But How to Define Quality?
It is both difficult and controversial to try to define, much less quantify,
the journalistic excellence that Knight’s creed described
It is both difficult and controversial to try to define, much less quantify,
the journalistic excellence that Knight’s creed described. You can
get an argument in any newsroom or any bar frequented by newspaper
people about whether a specific story or series of stories is ‘‘good
journalism.’’ Arguments about the relative journalistic merits of individual
newspapers are as endless as they are unavoidable, because
much depends on the subjective standards of the person doing the
judging. Sometimes the true excellence of journalistic effort isn’t seen
or felt for years after the act; often the result of journalistic excellence
is more cumulative than immediately specific.
However, some indicators are available, and the Pulitzer Prize is
one. That premier recognition is bestowed by Columbia University,
and the selections are made through a jurying process carried out, in
the case of the newspaper awards, by panels of journalists backed by
a board of trustees also composed of journalists. Any such process is,
of course, subject to the politics of the profession, and over the ninety
years of its history, the Pulitzer board’s decisions have often been
controversial.
The awards emphasize public service and extraordinary dedication
to sound journalism. Whether, in a given year, the awards go to ‘‘the
best’’ journalism is certainly subject to debate, but at a minimum, the
prizes recognize substance and relevance rather than superficiality
and exploitativeness. Thus, a look at the recent history of those
awards is both instructive and alarming.
Pulitzers are given for specific examples of outstanding journalism,
such as a series of investigative reports or coverage of a disaster, or
for an individual’s body of work over a given year. There is no Pulitzer
for an individual newspaper’s sustained good journalism over
time, so the awards do not reflect that important dimension of a newspaper’s
mission. Occasionally a major news opportunity—a plane
crash, a flood, social upheaval—will fall into a mediocre newspaper’s
lap and its coverage will earn it a Pulitzer. For the most part, though,
newspapers that win Pulitzers consistently are also consistently good
at their broader mission.
For this analysis, five major institutions have been grouped together:
The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles
Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Associated Press. Because of
their size, two-tiered stock (in the case of three of them), and operating
arrangements, these organizations are less susceptible to shortterm
financial pressures than most of the rest of the profession.We’ll
call them the Big Five. The number (and percentage) of Pulitzers
won, by decade, are as follows:
|
|
Total Prizes |
Big 5 |
Knight rider |
All Other Newspaper |
|
1980-s |
136 |
35 (26%) |
32 (23%) |
69 (51%) |
|
1990-s |
141 |
52 (37%) |
12 (8%) |
77 (55%) |
|
2000-2004 |
70 |
42 (60%) |
4 (6%) |
23 (34%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least two observations leap from those figures: Domination by
the Big Five has grown over twenty-five years—or, put another way,
awards to non–Big Five organizations have dropped—and Knight
Ridder’s proportion of awards has dropped from significant to negligible.
Unavoidable questions suggested by those numbers include: What
is driving the shift in awards toward those relatively sheltered Big
Five institutions? Has that wide a performance gap opened between
the Big Five and the rest of American newspaper journalism? Why is
that? What is behind Knight Ridder’s declining Pulitzer performance
over twenty-five years? And what do those answers say about the
status and course of newspaper journalism in the United States?
Another way of judging quality, arguably at least from the standpoint
of public judgment and acceptance, is circulation. Weekday
newspaper circulation in the United States has declined since 1990 by
about 6 percent in absolute terms, but the situation is actually much
bleaker. Prior to 1970, more daily newspapers were sold than there
were U.S. households. About 1970, what is called the household penetration
ratio reached 1:1. By 1990, household penetration had fallen
to only 60 percent, and by 2004 it was at nearly 50 percent, meaning
that only half of the nation’s households read a newspaper daily.
Using those numbers to buttress an argument about quality, or lack of
it, is too simplistic however, because many newspapers and newspaper
companies have deliberately excluded, or are indifferent about, portions
of their potential audience because of bottom-line considerations.
Effect on Public Life
The implications of the decline in the public service orientation of
many newspapers and newspaper companies are profound for our society.
Journalistic performance and a viable democracy are fully interdependent.
So the decline in journalistic quality, as exemplified by the
erosion of foundational missions and dedication to public service, has
been accompanied by a decline in the quality of public life, which is
the way democracy is expressed and experienced. People ill served
by dollar-driven, market-oriented journalism become alienated from
public life, more inwardly focused, and cynical about the process of
democracy. Today’s journalism is clearly implicated in, and its freedom
threatened by, that alienation.
Thus a detailed examination of the forces acting on journalism has
meaning beyond one company and one set of newspapers, though this
examination uses one company as a framework and exemplar.
