. Ocasio-Cortez and Omar are prominent members of “the Squad,” a group of young lawmakers who favor what I would term radical policies. Those include Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and total student loan forgiveness. We haven’t had policies like those before.

Self-identities

Self-identities are another factor in how people understand political shorthand labels.

I’ve noticed that people who consider themselves conservative or moderate have no problem embracing those labels. Those individuals usually align their identities with their political party affiliations or opinions on social issues, such as taxation, immigration, voting rights, public education, gun control, or free speech. To those folks, conservative or moderate usually doesn’t relate to the way they approach change.

Those who favor significant social or political change may equate their identities as well with how the person stands on certain issues. But these individuals often don’t want to be called liberal, radical, or reactionary. Persistent Republican messaging since at least the 1990s has made liberal a pejorative term. Radical and reactionary have long had negative connotations. Consequently, folks who advocate significant change call themselves “progressive.”

While liberals, moderates, and conservatives may identify with specific political agendas, each person’s orientation to change may not be consistent from issue to issue or across party lines. Voter opinions on various issues are dynamic and often erratic. As in the Sept. 2 story about Door County, Wisconsin, one shorthand label may not correctly describe where someone stands on all issues.

Between the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade and the 2022 decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson, for example, access to abortion was legal and the accepted norm. Efforts to defend abortion rights in that context, therefore, were conservative (maintaining what we have). Efforts to overturn the Roe decision and return to the former standards were reactionary (going back to the way things used to be).

After the Dobbs decisions, efforts to defend abortion bans are conservative (maintaining the new standard). Efforts to return to the Roe standards are reactionary (going back to the way things used to be). Efforts to go beyond restrictions that were in place before 1973 or to introduce new ways to enforce abortion bans are radical (trying things that have never been done before).

The Washington Post story about Door County, Wisconsin, however, used the longstanding shorthand labels traditionally applied to the abortion debate: Those who oppose the Dobbs decision are liberal or left-learning, not reactionary. Those who want to tighten abortion restrictions beyond pre-Roe standards are conservative, not radical.

I find those traditional labels misleading. I know people disagree with me.

Heated reactions

My pointing out differences between people’s approaches to change and the way they label their political agendas often elicits heated reactions.

My “liberal” friends take offense when I suggest that their defense of current federal or state social programs is conservative and that their efforts to ban assault rifles are reactionary. Current programs are the norm. The United States had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004.

My “conservative” friends often get hostile when I say that attacks on civil liberties, efforts to militarize our borders, or moves to eliminate birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ratified in 1868) are radical, not conservative, positions. We haven’t tried these policies before. I get similar responses when I contend that moves to protect election integrity and restrict voter participation could be seen as reactionary. States routinely limited minority access to the ballot box before a series of federal civil rights acts passed from 1957 to 1968.

Because of these unreceptive reactions to my opinions, I’ve reconsidered whether understanding that a political position is radical or reactionary, rather than liberal or conservative, improves political discourse in the long run. The situation may be like the communication problem of using plural pronouns to stand for singular nouns (see Aug. 19 post). Consequently, I don’t bring these topics up much anymore in face-to-face meetings (see spiral of silence theory).

I still think about philosophical inconsistencies, however—especially when I see stories like the seven I’ve cited here. Those thoughts make this post appropriate for this blog.

Overly general?

The Associate Press Stylebook advises journalists to “think carefully” before using shorthand descriptions. Reporters and editors should “consider whether any broad term such as gays, liberals, conservatives, Americans (or any nationality), Latinos (or any ethnicity), supporters of Candidate X, etc., is overly general.”

We all use shorthand descriptions as a communication crutch. These labels help organize our world into categories and supposedly help simplify messaging. But when labels are ambiguous, they may not only hurt clear communication. They may also add to the growing partisan divide in American society today.

Labels help people separate themselves from others. This sorting may encourage folks to avoid interactions with others who have differing opinions. People isolated from diverse viewpoints often see mostly how their opinions differ from those of folks in other groups, not where everyone shares common ground.

While ongoing dialog between people who don’t agree might not change minds, these exchanges should help deepen understanding of contrary viewpoints and counter continued political polarization. Demonizing someone you know is harder than fostering enmity toward nameless, faceless “liberals” or “conservatives”—no matter what you think those words mean.

Rebuilding trust vs. changing reputation

Posted on August 26, 2023September 9, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a reputation problem, according to its new director. So do many universities, according to an Aug. 17 PR News story.

But neither the CDC director nor various university public relations advisers are talking about reputation. Comments in news stories focus on rebuilding trust. While trust is one product of reputation, a narrow focus on trust could limit how organizations try to solve their business problems. In fact, decision-makers focused on trust might overlook a key element of reputation: authenticity.

John Doorley, executive director of corporate communications at Merk & Company from 1987 to 2000 and later a communication professor at Rutgers, New York University, and Elon University, developed a reputation management formula in 2003:

Reputation = Performance + Behavior + Communication x Authenticity Factory

“Performance” represents financial returns (profits and losses) and the delivery of quality products or services. “Behavior” means organizational interactions with key groups, such as employees, customers, regulators, critics, and local neighbors. “Communication” covers messages sent through all channels to all groups.

The Authenticity Factor indicates how true all actions and messages are to an organization’s “intrinsic identity” (what it stands for). If an organization stays true to what it stands for, the Authenticity Factor is 1. Any action or message that is not authentic reduces the factor and lowers the sum of images derived from Performance, Behavior, and Communication.

Doorley explains the formula in Reputation Management: The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate Communication. He and Fred Garcia first published that book in 2006. It is now in its fourth edition (2021).

Trust reflects people’s confidence that individuals and organizations will do what they promise. Just as trustworthiness is one facet of reputation, so are credibility, reliability, and responsibility.

Dr. Mandy Cohen, the new CDC director, has said in recent news interviews and public statements that she wants to rebuild trust in the CDC, other government institutions, and the scientific process. Even though Cohen hasn’t mentioned reputation, she appears to recognize that CDC efforts must address elements in the reputation formula. She told NBC News July 20 that her “intentional plan” to rebuild trust in the CDC involved “good execution” of the CDC public health mission, transparency, and good communication.

Cohen again talked about good performance, transparency, and clear communication Aug. 1 on NPR’s All Things Considered. She added a fourth component to her plan: partnerships and relationships with various groups. “And we’re going to be focused on building those bridges and building that trust so that folks take vaccines,” Cohen said.

Cohen’s strategy covers three elements of the Doorley formula:

Performance—“making sure that we are doing what we say we’re going to do.” That performance should enhance trust as well.
Behavior—transparency in interactions with critics, members of Congress, and others.
Communication—delivering clear, simple messages that all segments of the public can understand.

But the director does not appear to have thought about the Authenticity Factor (the perception that all actions and messages are consistent with what Americans would expect from the nation’s top public health agency).

The Aug. 17 PR News story shows the same shortsightedness about reputation—this time related to universities in the wake of a June U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative-action standards in college admissions. That story asserts, “The schools will need to rebuild trust for not only potential students and their families, but alumni, employees and staff of the institutions.”

The story quotes three sources. Two of them, a public relations practitioner and a public relations educator, both said that universities should act transparently and send clear messages about future admissions policies to key publics to rebuild trust. The third, another practitioner, said that admissions policies needed to reflect core institutional values.

With these comments, the PR News story alluded to Performance, Behavior, and Communication by university administrators. But none of the sources talked about the need to be authentic.

The difference between “building trust” and strategically trying to shape an organization’s overall reputation isn’t just semantic. I’m sure some will accuse me of fussing too much about the distinction. But word choice frequently reflects the scope of a person’s or organization’s thinking.

Too many public relations practitioners—and CEOs, for that matter—avoid talking about reputation. One reason may be that reputation is intangible and supposedly hard to measure. Consequently, both business leaders and public relations practitioners often use measures of trust as proxies for measures of reputation. The annual Edelman Trust Barometer is an example of such a proxy measure.

From my perspective, the focus on trust isn’t enough. The Authenticity Factor can make or break an effort to change the way people think about an organization—especially in a polarized public opinion environment. Any strategy that leaves out the last part of the Doorley formula can’t effectively build trust or change reputation.

Determining what people in various constituencies would consider authentic is often a challenge. For example, critics during the COVID-19 pandemic effectively demonized the CDC’s traditional data-driven approach to public health policy. Simply doubling down on that approach—which Cohen seems to imply (“have good performance in what the CDC is meant to do”)—isn’t likely to be effective. Polls repeatedly show that many Americans have lost trust in medical scientists since the pandemic.

Similarly, universities—especially those named in the affirmative-action lawsuit (Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)—have had a hard time countering charges that they have unfairly used race to decide which students to admit.

Both the CDC and universities need to know what key constituents are willing to believe. Critics have controlled the public health and higher education narrative for the past few years. Changing current opinions among people in some groups, therefore, may be a genuine challenge.

The partnership aspect of Cohen’s strategy could help with authenticity in the CDC effort, but she didn’t provide enough details in the two news interviews for me to speculate further.

The PR News story appears to imply that making sure constituents understand the values driving university admissions decisions will help make actions appear authentic. But what if the people universities need to reach don’t share those values?

I hope public relations staffers at the CDC and various universities are wise enough and influential enough within their organizations to help their bosses reach their real management goal: a better organizational reputation. Broadening that vision beyond “building trust” might help. But supplying solid intelligence on what key constituencies would see as authentic would be even more important.

Unfortunately, I know from 28 years in Army public affairs that government public relations efforts often lack adequate research on key groups. We in the government know what we want to say, but we don’t know what people in those groups are willing to hear or believe.

University communication offices may have more information on their key publics, but I don’t know that for sure. I suspect that access to research on key publics varies from institution to institution.

I commend Cohen’s intentions. I wish the CDC and various universities success in their efforts to change their public image. In the process, I hope that organizational leaders come to recognize the importance of authenticity in shaping reputation as they promote excellent performance, transparent behaviors, and clear communication.

In support of neopronouns

Posted on August 19, 2023August 19, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

Pronoun ambiguity—especially the use of the singular “they,” “them,” or “their” in broadcast news reports—continues to introduce what I consider unfortunate barriers to clear communication. I have written about pronouns before. (See Aug. 31, 2015, post.)

English writers and speakers need gender-neutral neopronouns. Those new words could solve lots of comprehension problems. I recognize that such word-use evolution is unlikely.

Nevertheless, a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun could enhance clear communication and avoid the confusion I experienced with an Aug. 15 NPR story on Morning Edition. That story included these sentences:

“Pagonis is intersex but was never told this by their parents. Growing up they felt like they didn’t belong.”

Because I (1) was doing something else as I listened to Morning Edition in the background and (2) have been drilled throughout my schooling and career to think that pronouns are supposed to agree with the first noun of the same number and gender before the pronoun, I at first understood the broadcast story to say that the parents had felt excluded when they were growing up. As I began to listen to the story more closely, I thought it would tell me how that viewpoint had affected the way the parents had dealt with their intersex child.

In a few more seconds, I realized I was wrong. Pidgeon Pagonis, the subject of the story, used plural pronouns for self-reference. Consequently, so did the reporter conducting the interview.

I don’t object to the use of preferred pronouns. I don’t advocate that we violate anyone’s self-identity. The latest edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association says in Section 4.18: “The use of the singular ‘they’ is inclusive of all people, helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender, and is part of APA style.” I know that the singular “they” has become more common in academic writing since my 2015 post.

My issue in this instance is miscommunication—especially in broadcast writing. I contend that the broadcast writer should have recognized the possibility of listener confusion in this story and worked intentionally to avoid it.

The clear connection between a pronoun and its antecedent is especially important in broadcast writing. Listeners and viewers can’t go back to check the reference. Consequently, the singular “they” in broadcast newswriting can hinder listening comprehension.

The Association Press Stylebook (56^th edition) makes a similar point about reading news stories. The stylebook notes on Pages 238 and 239: “They as a singular pronoun may be confusing to some readers and amount to a roadblock that stops them from reading further. At the same time, though, efforts to write without pronouns to avoid confusion may make people feel censored or invisible.”

The AP stylebook advises journalists to honor story subjects and readers by striving for clarity. Often, rewriting a sentence can achieve that goal.

I concur. That quest for clarity is even more important in broadcast writing. The message recipient has no easy way to review the text when something doesn’t make sense on the first hearing.

Another way to address pronoun ambiguity might be to adopt neopronouns. I, therefore, appreciated the Aug. 12 CNN story about these “new pronouns.” Words, such as xe/xyr or ey/em/eir, are gender-neutral. They could follow standard grammar rules and avoid the conceptual problem of referring to a singular entity as a plural.

Despite being called “new,” some of these pronouns were first used in English hundreds of years ago. However, most people have not encountered such words in their reading or listening.

Deciding which new third-person neopronoun to use would be a challenge. The CNN story lists at least four options. None of those options looks like any common English words. As a result, The Associated Press Stylebook says, “In general, do not use neopronouns such as xe or zim; they are rarely used and unrecognizable as words to general audiences.”

Getting people to make one of those pronouns the standard would take a long time. The New York Times reported that “Ms.,” the inclusive alternative to “Miss” or Mrs.,” was first suggested in 1901. While the honorific has become more common since the 1960s, some people still refuse to use it.

“Latinx,” an inclusive alternative to “Latino” or “Latina,” reportedly first appeared in 2004. While “Latinx” is popular in some business and academic circles, a 2020 Pew Research survey found that only 3% of Americans with ethnic backgrounds from Latin America or Spain used the word to describe themselves.

People can tell intuitively what “Ms.” and “Latinx” are trying to communicate—even if those same individuals would not choose to use those words. Neopronouns don’t have that intuitive quality. Therefore, broad adoption—if it were ever to happen—would probably take even more time than “Ms.” or “Latinx” has needed so far to gain just some recognition.

While I know that the adoption of neopronouns is unlikely, I still think we need a better alternative for inclusive third-person pronouns than the singular “they.” As long as most writers and speakers are satisfied with the ambiguity of using a plural word to stand for a singular noun, we’ll have to live with persistent possible miscommunication. Or we’ll have to wait for all the old geezers like me—who think that using a plural word for a singular meaning is a problem—to die off.

Need for SPJ conduct code is troubling

Posted on August 13, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

The Aug. 12 email message from the Society of Professional Journalists surprised me. “SPJ needs feedback on Code of Conduct draft,” the subject line said.

The message invited me to register for an Aug. 14 online meeting “to discuss the working copy” of a Code of Conduct for SPJ events. I could submit questions or comments about the code by Aug. 13 through the SPJ website.

Wow, I thought. This situation is troubling. Why would an organization of print, online, and broadcast reporters and editors; journalism educators; news executives; and other news content creators need formal rules to govern interpersonal interactions at meetings? What have I missed?

The email message said the SPJ board of directors wanted “to foster a friendly, safe and welcoming culture.” A special task force “plans to have standards for expected behavior in place by the annual convention in Las Vegas on Sept. 28.”

The working SPJ conduct code specifically addresses “behavior that others would reasonably perceive as knowingly harassing or humiliating others” at “events and meetings sponsored by or affiliated with SPJ at the national and regional levels.” The proposed SPJ guidelines further prohibit “discriminatory conduct related to age, race, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, physical ability or appearance, religion, or political ideology.”

The conduct code covers all who attend SPJ events. “Violators can be immediately dismissed from events, excluded from in-person or online events and activities, and/or forfeit their SPJ membership,” the draft document says. The document proposes a procedure to warn, suspend, or expel members who violate code provisions.

A Google search yielded no background information on why SPJ might need such behavior rules now. I couldn’t determine if the proposed policies were proactive or reactive.

The SPJ website, where I could submit comments, included links to nine example codes of conduct from other journalism professional organizations. One link showed that SPJ had instituted a code of conduct for its 2019 joint Excellence in Journalism meeting with the Radio Television Digital News Association and National Association of Hispanic Journalists in San Antonio.

Clearly, the idea of conduct rules for meetings of journalists isn’t new or unique to SPJ. I’m obviously out of touch.

The website for the 2023 SPJ convention, by the way, already has “code of conduct” wording on it. The working document extends the rules to all SPJ events and sets up a Participation Standards Committee to respond to complaints about offensive behavior.

The need to establish rules for civil discourse at professional meetings of journalists, procedures for removing people for unruly speech or other behaviors, and a process for punishing offending members still troubles me. I support a “safe and collegial environment” (words from the proposed code) at professional meetings. But I expect those who attend such meetings to treat others with “dignity and respect” as a matter of course. I have always experienced such behavior at the professional meetings I have attended over the past 50 years. What’s changed?

Why would members of a professional organization want to behave in ways that would get them “immediately dismissed from events”? Why would a professional association decide it needed a formal structure to punish members? The whole thing baffles me.

I fully concur with the goal of the proposed code. A welcoming culture at meetings and robust civil discourse are both good. Nevertheless, I question the need for formal behavior guidelines and punishment procedures—no matter how the final wording evolves. To me, this discussion within SPJ—or any professional association, for that matter—of acceptable conduct is a sad commentary on the state of society today. I’m obviously becoming a crotchety old coot.

Barbie, Ted Cruz, and the third-person effect

Posted on August 12, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz apparently believes in the third-person effect. His recent statements about the Barbie movie deftly illustrate third-person-effect thinking.

The Republican senator from Texas told the Daily Signal, a media website, that a cartoon world map in one Barbie scene subjected moviegoers to Chinese propaganda, the Houston Chronicle reported July 19. The map shows “nine dashes.” They represent the People’s Republic of China’s claim to sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.

Cruz said that movie producers included the “blatantly false” information “to kiss up to the Chinese communist censors.”

A statement from a Cruz staffer to DailyMail.com (reported July 4) said, “China wants to control what Americans see, hear, and ultimately think, and they leverage their massive film markets to coerce American companies into pushing CCP propaganda—just like the way the Barbie film seems to have done with the map. Sen. Cruz deserves credit for reversing these trends.”

Cruz maintains he is merely calling out Barbie producers for deciding to “appease the Chinese Communist Party” after Vietnam banned the film over the map.

But concerns about “blatantly false” information and control over “what Americans see, hear, and ultimately think” signal that the senator is motivated as well by what communication scholars call the “third-person effect.”

I’ve mentioned the third-person effect before (July 29). It was first identified by sociologist W. Phillips Davidson in 1983:

People think that a message will influence others even though that same message won’t influence them. Those people who won’t be influenced (won’t affect me [first-person objective pronoun]) then act to prevent that presumed effect on others (but will affect them [third-person objective pronoun]) without any evidence of message influence on those individuals.

Lots of Americans have seen Barbie (‘Barbie’ reaches $1 billion at box office, studio says) since it opened July 21. I have read no news reports so far that the movie has influenced public opinion about China. I noted that no Chinese moviegoers quoted in an Aug. 6 New York Times story (Why ‘Barbie’ became a sleeper hit in China) mentioned the world map or their country’s claim to the South China Sea. I asked a few friends and family members who had seen Barbie if they remembered the map. None did.

Evidence from my informal research is clearly not conclusive. But so far, I have seen none of the propaganda effects that Cruz seemed to fear.

I advised clients and students to avoid third-person-effect thinking. Actions in response to assumed effects of any information usually waste organizational resources, disrupt organizational priorities, and sometimes even call greater attention to the “threatening” message. For those reasons, planning for any action should start by gathering solid information about the groups that organizations want to reach.

Nevertheless, third-person-effect thinking is common in political discourse. If the presumed effect on others is plausible, the thinking can spark voter fears of unwanted outcomes and mobilize people to respond—even if such action is unnecessary.

The third-person effect is a very practical social science and communication theory. It helps us explain, analyze, and predict trends in public discourse.

‘Filler’ words hide who’s really acting

Posted on August 5, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

Writers often pepper their work with unnecessary words (see July 8 post on “clutter” words). When we speak, we use fillers to give our brains time to figure out what we want to say and how we want to say it. In writing, we can review our messages to sharpen the wording.

Expletive constructions are specific examples of filler words. Expletive refers to a grammatical element that fills a space in a clause (often the subject position) but carries no meaning. The placeholder often hides the actor that should be the subject someplace else in the sentence. The results are unnecessary words and reduced readability scores.

The most common expletives used in this way are there is/are and it is. These sentences include expletives:

There is a loss of control that makes it difficult for decision-makers to think strategically.
It is critical for companies to take time to cultivate relationships with the right people.
To build a successful media relations program, it is important to involve communication professionals in setting a strategy.

The first example contains two expletives (“there is” and “makes it”). “There is” provides a crutch for starting a sentence while our brain tries to decide exactly what we want to convey. The pronoun “it” in the example has no clear antecedent (see the post on pronoun-antecedent agreement) and fills an object, rather than a subject, position. We can rewrite the sentence to eliminate unnecessary words and make actors and relationships between sentence elements clear:

Loss of control makes thinking strategically difficult for decision-makers.

The indirect wording of the second example doesn’t establish for whom relationships are critical. The writer apparently used the expletive to avoid a more directive statement:

Companies should take time to cultivate relationships with the right people.

The third example introduces a syntax issue. The introductory “to build” infinitive phrase modifies the pronoun “it.” But “it” has no clear antecedent (see the post on pronoun-antecedent agreement). Therefore, the word offers no meaning to modify. Consequently, the “to build” phrase is dangling (see post on dangling modifiers). The independent clause has no clear actor to involve “communication professionals” in planning. Fixing the problem requires rewriting the sentence to include a precise noun for the “to build” phrase to modify:

To build a successful media relations program, an organization should involve communication professionals in setting a strategy.

While expletive constructions are often wordy, they aren’t grammatically wrong. They are common in writing. They are seen in other languages, such as German, as well as in English. Expletives are sometimes used intentionally (often in business or government writing) to keep the wording indirect. The writer doesn’t want to name the actor (who may be the reader), or the writer doesn’t know the actor (It is raining.) Other times, an expletive reflects fuzzy thinking. We really haven’t determined who the actor in the sentence is.

Whenever you see an expletive in your writing, consider if that construction is the most precise way to communicate your intended message.

Theories help us analyze events

Posted on July 29, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

Theories help us explain or predict outcomes as we navigate daily life. Furthermore, theories help us detect and analyze behaviors that don’t follow the patterns we expect.

I’ve been pondering the classic four theories of the press over the past few weeks (July 15, July 21). I keep seeing examples of how these theories can help me evaluate what’s going on in current events.

For example, in several Virginia localities, citizens are arguing about whether to remove books from school libraries. Debates have flared so far this year in Hanover and Spotsylvania counties.

In Texas, state Department of Agriculture leadership apologized to employees July 12 for “misinformation” and a “biased view” of employment law in a mandatory training session that day. The issue, the Texas Tribune reported July 13, was that the trainer had explained what made someone “cisgender” or “transgender” and what “deadname” meant (intentionally using the name a person was given before gender transition).

In news reports about these Virginia and Texas cases, the views attributed to “conservatives” about access to information don’t align with the views of “conservatives” in stories from New Orleans about federal efforts to reduce misinformation on social networks. Press theories provide a practical lens for interpreting the dynamics.

In Virginia and Texas, the “conservative” perspective is more aligned with Authoritarian or Communist press theory than the Libertarian or Social Responsibility thinking we saw in the Louisiana court case. In the Authoritarian and Communist theories, “truth” isn’t determined by individuals weighing all sides of an issue (the Libertarian theory dynamic) or by journalists seeking to report all available information—pro or con—about a topic (the Social Responsibility theory dynamic).

In the Authoritarian and Communist theories, “truth” isn’t self-evident. In the Authoritarian theory, “wise” leaders determine the truth. In the Communist theory, the party or state determines what is true. In both the Authoritarian and Communist theories, what is considered “truth” is central to political power and the foundation of social influence. Consequently, the specified “truth” needs to be protected from misinformation. Any challenges to the official line threaten political power.

The “conservatives” in Virginia and Texas knew “the truth” and wanted to shield people from offensive or dangerous concepts that might raise doubts about that truth.

In advocating the free flow of ideas through social media, the “conservatives” in the Louisiana court case presented a classic Libertarian press theory position: All viewpoints should have access to the marketplace of ideas. If people could hear all voices, the truth would emerge from the online debate through the self-righting process. Rational people would determine what was true and false. Misinformation, therefore, wasn’t a threat.

The Virginia controversy came in the wake of a state law that went into effect last year. The law requires schools to notify parents of any instructional material that includes sexually explicit content and allow them to request alternative materials for their children. The law’s goal is to let parents protect children from content the parents don’t want the youngsters to see.

Agriculture Department leaders in Texas said they were apologizing to state workers because “misinformation” about gender in the mandatory training session might have offended some employees who considered the ideas contrary to their religious beliefs.

The trainer—Natalie Rougeux, a board-certified attorney in labor and employment law and a certified human-resources professional—told the Texas Tribune that she “simply gave the proper terminology for ‘transgender’ and ‘cisgender’ and explained the concept of ‘deadnaming.’” Those definitions were among many topics covered during the hourlong session on equal employment opportunity regulations.

Critics of the messages in books or employment training appear to have rejected the Libertarian idea that people are rational and can individually distinguish truth from falsehood. Critics didn’t accept that truth could emerge from a self-righting process, overcome falsehood, and become self-evident to everyone.

In Virginia, the reasoning for the Authoritarian/Communist approach was grounded in parental rights and the need to protect children from ideas the parents don’t accept. Children, this thinking goes, aren’t prepared to critically deal with what they see in books.

In Texas, the concern may have been more political. In 2021, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller joined a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The federal agency had said that transgender people should be allowed to use the bathrooms and follow dress codes that corresponded with their gender identities. A federal district judge decided in the state’s favor, and the Biden administration dropped its appeal. State officials now appear to want to limit any references to gender identities in equal-opportunity training.

Libertarian thinking would dismiss those viewpoints.

Children, from the Libertarian perspective, should be able to explore all ideas so they can develop reasoning abilities. In weighing the merits of what they read, young people should consider what their parents and other authority figures had taught them. The children, anchored in the solid moral foundations their parents had established, should ultimately be able to determine truth through the self-righting process. Consequently, they wouldn’t need protection from incorrect ideas.

Similar thinking would apply in Texas. Libertarian thinkers would advise leaders to give Department of Agriculture employees more credit. If the training session presented biased information, employees should be able to recognize any errors and ignore them.

Another theory—third-person effect in communication—may better explain the Virginia and Texas perspectives than the Libertarian press theory. Third-person effect, first explained by sociologist W. Phillips Davidson, says that people often think that a message will influence others even though that same message won’t influence them. Consequently, people who see a “threatening” message act to counter the effects of that message on others—even when “the defenders” have no evidence that others have been affected.

I learned long ago not to expect philosophical consistency in political debates. People usually adopt positions they find expedient, not consistent—no matter what ideology is usually associated with their political perspective. Nevertheless, theories give me a way to interpret what I see in the rough-and-tumble political arena and the pragmatic corporate world.

Press theories help us analyze moves against misinformation on social networks

Posted on July 21, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

The recent controversy over federal efforts to prevent misinformation on social networks provides another opportunity to ponder how press theories can help us understand today’s media environment.

Opinions about who’s right and wrong in the case from New Orleans appear linked to whether Libertarian or Social Responsibility press theory guides how people view the situation. I outlined those theories in a July 15 post.

The New Orleans case first made news July 4 when U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty (Western District of Louisiana) blocked federal officials from trying to influence social media companies to suppress posts that the government considered misinformation. Topics for potential misinformation mentioned in the underlying lawsuit included public health, election integrity, and federal probes into actions by President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Doughty’s ruling July 14 and called for expedited arguments in the case. In 2022, attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri filed the legal action that led to July 4 injunction. The 2022 lawsuit claimed the federal government had censored free speech by discussing possible regulatory action against companies like Meta, Twitter, and Google if they didn’t remove what officials deemed misinformation.

Some Libertarian commentators hailed Doughty’s injunction as a victory for free speech and a blow to government censorship.

The Chicago Tribune, for example, editorialized July 7 that the federal government shouldn’t be censoring what Americans said on social networks. The newspaper said:

“Even now, having groups of advocates that pressure social media channels to remove what they see as damaging information is perfectly reasonable. Those groups are expressing their own rights to free speech and, as private entities, the social media channels can and should have their own rules on what they do and do not permit. …

“But that’s not what this case is about. The problem came up when the Biden administration opened up a back channel to sympathetic senior employees at Twitter. White House operatives openly pointed out problematic posts that they wanted taken down. …

“A private individual can attempt to do that. A government official should not. So says our Constitution.”

In classic Libertarian-theory language, the Tribune said: “In a free society, people have to be able to hear all sides, judge who they think can be trusted for themselves and navigate the free marketplace of ideas. Such is the choice Americans made long ago.” In fact, the newspaper said, the framers of the U.S. Constitution thought that “protecting free expression was, in the long run, the best protection that could be afforded an American.”

The New York Times appeared to view the situation through a Social Responsibility lens. The Times called Doughty’s injunction “a major development in a fierce legal fight over the boundaries and limits of speech online.” The injunction could hurt government “efforts to combat false and misleading narratives.”

Government officials, the Times reported July 4, had said they didn’t have the authority to order posts removed. Nevertheless, federal agencies and social media executives had long worked together to delete illegal or harmful material. These actions often involved child sexual abuse, human trafficking, and other criminal activity. Furthermore, federal officials had regularly shared information with social networks on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups.

The Associated Press reported that social media companies routinely took down posts that violated company standards but were rarely compelled to do so by the U.S. government. Meta, parent of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, for example, restricted access to 27 items that it thought violated U.S. laws during the first six months of 2020. Meta reported no U.S.-specific content restrictions during 2021 or the first six months of 2022.

But Meta announced soon after the July 4 injunction that the company would not moderate discourse on Threads, the Washington Post reported July 14. Instead of corporate monitoring, Meta planned to give individual users greater control over what content they saw and didn’t see. Meta was reportedly already using that strategy—an apparent nod to Libertarian-theory thinking—on Facebook and Instagram.

“I hope over time we’ll have less of a discussion about what our big, crude algorithmic choices are and more about whether you guys feel that the individual controls we’re giving you on Threads feel meaningful to you,” Meta Global Affairs President Nick Clegg said in the Post story.

Several news organizations quoted a White House official using classic Social Responsibility language in response to the July 4 injunction:

“Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people but make independent choices about the information they present.”

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, appeared to judge the current controversy from a Social Responsibility perspective as well. He told the New York Times July 4 that he didn’t consider what the government was accused of doing censorship.

“It can’t be that the government violates the First Amendment simply by engaging with the platforms about their content-moderation decisions and policies,” Jaffer said. “If that’s what the court is saying here, it’s a pretty radical proposition that isn’t supported by the case law.”

Trying to identify the press theory shaping reactions to the July 4 ruling gives us another way to analyze public discourse and understand why people behave the way they do.

What happened to ‘raising funds’?

Posted on July 18, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

The evolution of English is fascinating—and sometimes bewildering.

A July 18 New York Times story included this sentence:

“Prosecutors have been asking witnesses about the former president’s state of mind, as well as efforts to fund-raise off his false claims of widespread voter fraud and whether he knew he had lost.”

The use of “fund-raise” in that sentence as a verb stopped my reading.

Why would The New York Times, the one-time employer of Theodore Bernstein, author of The Careful Writer and Watch Your Language, use that verb form? What happened to “raise funds”?

When I started my journalism career in the early 1970s, nonprofit organizations and politicians regularly “raised funds.” Churches, for example, ran capital “fundraising” campaigns (an adjective from the transitive verb and direct object). Political candidates scheduled campaign “fundraisers” (a noun that again combined the verb with the direct object).

At first, “fundraising” and “fundraiser” were hyphenated in The Associate Press Stylebook. Once the usage became more common, the two compound forms evolved into single words.

Since 2010, I noticed the backward formation of the noun “fundraiser” into the verb “fund-raise” among my undergraduate students at Virginia Tech. The logic of their word usage was clear. Their word pattern followed the common practice among English speakers of turning nouns into verbs.

But why would anyone need to turn a noun into a new verb when English already had the idea of raising funds—the verb-object combination that led to “fundraiser” in the first place? My students repeatedly indicated that they had never heard of “raising funds.” They “fund-raised” in their student clubs. “Raising funds” sounded strange to them.

Writers at The New York Times may now think the same way. My reaction to what I see as unnecessary language evolution may indicate that I am channeling “Miss Thislebottom,” a Bernstein character known for outmoded rules of English usage. I am getting older.

What’s more practical than a good theory?

Posted on July 15, 2023July 18, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

I heard a recent NPR promotional message refer to “public service journalism.” I saw an Associated Press story about CBS News using solutions journalism to combat bad news fatigue.

These efforts to specify approaches to news storytelling got my attention. I wondered about the thinking behind them. One thing led to another, and my reflection covered more topics than I expected.

News executives at NPR and CBS are trying to (1) modify how they find and report stories and (2) change the way news consumers perceive what they receive each day on the air. The goal is to rebuild trust in traditional news organizations.

I have no issue with trying to reframe how Americans think about newsgathering. Print and broadcast news organizations—both local and national—have been losing credibility with Americans since the 1970s.

What’s in it for me?

Before an organization can change perceptions, however, it must know what the people it hopes to influence think or want. I have long advised clients—and taught students—to start communication planning by answering the question “What’s in it for me?” for the individuals and groups the organization wanted to influence.

Public service and solutions journalism may, indeed, be an effort to appeal to the self-interests of news consumers. But American journalists may need to consider more fundamental assumptions about their own views of modern society before they try to determine what will interest readers, listeners, or viewers. How do news executives themselves understand:

The nature of those they want to reach?
The nature of society?
The relationship of individuals to the state?
The nature of knowledge and truth?

These four topics were at the core of a seminal 1956 book that shaped my understanding of journalism: Four Theories of the Press. This text by Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm was required reading in many journalism schools from the late 1950s through the 1980s.

4 theories of the press

The four press theories are Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility, and Soviet. The Libertarian and Social Responsibility theories apply to news media in the United States and some Western European nations. U.S. journalists need to examine which theory is guiding their thinking and whether assumptions underlying that theory still apply to Americans today.

Theories explain and predict behaviors, outcomes, or relationships (How to Build Social Science Theories by Pamela Shoemaker, James W. Tankard Jr., and Dominic Lasorsa, 2004). We all use theories every day to decide how to live. We base our theories on observations, readings, experiences, or experiments. This evidence tells us what to expect from similar situations in the future. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin said in 1943 that nothing was more practical than a good theory. I concur.

Although working U.S. journalists may not recognize which theory they are using, that theory is still influencing what they do.

Libertarian press theory

The Libertarian press theory developed in England during the late 1600s. The theory reflects the thinking of John Milton, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and the philosophy of rationalism and natural rights.

Libertarian theory assumes that humans are rational and have the natural right to determine how they are governed. Humans will actively seek out information in a “free marketplace of ideas” to determine truth and keep track of what political leaders are doing. People individually weigh the facts and can distinguish truth from falsehood. Truth emerges from a “self-righting process,” overcomes falsehood, and becomes self-evident to everyone.

The press—usually privately owned—is a partner in the Libertarian search for truth. The press keeps citizens informed about government actions. The free flow of information allows citizens to keep government power in check.

The Libertarian “free marketplace of ideas” is open to anyone with adequate economic means to patriciate. In the beginning, “adequate means” meant access to a printing press or money to buy publications. Today, people may need only smartphones.

Nothing needs to control what is said or written in a Libertarian system. All people will be able to spot and ignore misinformation. In practice, however, Libertarian systems do limit some content: defamation, obscenity, or similar socially offensive material.

Libertarian thinking influenced America’s Founders and led to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Social Responsibility press theory

The Social Responsibility theory developed in the United States in the early 20th century because of changes in the media landscape. The thinking was distilled in A Free and Responsible Press, the 1947 report of The Commission on Freedom of the Press. The commission was a private group chaired by Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, and funded by Henry Luce, founder of Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and Fortune.

The commission assumed different things about humanity and society from Libertarian thinkers. While humans may be rational, they don’t always seek out information from all sides of a question or even see multiple news sources. Therefore, journalists need to help readers, listeners, and viewers find the truth by getting all the facts about an issue into the coverage that those individuals do see.

Furthermore, economic changes by the mid-20th century had limited access to the American marketplace of ideas. Media ownership was consolidated into the hands of a powerful few individuals or corporations. Media moguls resisted government controls on content. But they could limit who had access to the marketplace of ideas.

As a result, the commission maintained, this limited number of information gatekeepers could control the flow of ideas available to citizens and push agendas that would economically benefit corporate interests. That near-monopoly control of media content, the commission said, mandated that news organizations voluntarily operate responsibly for the good of society.

The marketplace of ideas in the Social Responsibility view moved from the minds of rational individuals to the pages and airways of news organizations. Those private operations needed to make sure that the public received all sides of a story and enough information to discover the truth and make wise political decisions. If news organizations didn’t voluntarily act responsibly, the commission warned, some other social force—either public or private—may need to step in to make sure journalists do the right thing.

By the time of the 1947 commission report, Social Responsibility concepts had already influenced the thinking behind the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934. Those laws governed the U.S. broadcast industry. The 1934 act established the Federal Communication Commission.

Consequently, our current media system includes vestiges of both theories. Furthermore, the theories are not mutually exclusive. Libertarians could choose to operate responsibly. They just didn’t have to.

Are theoretical assumptions still valid?

The spread of the Worldwide Web in the 1990s, the growth of social networks in the early 2000s, and the recent rise of mobile applications have drastically changed the media environment since the 1947 Commission on Freedom of the Press report. The media landscape again is much more Libertarian.

Economic barriers to the marketplace of ideas have been reduced. Big media companies compete with individuals on smartphones and computers. Anyone with internet or cellular access can now share information through a mobile application, social network, or website with vast numbers of people. Receivers don’t usually have to pay to see that information, either.

But are Libertarian assumptions still valid? Will humans seek out information on all sides of a question? Can they distinguish truth from falsehood? Do they look to news organizations to provide the information that citizens need to check government power?

What about Social Responsibility assumptions? Do news organizations need to include all sides of a story to help news consumers determine the truth? Do readers, listeners, and viewers want to see multiple viewpoints in their news coverage? Should news reports go beyond basic facts (which are supposed to let readers, listeners, or viewers make up their own minds)? Should content help people analyze social issues or political questions and consider solutions? Do news consumers expect the press to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? Should journalists devote so much effort to reporting on political issues, government actions, or community problems?

Applying the theories today

Serving the public interest or offering ways to address social problems—approaches represented by the NPR and CBS journalism labels—appears to reflect Social Responsibility thinking and the assumptions about news consumers behind that theory.

Journalists are in privileged positions. They have unfettered access to the marketplace of ideas. Consequently, these reporters have a responsibility to look beyond the basic who, what, when, where, and why of a story to see how they can help citizens find truth and contribute to a better society. The Social Responsibility theory would predict that news consumers would respect that approach, appreciate the utilitarian reporting, and use the content to make informed decisions about government.

The modern, more Libertarian, media landscape, however, has diminished the influence of traditional news organizations. People can easily hear other voices—if those individuals are willing to seek out various viewpoints. News consumers determine for themselves what content is most appealing and credible.

Research, however, repeatedly indicates that Americans live in partisan echo chambers. Party affiliation often determines which news sources people use, what they see as truth, and whether they will continue subscribing. An award-winning research paper slated for presentation at the August 2023 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference found, among other things, that if news content didn’t continually gratify consumers, they were not likely to continue subscribing to a news service (another example of “what’s in it for me?” as well as uses and gratification theory—another topic).

NPR and CBS, by the way, are trusted more by liberals than conservatives, according to Pew Research.

The continuing perception—promoted by some journalists and by many media critics—that traditional news organizations have uncontrolled power to influence public opinion—may further weaken any efforts to be seen as trustworthy. The Gallup Organization reported July 6 that faith in U.S. institutions—including newspapers and television news—was near historic lows. Only 18% of Americans had a great deal or fair amount of faith in newspapers. Only 14% had similar faith in TV news. The all-time low for newspapers was 16% and for television news was 11%. Both low points were reached in 2022.

I have no magic solutions for building trust in news organizations. I don’t want to discourage news executives from finding new ways to appeal to readers, listeners, or viewers. I support thorough reporting. Presenting all sides of a story is the socially responsible thing to do—and should be acceptable to Libertarians as well.

But I recognize that confronting people with ideas they oppose—especially in today’s partisan environment—may not be the best way to attract new subscribers or build trust. What socially responsible journalists might call broad, balanced reporting might not please news consumers who hold certain political opinions and could simply be rejected as “fake news.”

Nevertheless, how you understand the current media landscape, the nature of news consumers, the social role of journalists, and the best way to develop news content depends on which theory you think describes the American press system.