The Debate Over Civic Journalism Continues

By: Allan Wolper's "Ethics Corner: RIP, civic journalism" column on April 14 provoked a torrent of e-mail. Pro and con letters were almost evenly split, but many of the "pros" declined to go public with their praise. Here is a sampling of readers' letters.

Centering on Civic Journalism

Allan Wolper's column about civic journalism is grossly misleading and unfair both to the scores of journalists who promote it and the hundreds who practice it ["RIP, civic journalism," April 14, p. 26].

Wolper cites no evidence to back up his outrageous claims because there is none. The hundreds of journalists involved in the practice can attest to the fact that Pew Center for Civic Journalism funding did not inspire them to "paw at their computer terminals instead of walking to where the news was: at PTA meetings, libraries, police and fire stations ... .''

Quite the contrary: They developed new ways to tap into the community, to diversify their sources, and report stories from the bottom up instead of from the top down.

Moreover, civic journalists can refute Wolper's claim that civic journalism establishes "connections to those who want to retain their power rather than to those who need to be empowered to improve their lives.''

Quite the contrary: Civic journalism whetted civic involvement that has inspired many newcomers to run for public office.

Most outrageous is the accusation that civic journalism "appears to have encouraged journalists to routinely engage in bad behavior." That claim is followed by three examples of journalists becoming involved in overt politicking, but Wolper cites no connection with civic journalism because there is none.

The "ethics issue" he raises, "that Pew funding distorted newsroom operations," is laughable. Newsrooms proposed what they wanted to cover and directed how they would cover it -- hardly a distortion of newsroom operations.

Finally, the Pew Center never gave any single news organization $177,000 in funding. The Pew Center since 1993 has modestly supported 120 projects, fewer than 15% of the 800-plus civic projects it has collected for archiving at the University of Wisconsin.

Civic-journalism projects have triggered significant changes in communities large and small. A series in The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer measurably reduced crime. A Portland (Maine) Press Herald project engaged the entire state in addressing solutions to alcoholism. A
series in the Press & Sun-Bulletin of Binghamton, N.Y., fostered an economic turnaround. Savannah (Ga.) Morning News reporting inspired educational reform.

More than 20,000 people now receive the Pew Center's J-Flash electronic newsletter, a new professional organization has formed (http://www.pjnet.org), and a successor project has launched (http://www.j-lab.org).

Wolper is entitled to represent his opinions but not to misrepresent the facts.

Jan Schaffer, Director
Pew Center for Civic Journalism
Jack Nelson, Chairman
Pew Center Advisory Board
Former Washington Bureau Chief, Los Angeles Times

Through Thick and Thin

One thing early innovators in civic journalism had to do was develop thick skins. We did.

Another thing we had to do was get over that journalistic habit of writing stories without first taking into account our own biases. We did that, too.

Perhaps the most important shift that civic journalism caused to occur among some journalists was humble appreciation for first listening, then reporting.

Allan Wolper seems to have missed Civic Journalism 101, 201, and 301. His recent tirade in E&P reflects an astonishing lack of understanding of what civic journalism's pioneers say they learned.

What I found most puzzling about this column is the implication that somehow civic journalism was shamed and discredited and sent to the scrap heap of journalism history by editors all over the country. To the contrary, there ended up being no debate, as far as I can tell, about the central premise of civic journalism.

At its core, civic journalism simply makes the argument that, to survive in the 21st century, journalists must do much more to strengthen the ties to the communities that they serve. The mechanisms for strengthening those connections were varied and wide, and the Pew Center for Civic Journalism never dictated what these should be. Even those editors who didn't like the term "civic" or "public" journalism agreed by an overwhelming majority that this engagement with the community is vital to the future of news.

Civic journalism isn't a substitute for other good work in the profession. Its techniques are but tools in the complex world of modern media. They can be abused. They can be misused. Sometimes, they don't work.

But, for a decade, the innovations undertaken with the help of the Pew Center breathed life into stagnant, defensive newsrooms. Lessons learned there have, in my view, invigorated an entire generation of editors and reporters. To dance on the grave of civic journalism, as Wolper did, suggests only that the forces resistant to constructive change in our profession remain entrenched.

Chris Peck
Editor
The Commercial Appeal
Memphis, Tenn.

Advise and Consent

Your "Ethics Corner" column on civic journalism in the April 14 E&P was excellent. I forwarded it to the almost 600 members of the Journalism Education Association listserv. Thank you.

Robert Greenman
Author
The Adviser's Companion
A guide for high-school newspaper advisers

Running With the Devil

Allan Wolper's description of civic journalism's alleged sins is inconsistent with my 15 years of experience running with, and being one of, those civic rascals Wolper wants eradicated.

Wolper says the civic/public movement has been about establishing "connections to those who want to retain their power rather than to those who need to be empowered to improve their lives." To the contrary, the best of the civic projects I know, and have admired, focus on unrepresented voices and concerns. The Civic Mapping training funded by the Pew Center, for example, continues to be a powerful tool helping journalists get beyond the usual sources and find the real drivers and connectors of a community. The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer neighborhood crime project was powerful and effective because it empowered ordinary people to take action. The focus of most civic journalism that I know has been on citizens, not traditional newsmakers.

Wolper describes civic journalists tied to their computers and absent from where news is made, such as town halls, libraries, and schools. Wrong again. A primary thrust of civic/public journalism has been to escape the confines of newsrooms and go where citizens and readers gather. The purpose for getting journalists into the community is to hear genuine conversation, not the journalistic shorthand of trumped-up conflict and controversy.

Wolper's contention that Pew money distorted newsroom priorities is a stretch. Those very newsrooms proposed projects to the center, not the center to the newsrooms. His contention that civic journalism encouraged "bad civic behavior" is inferential and unsupported by evidence.

Wolper got one thing right. It's indeed a shame that it fell to the Pew Center to fund worthwhile civic experiments that news companies should have done themselves. The Pew Center and its leadership deserve thanks, not condemnation, for the contributions it made to our craft's efforts in the 1990s to re-examine our mission and purpose to better connect with our readers and communities. We're the better for its efforts.

Gil Thelen
Executive Editor/Senior Vice President
The Tampa (Fla.) Tribune

The Nutty Professor?

Allan Wolper's nutty attack on civic journalism and the Pew Center for Civic Journalism is so off-base, it's hard to know where to begin a rebuttal.

Wolper doesn't have a clue about the ethics and values that are the foundation of civic journalism. Reconnecting journalism to communities, framing stories in ways that make them meaningful to readers, and insisting on relevance to community life hardly constitutes the loony, misguided, disconnected advocacy journalism of Wolper's imagination.

And his assertion that civic journalists somehow avoid contact with people and events by doing phone journalism is flat-out wrong. Civic journalism is all about working the shoe leather.

The Pew Center's sunset removes from the scene an institution dedicated to the exploration of craft change and innovation. Wolper's silly, misguided, and counterproductive balderdash is evidence the center leaves the field with much work still to be done.

Steven A. Smith
Editor
The Spokesman-Review
Spokane, Wash.

Notes of a Hanging Judge

Civic journalism is alive and well. It's being taught in many high-profile college journalism programs. It even creeps into high-school newspaper judging: While admitting an investigative piece my students did in their newspaper was well-reported and well-written, the judge disapproved of it because it, quote, didn't inspire the community to raise its sights and benefit the community responsibly, unquote, because of the, quote, negative picture it gave, unquote. And that it should have highlighted solutions rather than deal with problems. Oh, brother.

As I've said before and will gladly say again, civic journalism involves journalists who can't measure up to being adults writing for the community in a way that ensures no one else has to measure up to being an adult, either. It's all about inspiration and motivation and good self-image and not stirring things up and not making real life get in the way of life as a movie.

As education for democracy, it's a zero; as education for life with anything disturbing painted over with pastels and butterflies, it's perfect. It's about spoon-feeding, manipulation, and stage managing.

Watching the St. Louis Post-Dispatch flounder during its civic-journalism era was horrible. Seeing how a new editor in chief came in and made the Post-Dispatch a NEWSpaper again was beautiful.

Wayne Michael Brasler
Journalism Chairman/Student Publications Adviser
University High School
Chicago

Lost in the Comfort Zone

Allan Wolper does not understand that reporters are not the backbone of journalism. Journalists are the backbone of journalism. (Not every reporter is a journalist.) A true journalist is a citizen first.

Mr. Wolper apparently has not spoken to some of the voiceless citizens who have been covered in civic-journalism-inspired stories. African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and, yes, even white males have found a voice through civic journalism.

Mr. Wolper writes, "The media have lost the trust of people because corporate profit-mongers nickle-and-dime newsrooms to death." That's how he sees the problem because it serves the interest of those in his social comfort zone. It's quite obvious that people don't trust media because reporters and editors do not live or understand the average person's lifestyle. Mr. Wolper and many media executives do not live on the margins of U.S. life. Mr. Wolper could not see this problem because he is part of it.

As for the Pew Center providing "cash to its favored newsrooms": First, it was never much money for each project, just enough to inspire good work; second, no one on the Pew board had a favorite newsroom or media outlet. If that were the case, I would have publicly resigned.

Benjamin A. Davis
CEO
MediaFriendly
Somerset, N.J.
Adviser
Pew Center for Civic Journalism

Credible? Incredible!

I have read several credible critiques of civic journalism as this movement has emerged over the past decade. But I must take exception to Allan Wolper's column.

My paper made an informed decision early in the Pew Center's existence not to apply for its funding, but we did take advantage of its seminars, training, and publications. The results were better community coverage -- not worse.

I believe in informed dissent and constructive criticism. Mr. Wolper's article served neither purpose. May the last word on civic journalism be more and better stories of the real people of America's communities and their efforts, large and small, to thrive in our democratic society.

Democracy in action, that's the civic in civic journalism. And, in my opinion, the journalism speaks for itself.

Karen Lin Clark
Assistant Metro Editor
The San Diego Union-Tribune