How does this statement grab you: The media, and local TV news in particular, are more important to the daily workings of democracy than the ballot box itself. But we squander most of that potential, primarily through preoccupation with other concerns.
Reams have been written about the “poor quality” of local TV news. We’re all off chasing car wrecks, spectacular fires, police pursuits, stabbings, shootings and dime-a-dozen muggings, when we ought to be covering politics, local government, civil rights, diversity, the environment and so on. If critics are to be believed, the full list of our failures is far longer, but this will do for starters.
Let me say right now that I am not a believer in the “news as medicine” philosophy. People will not sit still for newscasts that are not engaging, compelling and relevant to their interests. Newscasts must find a way to appeal to a broad audience or they simply won’t survive. But the concepts of ratings and journalism do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Over the past 10 years I’ve been trying to prove that last statement through a news philosophy I’ve come to call “Viewer Advocacy.” In this case, “advocacy” does not mean espousing a given position, but rather championing the right of common people to be heard and to get a response from those in power. The ideas of giving voice to the voiceless and of holding the powerful accountable are nothing new, of course. But Viewer Advocacy also contains a strong competitive element. In fact, it was conceived as a defense against tabloid TV.
The idea is that if a station wants to fight a tabloid competitor, then it must showcase and take credit for its journalism as effectively as a tabloid TV station promotes what it does. While I won’t bog this piece down with a discussion of specific tactics, suffice it to say that at WFTX-TV in Cape Coral, Fla., we showcase ourselves as viewer champions in our news product and in our promotions. Our viewers know that our slogan, “In Your Corner,” means that we’ll ask the tough questions about important issues, that we won’t give up easily, and that, when appropriate, we’ll show citizens how they can help us pry loose some answers.
What this means in practical terms is that powerful figures in our market who used to believe that “no comment” means “your story is dead,” now know it means that not only will we have a story today, but we’ll also have one tomorrow, and the next day, and the next and the next. On occasion a colleague will question whether this approach is objective. I argue that not only do journalists have no duty to go away quietly when public officials tell us to do so, but that our obligation is just the opposite, to make lots of noise. It is true that the public, generally speaking, doesn’t like newscasters to express opinions. When we express opinions about whether that process is working, I have found that not only does the public not object, it often applauds.
Example: In February of last year, viewers complained that the feds were seizing shipments of prescription drugs from Canada. We weren’t the only station to do the story, but we were the only one to keep at it night after night. We told our viewers what we were doing. After a week of government stonewalling, we invited viewers to assist us, suggesting they call the White House or one of our U.S. senators to help us ask questions. They did, and how. Two days later the feds admitted to an “enforcement enhancement.” Feedback to us from viewers was overwhelmingly positive. (I’m proud to add that this series of stories recently won a regional Edward R. Murrow Award in the category of continuing coverage.)
Part of Viewer Advocacy is an understanding that the media, too, are among the powerful the public has a right to hold accountable. Recently we announced a “Viewers’ Bill of Rights” and posted it on our Web site. In that document we state clearly what we stand for and provide a mechanism for the public to hold us to it.
Part of what drives this is personal. I was a viewer before I was a journalist. As the former, I always thought journalists got it wrong — that the First Amendment was not a right nor a gift bestowed on journalists from on high, but rather a covenant with fellow citizens. In naming journalism as the only commercial enterprise to receive constitutional protection, our nation’s founders expected something in return. Journalists’ part of the bargain is to help uphold democracy. Advocating the right of common people to be heard is more important today than it’s ever been. People speak at the ballot box once every two years for the most part. But through the modern news media, those in power learn a little bit about public opinion every day. That process has a continuous effect on public policy.
The Viewer Advocacy philosophy helps stations focus on that bargain and — importantly — succeed with their end of it commercially. In my last two markets — Tucson, Ariz., and Tampa, Fla. — both stations moved ahead with it. We’ve been doing it only a short time here in Cape Coral, but already public feedback has been wonderful — so much so that the local media critic called one day to ask, “What on earth are you people doing?” and wound up writing an article about Viewer Advocacy.
Viewer Advocacy requires stations to select topics carefully — stories that typically turn out to be issue-based — and pursue them the right way. This, in turn, requires a high level of staff buy-in, and one or more “evangelists” to help get that buy-in and maintain it. TV newsrooms are notorious for not providing enough feedback to the staff, but this is an endeavor where managers absolutely must find time to keep the feedback flowing. Arguably, it’s easier to be tabloid. Some other stations are trying this. But the jury is very much out on the question of whether Viewer Advocacy will long survive in our fad-driven industry.
If Viewer Advocacy does help uphold democracy, then the public ought to demand at least one provider of this type of journalism — complete with a Viewers’ Bill of Rights or something like it — in every city in America, and then reward that provider with viewership. Like all bargains, this will only work if both sides uphold their commitments. Here’s hoping they do.
