(The following is reprinted from the Winter 1994 issue of Nieman Reports.)

In response to a request from Nieman Reports for flagrant judgment calls by editors and reporters, ombudsmen sent the accompanying reports.

Readers' Caution Exceeds Editors'

By Henry McNulty
The Hartford Courant

The reading public, so we are told, increasingly distrusts and dislikes the press; when it comes to credibility, journalists are right up there (or down there) with used-car salesmen, politicians and televangelists. Much of this antipathy, I am convinced, comes about because journalists and readers inhabit two different worlds governed by different value systems.

If common ground is to be found between news producers and news consumers, I'm convinced it must begin with a discussion of the values we share and don't share. The newspaper is the perfect place for such a dialogue, but unfortunately it's hardly ever used for that purpose.

Twice a year, however, I devote my ombudsman's column to an examination of the values gap; I give readers a kind of "you-be-the-editor" quiz, almost always focusing on ethics.

Most of the cases I use spring from actual news events. I describe a scenario, then give a choice of editorial actions, usually boiling down to "print it" or "don't print it." Typically, hundreds of readers respond. For each quiz, I also poll my newspaper's top editors to find out how they would handle the same situations. In a follow-up column, I report the percentages of readers and of editors voting each way on each question.

The examples involve the everyday choices faced by those of us in the news business. Which facts should be included? Should we show someone innocently committing an unsafe or illegal act? Do we report a rumor? What about offensive language or actions? When are the media invading someone's privacy? What happens when timely reporting interferes with thorough fact-checking? Which news should be withheld from the public?

In making such choices, there are no "right" or "wrong" answers; there are only judgments based on personal or professional senses of right and wrong. Readers disagree and editors will, too. But what interests me most are the ways in which news producers (journalists) as a group fail to agree on the ethical choices. In several years of doing these quizzes, I've discovered that:

• Readers are more cautious than editors. They will often say they don't want journalists to be censors or to limit the public's access to the news. But in answering these quizzes, readers consistently and predictably are much more willing than editors to withhold facts and be circumspect in reporting. Readers' responses are more varied than editors'. Often, their votes will split 50-50 or 60-40 on an issue. The editors, on the other hand, frequently split 80-20 or 90-10. A few times, 100 percent of the editors have chosen the same solution to an ethical problem.
• Readers place a high value on personal privacy. When an issue boils down to the people's right to know versus an individual's right to be let alone, most readers usually side with the individual, even at the expense of their own knowledge. Editors almost always favor the right to be informed.
• Readers are more concerned about issues of "taste" than are editors. If gory pictures and graphic descriptions report the news effectively, editors tend to say: use them. Readers, by and large, disagree. Also, readers are more cautious about using profanity and vulgarity in quotes, or in reporting on sexual matters, than editors are.
• Readers aren't convinced that relatives of famous people are newsworthy just because of the relationship. If the brother of the mayor is arrested for drunken driving, editors usually decide that the kinship should be reported in the police item. Readers generally vote the other way, saying the man is responsible for his own actions and it's unfair to mention his more famous sibling.

The responses to my quizzes reveal other differences between how readers view the world and how journalists see it. But simply to acknowledge different points of view, though a necessary starting place, won't do much to narrow the gap between newspapers and their readers. If each side remains convinced that the other is a bunch of valueless dolts, not much has been accomplished. A dialogue is needed.

Publishing the responses to the quiz lets each side see where readers and journalists agree and where they differ. Equally important is the reinforcement of the truth that there often are splits on most issues among the members of each group -- readers and editors. That's a revelation for some people, who believe everyone shares their point of view.

In the newsroom, it's also important for the news producers to be aware of the ways in which they and their readers disagree on ethical issues. Such awareness will inevitably bring responsible journalists closer to readers.

Out, out damned statistic

By John Sweeney
The News Journal
Wilmington, Delaware

A statistic is like a magic wand. Or so we Americans think. It can prove a point, silence doubts and end all arguments. To journalists, an "authoritative source" holds even more magical power. Journalists believe all they have to do is accurately quote the source, thereby making it a fact and capable of withstanding any veracity test.

Marry the statistic to the authoritative source and you may approach media immortality. Once a figure pops up on the screen, it tends to be repeated over and over. Variations may occur, but few journalists challenge the truth of the claim.

The Newhouse News Service recently did all of us a favor by collecting the following comments, all of them made on one day in Washington:

• "Every nine seconds an American woman is battered -- and somebody looks the other way." -- Esta Soler, Executive Director, Family Violence Prevention Fund, during a press conference. June 30.
• "Every 13 seconds a woman is battered in America." -- Vicki Coffey, executive director, Chicago Abused Women, testifying before the House subcommittee on crime and criminal justice. June 30.
• "Every 15 seconds a woman is battered in a domestic dispute." -- U.S. Rep. Thomas J. Manton, Democrat, New York, in a press release. June 30.
• "In the United States today, a woman is battered every 18 seconds." -- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, in a statement to the House Committee on Crime and Criminal Justice. June 30.

Domestic abuse is a horrifying problem and journalists should publicize it mightily. But common sense tells us all of these statements cannot be true.

Which one is? Are any? Any why haven't journalists nailed it down?

We're supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, but aren't we also supposed to check the numbers? Numbers magic works across the political spectrum. From the right we learn everyone everywhere is in imminent danger from violent criminals. From the left we hear that one in 10 teenagers fired a gun at someone. And on milk cartons we read that one in 50 kids has mysteriously disappeared.

Do any of these claims make sense? Are any of them true?

We're suckers for statistical studies. Advice for opinion manipulators: If you want your message to get big play in the press, say it in numbers.

Especially, alarming numbers.

Whether it's the numbers of domestic abuse, homeless people, missing children, drug dealers or welfare queens, we journalists tend to pass along the statistics, satisfied that the authoritative source is correct.

But that's not the way it is supposed to be.

We're supposed to be skeptics. Remember: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Of course, if mom said a study showed she loved us, we wouldn't bother.

Non-P.C. photos and second-day headlines

By Larry Fiquette
St. Louis Post Dispatch

In newspapering, "close call" is the name of the game. Because almost every decision is a judgment call, "lapses" (second-guesses) show up in a lot of different stripes.

Photos are among the most troubling: should the paper print photos showing non-P.C. behavior -- bikers wearing no helmets, drivers not buckled up, celebrities smoking, etc.?

How about printing a photo of a black child decorating a Halloween window drawing a witch surrounded by Stars of David? Does that constitute insensitivity to Jewish readers -- or is it just the messenger bringing a controversial message? How about dirty language or graphic descriptions of murders, abortion and sex practices? The list goes on.

But "lapses" can be much subtler, too. Let's look at headlines. Because of today's round-the-clock radio and TV newscasts, Americans are more up-to-the-minute than ever. If we've heard all the day's big stories by bedtime, they seem old hat at the breakfast table.

So, in the search for newness and freshness, newspapers sometimes play up the latest twist -- often someone's reaction to the day's news -- which then becomes tomorrow morning's headlines.

Let's say someone lodges an accusation early in the day against a public figure -- President Clinton, for example. That allegation is likely to dominate the day's radio and TV airwaves.

But if the president decides to counter the allegation before the end of the day (the spins come quickly these days), his response can make the next morning's headlines, not the allegation.

That "second-day lead" gives the denial more importance than the allegation. Post-Dispatch readers have complained often about this "editorial slanting" -- the cart out in front of the horse. I've fielded just such reader objections over Whitewater allegations, Israeli-Palestinian violence, and political campaigns.

Example, the headline read, "White House Denies Report of IRS Threat," concerning Clinton's 1993 problems with his travel office staff. That was Saturday's headline based on a Friday story in The Washington Post, which reported that a White House lawyer had raised the possibility of using the IRS to investigate possible wrongdoing in the travel office if the FBI would not. The White House denial followed even Sen. Robert Dole's call for an investigation. Did the headline favor the president?

Example: "Wheat Defends Record on Crime and Drug Bills." That appeared over a story about a political opponent's same-day accusation that Alan Wheat, Missouri candidate for the U.S. Senate, was soft on crime.

Example: "Egypt Deplores Attack That Killed 4 Israelis," on a first-day story about the attack. In bygone days, morning papers routinely headlined the most important events of the preceding day, even if they were almost 24 hours old by the time readers got their paper. The historical record was important. News was chronicled...well, chronologically. The event, then the reactions. The impression coming in from readers now is that many would have newspapers resume their old role, giving the historic value of the news as much weight as the other factors that usually determine the play and the headlines -- surprise, conflict, the unexpected and, yes, entertainment.

That's a view from a contrarian's desk. But it could help avert some reader complaints that editors' bias shows up in the headlines.

Abortion and AIDS in California

By Lynne Enders Glaser
The Fresno Bee

Lately, it seems that about once a month I've encountered a "flagrant judgmental lapse" that gives me reason to beat my breast and howl in righteous indignation on the part of readers.

In July, for instance, it was the deletion of a significant paragraph from a wire account and the alteration of a formal name in the same story that caused abortion opponents to charge, once again, that The Fresno Bee had reflected its editorial position on a news page. The article reported that the nation's Roman Catholic bishops would fight against any health-care reform that included abortions in a standard benefits package.

Deleted, at The Bee, was a paragraph saying that on the same day the bishops made their stand, a Times Mirror Center poll had concluded "the public opposes abortion coverage in a federally guaranteed benefits package by a margin of 68 percent to 26 percent."

A copy editor also changed the name of the Pro-Life Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to "an abortion opposition committee."

Explained an assistant managing editor, the paper intended to run a separate story on the poll, but ran out of space, and somebody forgot to reinstate the removed information. About the name change, she said, it should not have happened. She referred to the deletion and the name change as "bad calls." I added, "...you'll get no argument from me about that."

And, I concluded my column for July 31: "To me, the most serious thing about these two calls is that they contribute -- unnecessarily -- to the belief of readers, who feel strongly that the media are against their cause and will do whatever they can to advocate abortion rights."

In August, I was equally dismayed about a headline on a local dispute over funding for the AIDS quilt. Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson objected to spending city dollars to pay for its display. Bee headline: "Patterson throws wet blanket on AIDS quilt."

Readers -- straight and gay -- were quick to condemn The Bee for insensitivity, lack of taste and, once again, for inappropriate use of humor.

"If the story had been a feature examining some aspect of the life of a person with AIDS, a 'clever' headline would probably not be appropriate," said the same assistant managing editor. "But given the [political] context, I really don't think the headline was inappropriate."

She added, "Nevertheless, we regret if we did offend some readers."

I wrote for Aug. 29 that I, like the readers who called, was "offended and surprised by the application of word play to this subject."

Even more, I said, I am "...distressed by a trend throughout the news industry to rely so heavily on being clever.

"I recognize the power and value of snap, punch, alliteration, puns. But, I think these techniques often are applied when there's no need, and then they detract, put off, even offend. 'AIDS' is such a powerful word that it doesn't need help to get your attention. Not only does it come with an emotional snap, it also carries the visual punch of capital letters."

I feel the same way today -- about both subjects -- as I did when I first addressed them.