Have you ever read the newspaper and felt cheated? How does one verifiably identify the quality of their local news sources? Does a litmus test exist, with measurable standards, that can help us make sense of it all?
The answer? YES.
GradetheNews.org is a website authored by journalists concerned about the lack of ethics in journalism. This website was instrumental in helping me put numbers to perceived bad reporting. Here's how it works.
Each news story is graded on the following 3 standards.
1. Core Stories vs. Peripheral Stories
Core stories include – government, natural disasters, education, crime, health, environment, science/technology, major fires/accidents/emergencies, weather, social issues, consumer reporting, and the military
Peripheral stories include – Sports, celebrities, minor fires/accidents, human interest pieces, and others not fitting any of the above categories
Core stories are worth more than peripheral stories. 2 points are awarded for a core story, 1 for peripheral.
2. Knowledge Impact
High Impact vs. Low Impact
High impact translates to how many people does the subject effect? A lost dog story might emotionally impact many readers, but it doesn’t affect their daily lives, while a tax increase or a natural disaster will likely affect many people for an extended period of time.
High knowledge impact stories receive 3 points, low impact stories get nothing. Sometimes the impact is hard to determine, these articles will receive 1.5 points
3. Named Sources
The standard requirement for newsprint is 5 named sources. Named sources help the reader distinguish the importance of information given and also help identify possible biases. More sources help present diverse viewpoints, thus giving a better overall view of the subject at hand.
5 named sources receive 2 points; failure to meet this requirement earns no points.
The highest possible score an article can earn is a 7 (lowest would be a 1). Article scores are added up and then divided by the number articles written to give a average score. Grades are as follows.
A = 5.5 - 7
B = 4.5 - 5.4
C = 3.5 - 4.4
D = 2.5 - 3.4
F = less than 2.5
So far all standards are in accordance with GradetheNews.org guidelines. I changed a few aspects to better relate to this community. Because I don’t have time or resources to grade every article (and if I did all papers would get F’s) I only graded the first 4 stories (or less if enough stories were not available) and I only graded local stories. All national/world type stories written by AP writers were ignored. If a national subject is involved in local life (i.e. Rudy Guliani’s visit to Bluffton) then it is included.
I wanted to get an accurate feel of local newspaper performance and to do this I took a sample of random days over the period of 3 months. I did this in an effort to account for slow or “off” news days. The process wasn’t perfect, but I’d make the argument that it was fair. The grades are as follows:
Island Packet: Average Score 3.72, Lowest Score: 3.1, Highest Score: 4.75
Grade – C
Bluffton Today: Average Score 2.79, Lowest Score 1.0, Highest Score 4.33
Grade – D
As a side note, both papers produced 1 story each that scored a 7. This proves that staff/resources/gumption exists at both organizations to meet a higher standard.
This entry probably won't make me any friends in the bullpens of the IP or BT, but my hope is that if we demand better, more responsible news reporting, or at least know how to recognize when we don't see it, news agencies will make the extra effort to do the right thing. Feel free to contact either the Island Packet and/or the Bluffton Today and ask them how they feel about responsible journalism, I'm sure they look forward to hearing from you.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Beaufort County Newspaper Report Cards
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
At last - a definitive and quantitative way to define "news" from "not news".
Thank you, MH!
Squeezing 5 named sources into a 15-inch story is a little otherworldly, and I'm not sure it's a true "measure" of how well the story is reported.
Most times, reporters talk to more sources than they name. Even many large-market metro newspapers fail to name 5 sources in most stories.
Just my two cents.
I agree Peter, but that's my point. If/when a newspaper puts ad space above a story, well it shows us where the priorities lie doesn't it?
Sure, but they've got to make money somehow, right? If they don't make money, then you'll end up with no news. It's not a government-subsidized industry (Thank God).
I'd be curious which stories were graded. I agree with Peter that this grading method is suspect. You can easily pick 4 stories in today's washington post that are minimal impact and talk to fewer than five sources, but are still examples of good journalism. Hell, the story last week about the Medal of Honor recipient at the White House didn't cite more than the Army's narrative, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good story.
I have all the stories graded written down in a notebook. You can judge my methods if you like, but the point was to grade several issues over a period of time and use the aggregate information as a bellwether. I chose stories based on the guidelines of gradethenews.com. Prominent stories on the front page (which utterly decimated BT’s grades) and local stories found toward the front of the paper.
I understand the “pay the bills” mantra but there are those who claim no news is better than bad news…
As a sports reporter, I also take issue with the grading system. By rule, a sports story cannot earn more than three points in this system. But that's the least of my worries about this system.
I'm all about holding media outlets accountable, Mad Hatter, but I'm not sure this is the best way to do so. A step in the right direction, for sure, but the grading system needs some tweaking, in my opinion.
The biggest problem is the system only grades based on subject matter and number of sources. Here's a hypothetical example of why that doesn't work:
You could have two stories in different newspapers about the same subject. If they both use five or more sources (or fewer than five), they get the same score, regardless of how well the story is written, what visual elements are used to help tell the story, how thorough the reporting, etc. None of that matters in this system.
Can you not see how these criteria do not even come close to guaranteeing two stories meet the same standard of journalism?
Just some food for thought. Maybe you can tweak it and develop your own system. Or maybe good journalism is one of those "I know it when I see it" things.
-- Justin Jarrett, sports reporter, The Island Packet
jj I appreciate you taking time to comment, but you left out the 3rd and probably most critical leg of this grading system. That being knowledge impact (3 points). Puppy dogs and sports stories might be emotional string pullers, but they don't really impact our daily lives for any significant amount of time.
Could this grading system be adjusted/made better? Most assuredly. This was my attempt to take the "know it when I see it" and put a verifiable number to it. I've seen some atrocious writing (I won't say where) and I'm baffled as to how that got past any editor, but then again those badly written stories tend to reflect low scores in other areas anyway.
Still it's a start, and it means a lot to have newspaper folks come here and candidly discuss this issue with me.
MH, I didn't intend to leave out "knowledge impact," it's just that it really only pertains to subject matter, at least when comparing two stories. "Core/periphery" and "knowledge impact" both grade on subject matter, and then you have the number of sources, so there's no way to account for good/bad reporting or good/bad writing. That's my qualm.
I know it would be difficult to add some sort of "quality-control" element to this grading system without bringing in subjectivity, but it's hard to assign a grade to journalism without some subjective measurement. Unfortunately.
OK, here's my 2 cents.
On "peripheral" vs. "core" stories: On today's 1A in the Packet, we ran the following stories - one on a local soldier who won the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, two on the beach house fire and one on flight patterns at HH airport. I would say, under this grading system, that only the flight patterns have direct impact on our readers - and those are in specific areas on the island. Does that mean those other stories have no impact? Of course not. They were all interesting, well-written and very well-reported stories.
I also take huge issue with the concept that features and sports rate less than "news" stories. Says who?!? Those stories are incredibly valuable to people's lives. We provide tips on navigating personal relationships, entertainment guides, travel, food and recipe tips, etc., etc. We also provide a ton of coverage of local sporting events.Those stories are incredibly important to many readers. In fact, tell the Boston Globe readers that the Sox winning the World Series is not important because it's sports!
On the five sources: Let's take the soldier story. Peter Frost had three sources (the dad of the soldier, the Pentagon and the Army report). Does that mean there's less value because we didn't have six names in it? I absolutely hate one-source stories, as do most editors. But there is also flexibility on every single story. What works best for that market? What works best for that story? Did we get all the facts? Was the reporting and writing objective, and most importantly, accurate? I'd rather meet those standards than an arbitrary number.
I invite our readers to call me (706-8197) and come in to one of our daily news meetings. It will give you some idea of how news stories are assigned, written and reported.
Here's the deal with news gathering: Journalists must be open-minded to all sorts of stories. Give readers a mix of stories, from the tragic to the ones that directly impact people's lives to the entertaining to the just plain weird. Why? Because they're fun and people need a laugh every now and then.
Flexibility and being open-minded are key to understanding that not all things appeal to all readers. We just try to do the best we can and hope that we've contributed to our society by being a public watchdog, by writing good stories and once in a while by entertaining folks.
Whew. I think I'm done.
Sally Mahan
Managing Editor
The Island Packet
Wow, ok first of all I do take great issue with sports stories or human interest stories when other stories, important stories, do not get the attention they deserve. I did not make up this grading system, journalists at colleges teaching journalism did. Now the Island Packet did not necessarily spark the fire in me to research this. In fact it was the Bluffton Today’s BLATANT disregard to hard stories, hand delivered unto them, silver platter and all, that got this ball rolling.
I pulled the IP into the fracas because I saw a golden opportunity to evaluate all local newspapers under the same standards (my own attempt at objectivity). So I did, and to the IP’s credit, all that have posted here from the IP did so without character attacks or getting nasty (you really have no idea what a pleasant change of pace that is) and though I might not agree with your points of view, I can at least respect the differences between us.
But I can’t help but feel somehow I failed to get the point across that I was trying to make. Maybe the fact that papers are looking to entertain more so than inform is where the message is being lost.
Mad hatter, I think you made excellent points and certainly give us things to consider. It's always a good thing when readers are involved and passionate about watchdog journalism.
Thanks for keeping us on our toes.
Sally
Post a Comment