Let's Find Common Ground - Broken Media? Restoring Trust in News Coverage. Mark Sappenfield, Story Hinckley

Episode Date: August 17, 2023

The United States has one of the highest news avoidance rates in the world. Tens of millions of Americans don’t read, watch or listen to the news each day. The media is generally held in low regard. So, is there a better way to report and analyze current events that will satisfy readers’ interests? In this repeat episode, we hear from Mark Sappenfield, Editor of The Christian Science Monitor, and Story Hinckley, the paper's National Political Correspondent. We’re re-releasing this podcast as the 2024 campaign begins to gather pace — a time when many news outlets have amped up their coverage speculated about winners and losers, and put additional emphasis on the nation’s deep partisan divides. We discuss evolving news values with the Monitor and how reporters and editors are striving to highlight constructive solutions that unite rather than divide. We also hear about election coverage and why the media need to challenge readers, build trust, and report the news truthfully.

America has one of the highest news avoidance rates in the world. Many millions of people have switched off. They don't read, watch, or listen to the news each day. Most people either totally distrust or have a skeptical view of the news media. So is there a better way to report and cover the news? That's the focus of this episode, which we first recorded and released last fall just before the mid-term election. This is Let's Find Common Ground. I'm Richard Davies. And I'm Ashley Melntite.

Our guests are Mark Sappenfield, editor of the Christian Science Monitor, and story-hinkly, the paper's national political correspondent. As the 2024 campaign ramps up, many news outlets will amp up their coverage and put additional emphasis on red versus blue. We discuss why the Christian Science Monitor has put a recent focus on values that drive news coverage, how its reporters and editors are working to highlight constructive solutions that unite rather than divide.

Late last October, we asked Mark Sapenfield, how is the monitor's coverage of politics different from the usual media focus on winners and losers? As it might imagine, I've been thinking about that quite a bit recently. I was just reading an article about exactly that, about how the media covers politics. And that person likened it to just covering a fight, you know, that it's everyone is very excited when things seem worse because, you know, everyone is, wow, there's so much tension, wow, there's so much drama. And while that might be good from a sense of storytelling or amping up drama, there's the question of, is that actually good for journalism? Is that good for the country? Does that accomplish

what we want it to accomplish? And as I was thinking about it, it really came down to a question for me that's actually quite large, which is, what is our view of our reader? Do we think our reader is someone who needs that kind of reptilian kind of gratification of this person's up, this person's down, this person's winning, this person's losing, you know, to really simplify politics into kind of a zero some sort of winning and losing thing? Or do we have a different view of our reader? Do we have a view of a reader who can understand these things, who wants something more? And I don't think it necessarily needs to be an intellectual thing. It's not that, you know, you need to have expectations of your reader that they know

a lot about politics. That's not what I'm talking about. It's, what's your view of what your reader wants from their news? And can you deliver that? And in so many ways, kind of the way that we consume news is so much at variance with what we say we want from our politics. And it strikes me at some point that someone's got to break that chain. You know, someone's got to actually deliver the news that we think is the kind of news that leads to solutions, that leads to people having honest conversations.

I mean, you at Common Ground are so good about finding exactly that. It's not that we want to prescribe solutions about, oh, it needs to be this policy or this person needs to get elected. We just need to have better, more meaningful conversations. And I think that really comes down to, again, in my way of kind of who are you serving? And how are you viewing someone you're serving? And I think that very quickly cascades into how are you viewing society? How are you viewing the world?

I would hope that the monitor kind of takes a very firm stand on having that, for lack of a better term, higher view of our readers in the world. Story, you're out there as a reporter who travels to a lot of campaign events, you speak to all types of voters. How do you keep readers in mind while you're doing that? I mean, can you give us an example from the current campaigning? So let's say a candidate is having a rally in a Pennsylvania suburb. That's just at top of mind because I just went to a rally in a Pennsylvania suburb. That's just at top of mind, because I just went to a few rallies

in Pennsylvania suburbs last weekend. If I interview people at Democratic Senate candidate John Federmann's event, right, I need to keep in mind the type of voters that I'm going to be interviewing. It's going to be people who are motivated enough to spend a beautiful Sunday afternoon at a political rally, which is a small fraction of the country.

And it's going to be people that are usually, particularly passionate about democratic politics. So I'm going to want to also interview the protesters that are protesting across the street. They were Dr. Osseporters who is the Republican Opponent, but then I'm also going to want to go out into the city where the rally is occurring and interview voters who are not at the political event. Because that is the majority of America, right? Those people are getting ready for the Eagles game that kick off as in two hours.

I went to the grocery store where people are stocking up on game foods and drinks and snacks. And then I have to think about what type of grocery store am I going to? The whole foods moms are very different from the Wegman's moms. It depends on the grocery store chain that I go to because that's going to? The whole food's moms are very different from the Wegman's moms. It depends on the grocery store chain that I go to because that's gonna affect the type of people that I'm talking to. So I hear outrageous things from voters that political rallies all the time

because I'm talking to the political die-hard, so really passionate people. And, you know, I could reprint some things that voters say that would get retweeted tons of times, but that's not my goal, right? My goal is to show an accurate photograph of this moment in time, the photograph do words. And to do that, it's a lot more nuanced, I think, than people think. What is story doing there?

She's acting the way that we should be acting as a populist. She is going out and talking to different people. She is going outside of her comfort zone. She's going outside of her biases. She's going outside of what's easy, what's hard. I mean, and this is what you at the common ground literally do all the time. You are getting people to come together and to have meaningful conversations. And she's doing that.

And that's what I think we try and do at the moment is that reporting becomes hypocritical if you're not living what you're saying. And you know, story is really living this idea of going out and trying to give a whole picture of the population. And in doing so, you should present a portrait that will be something of an antidote to the polarization that happens. Story, what I'm hearing from you is a parallel to what Mark is saying. Mark made a strong argument for why it's important to respect the reader. In your reporting, you're also respecting the voter. And will I have to, when you talk to people face to face, you find it very difficult to be disrespectful,

at least I do. People are spent taking time out of their day to talk to me about politics, and I'm looking at them in the face. I'm shaking their hand, and every single person asks me, so is this gonna be published? Where can I see it? And when people are a little hesitant to speak with me, I say, you know, I've been doing this for a couple of years now, talking to, I would say it's probably thousands of people at this point

across the country, and I've never had somebody say I mischaracterized their words. And I, and, cause I send them the copy. And sometimes they don't agree with the angle of the article because it'll be critical of the candidate whom they're supporting, but they, they will say, you know, I don't agree with this or that, but they never say that I characterize their words wrong. And I think that's because I looked them in the eyes,

I shook their hand and I had a little two-minute relationship with them. Story, it sounds like you're building trust with the people who speak with you. Well, I think they have to trust me a little bit if they're gonna tell me anything, the really telling quotes. It's frustrating for writers sometimes, because I'll have a 30-minute conversation with somebody,

and I only fit eight words from our conversation in the story. That's one of the big responsibilities of being a journalist, I think, is that I'm trying to save my reader time. They could go out and spend hours reading these transcripts and everything, but I'm trying to give you a quick synopsis that you can read in five to ten minutes that'll really tell you what's going on and what's people are thinking. So, you know, of the 40 people I interviewed, I have to pick the five people that are going to be included in the story, and then the eight words from these five people that are going to make it in the story.

So there's so much that readers don't see, but what I think it's important for readers, particularly monitor readers to understand is that if I'm sharing a quote with you about this mom who lives in the Philadelphia suburbs who's really upset about crime, I'm including that because I had five other moms tell me that. We don't want to tell you the most egregious or new shocking thing that people are saying we want to tell you the most egregious or new shocking thing that people are saying we want to tell you the truth. And Mark, how do you feel about the need to build trust and how you cover the news? You do need to build up trust with your reader. You do need to build trust with the audience.

And I mean, that just to me comes from being transparent about being honest about your motives. So for example, we have this podcast that we're starting that's called Why We Wrote This, which is really about exploring why we wrote this. It's about looking more deeply into some of our biggest pieces of content and really explaining, here's our motivation, here's what we were trying to accomplish. And that's all a part of trying to just open the doors to readers so they can see who we are and say, yeah, I trust you, I understand that. But there's also this part of it that in some ways,

I kind of am less interested in trust than before because I see in so much of the news media, people seeking out news publications that tell them what they want to hear. You would say, oh, I have a lot of trust in that news organization, but I, as a journalist, might look at that and say that's not really the greatest journalism

because I feel like it's leaving out parts of the story or there's places they're unwilling to go or there's bias being expressed in that. And I feel like in a lot of ways, the readers are not doing a great job of holding to us to account. And some ways they're driving us more toward the polls because they're wanting that coverage that speaks to their worldview. And so in some ways, I almost have kind of gotten the opposite way on trust, which is really just underlining what story is talking about here today is just trying to be as fair and

as fact-based as we can and just leaving it at that. And if we, if that anger's people, and I know it does, because I get letters from them every day, that's not, is that building trust? In some ways, it's not building trust because they don't like it and they say, hey, if you don't do this, we're gonna cancel our subscription. But on some levels, it's like you just kind of have to do

what you think is right. You have to challenge yourself. You have to push yourself into uncomfortable places and do the most honest, most fair, most fact-based journalism you can. And then you just hope people will find that. And there must be some understanding that that is what voters actually want, because if I, you know, I'm thinking of a very left-leaning news broadcast, and I'm thinking of a very

right-leaning news broadcast, and I recently heard both advertisements for both of them and which both of them are selling themselves as the tell it how it is unbiased real news. So the fact that so many organizations are marketing themselves that way, it suggests that that is what voters and readers want. So I think that voters and readers in America need to be honest with themselves too, about what they're choosing to read or click on or watch.

Along with many other institutions right now, approval ratings are very low for the news media. Does that affect your values at the monitor and have you had to rethink in how the news is being covered? Yes, I think so. One of the things that we're doing is actually around the idea of values, it's not applying a value to something, but it's recognizing that what really drives the news, what's really behind all of this, how we want to live our lives, how we want to express compassion, how we want to express joy,

how we want to express responsibility, dignity, respect. We're trying to focus more on that. And in that way, we feel like we're getting to a place where everyone can be a part of the conversation. I mean, as story says, you know, you can talk to people and they can completely disagree with you on policy, on politics, on all of these things. But when you get down to a level of values, you're getting down to a language that everyone,

kind of like she says, you have to look someone in the eye, that's a way of trying to create a conversation at which everyone has a place at the table and everyone can hear everyone. So we're just at the beginning part of this, but we are trying to rethink the way we do news a little bit to try and meet what we think are some of the needs of today in journalism, which are quite different from what they were even five or 10 years ago, certainly 30 years ago. Why is that? Why are journalistic needs different from 30 years ago?

Well, now you're getting into kind of my big journalism class. In journalism 101 in college, that's my professor walked up and down the row and he said, who decides what is journalism? And the answer was you do. He was pointing to us in the room. You are the gatekeepers. Well, that's completely not true anymore. That entire paradigm of journalism has collapsed because everyone can decide on their own

what news is. And so people's relationship to news has just been revolutionized in the past 10 to 20 years. It's not just Dan Rather sitting in front of the TV delivering you the news. There needs to be a relationship. There needs to be that trust that you're talking about. You're listening to a repeat podcast of our conversation with editor Mark Sappinfield and political correspondent Story Hinkley of the Christian Science Monitor.

I'm Ashley. I'm Richard. We want to tell you about the scorecard, the common ground scorecard of 2024 presidential candidates. We rate the 15 Republicans and Democrats who are now standing based on their willingness to reach out across the political aisle to make progress on important issues. Use the scorecard to find out which candidates are seeking common ground.

The results might surprise you. Each politician has a numerical rating, and there's also a deeper look at what they've said about finding common ground. Click on each candidate and compare how they reach out to voters who support another party. Find the scorecard at commongroundscorkard.org. Now back to our interview from last year with Mark Sappenfield and Story Hinkley.

We spoke just before the midterm elections. Story, what's the most interesting set at race? You've covered so far. I'm paying close attention to the Senate races that I think can talk about larger trends happening in the US politics. I have been covering the Pennsylvania Senate race a lot, which is what I'd mentioned earlier between Democrat John Cederman and Republican Mehmet Oz. And I think that Democrats are looking at Federman, kind of wondering, you know, could he be the kind of candidate that could win state-wide and close elections? And the future, Democrats are really excited. He's kind of a norm-busting candidate because

he's lean progressive on some issues, like years ago being pro LGBTQ rights and pro-MARA, want legislation, but he's more middle of the road when it comes to guns and fracking. And all of this is bottled up inside a very, very tall man with a goatee who wears shorts and car horse sweatshirts to formal meetings. So I think Democrats are kind of scratching their head going, could this work? Right? Like, could this help us in some places where we're losing some rule voters,

working class voters, white working class voters, how big is personality and character? And I think then on the flip side, you can look at the Colorado Senate race, where I think Republicans are looking at O'Day, who's running against Senator Bennett, and O'Day has made it clear I'm my own man. So he's trying to separate himself from Trump, and he's doing well. And Colorado might be an interesting, particularly good place to try out this messaging

because it is Colorado. Maybe O'Day wouldn't be successful and more of a red state, but he's doing well in that race is getting tighter and tighter, just as Democrats are looking to Pennsylvania as a potential winning lesson, I think Republicans could be doing the same with Colorado. You have talked to voters of all types and something that we've touched on in our earlier podcasts at Common Ground Committee is this question of whether voters, whether citizens are really as divided as

their portray to be. But in real life, do fellow Americans of different political stripes have the potential to come together on some things rather than just seeing themselves as members of opposing tribes? I'll just give the example of something that I just experienced when I was in South Texas for a week working on a cover story for the monitor about how Hispanic voters in America have been shifting towards the right have on a particular issue,

the motivations are often very similar, if not the same. For example, in South Texas, I was speaking with so many Latino voters who were strongly against immigration and they were shifting towards the Republican Party because they wanted stricter immigration laws, you know, they were unhappy with the level of how many people were coming over the border from Mexico, from just, you know, you can see the wall from shopping centers down there. And I would think, okay, that's so interesting. And it would seemingly be confusing because a lot of these families, I talked to their own parents came over illegally. So I was trying to unpack that ball and their immigration beliefs have a lot to do with the economy. They

want to provide for their kids and they don't feel like they are succeeding economically at the pace that they want to be, and they blame other immigrants for that. Taking their jobs away or working at lower wages? Both. So coming in and undercutting their wages, because they are coming over and they're willing to work for less. But then a lot of times you know that I would speak to some people who came across illegally and they were also trying to provide for their kids and improve their children's lives economically.

And I was like, here's two families I just talked to that have the same exact motivation, but are in conflict with one another? What you're saying their story goes directly to this idea of there's a deeper level on which we can all talk to each other. And if we just stay at the policy level and we're just kind of going left and right on politics, then you just get clashing. But when you get down beneath it to whether you wanna call it that values level or that sense of what really drives us,

you all of a sudden are getting to places where you can, again, look each other in the eye and you can have a conversation about something that's deeper and more meaningful than the conversation we are currently having in this country. And that's what we're trying to do with deepening our coverage. One reason why this work is hard is because we're living in fearful times, not just caused by COVID or by problems with the economy. There seems to be a lot of anxiety about this forthcoming election. Do either of you sense that?

Yes. In many ways, it's understandable because increasingly our parties are getting farther and farther apart just legislatively and what they support policy-wise. And the margins and what they support policy-wise. And the margins are getting thinner and thinner. Right now, the Senate is 50-50. When I talk to voters in Pennsylvania, when I'm covering the Pennsylvania Senate race, they see themselves as being on the front lines of democracy, and that's not even an exaggeration to say.

I mean, they are because their vote could determine who is the 51st Senator, and then, you know, the House is going to be not as close, but, you know, it could decide the entire legislative agenda for the next two years of the United States of America. So the stakes are bigger, and in some ways, fearfulness is understandable. So the stakes are bigger, and in some ways, fearfulness is understandable.

And Mark, your thoughts on the election season? Because of the nature of politics and exactly what story was saying, it strikes me that they're all probably a little bit disproportionately important at this time. To me, democracy has always been about thing. I'm just talking in general. The whole stakes is, I don't trust the other person. So if we look at the situation, I'm just talking about President Trump and the election. I'm just talking in general, the whole stakes is, I don't trust the other person.

So if we look at the situation, I'm just talking about the other person. I'm just talking about President Trump in the election and that sort of thing. I'm just talking in general, the whole stakes is, I don't trust the other person. So if we lose, it will be a cataclysm. The point that you raised earlier, and I think that story raised about us all kind of at the core having some of the same values if we can get to it. We don't express them in the same way. but on some level, there's an author named Marilyn Robinson who said, democracy forces us to think well of one another. That's a really important lesson that goes beyond politics, and I think something that we need renewed within our republic.

The news is vital to healthy democracy, right? But a lot of people are actually walking away from the news. I mean, journalist Amanda Ripley, who wrote the book, High Conflict, wrote that a lot of people she knew, a lot of journalists admitted that they weren't reading or listening to the news every day. And actually, the Christian Science Monitor was cited in that piece as a good example.

But why are increasing numbers of people, even people who report the news, not actually watching or reading anymore? I think there's a lot of reasons behind that. I mean, one of them is that news is kind of fundamentally unhealthy. If you think about it, you know, you are besieging yourself with all, in some cases, at least the way the news is often reported today, you're besieging yourself with everything, in some cases, at least the way the news is often reported today. You're besieging yourself with everything that's going wrong. So it's you're taking a steady diet of the worst things happening in the world, which is not terribly uplifting, not terribly great for your mental state.

And I would argue also a little bit warping your sense of reality into thinking that everything is catastrophic when, in fact, we have very serious problems we need to deal with, but we need to put them in context and we need to recognize where, where progress is being made and all of those things. We do need to, as Amanda was talking about in that story, we do need to rethink how we do news because it's kind of not working. I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all solution. I think a lot of times the news media has thought we just published the news. What happens with it

is not our problem. My gut tells me that that's maybe got to change and that the news needs to think more about the whole and what impact it's having on society. It's a question that we as a society are going to have to wrestle with and we're just kind of right in the middle of it right now, so how it happens is ahead of us. Markshappenfield and Story Hinkley from the Christian Science Monitor. During our interview, Mark mentioned the monitor podcast

why we wrote this. The show features the papers, reporters and editors discussing how they cover the news. One aim is to build trust between readers and journalists. Find the podcast at csmonitor.com slash why we wrote this. And our podcast is Let's Find Common Ground. This is a repeat summer episode. Beginning later this month, new shows will be released every couple of weeks. You can listen to all of our back catalog at CommongroundCommity.org

slash podcast. I'm Ashley Mel Tite. I'm Richard Davies. Thanks for listening.