Civic Catalyst Newsletter
Fall 1998

Newsroom Turnarounds: Civic vs. Traditional Approaches

By Glen L. Bleske
Assistant Professor
California State University, Chico

Editors often opt for one model for remaking a troubled newspaper: They become mad bombers destroying walls and exploding comfortable traditions. Then they rebuild.

One of the main props in rebuilding newsrooms in the 1990s has been civic journalism. But along the way, the conversation about new ideas and practices has created two camps. On one side are editors willing to try some new ways to connect their journalism with public life. On the other side are editors who want to adhere strictly to the traditional journalistic techniques.

Steve Smith	John Carroll

Two camps, two voices, one shared passion: They love newspapers and worry about the future.

The passion for breathing life into troubled newspapers brought three editors to Baltimore in August for the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. From the civic journalism camp came Steve Smith, editor of The Gazette in Colorado Springs. Representing the traditional side was John Carroll, editor of The Sun in Baltimore. And with a foot in each camp, Jody Calendar, managing editor of The Record in Bergen County, NJ, played centerfield.

All three shared their successful experiences with throwing bombs into a newsroom and rebuilding. The panel discussion, sponsored by AEJMC's Civic Journalism Interest Group and the Newspaper Division, uncovered some common ground between civic journalism and traditional journalistic values.

Smith and Carroll both strive for wit and energy in their newsrooms. They encourage their reporters and editors to take risks, Calendar pointed out.

"Whether you call it civic journalism, whether you despise civic journalism, you're both saying the same thing. You're both saying newspapers have to be more relevant, that we have to care more about our writers and our editors, that we have to reach out into the community, and that we have to be responsible to do the investigative work, to keep the governmental watch, to keep our eye on private industry, to go forward in terms of ... an obligation to serve the community, not just the stockholder."

Smith's challenge was to connect his staff, 90 percent of whom had lived in the area for more than 10 years, to a community that was different - the majority had lived in the area less than five years. To change the content of the newspaper, he changed the culture of the newsroom. Civic journalism values anchored the changes.

"We wanted to create content that more accurately and authentically recreates the daily history of our community in all of its wholeness and all of its richness as opposed to presenting a journalistic conception of that whole rich life through traditional journalistic routine and reflex," he said.

He acknowledged that many of his ideas were gimmicky - bombs designed to break down barriers. But he had no extra budget, no extra staff, and everyone still had to make deadline.

His gimmicks included tearing down walls so "sports collides with features;" holding open staff meetings in the center of the newsroom; setting up task forces to study, rip and rebuild newsroom practices; encouraging community involvement by journalists outside the newsroom; and inviting the public to attend morning story planning sessions. On one morning, Smith said he was pleased to find 45 people from the community sitting at the meeting table.

"I am trying to create a culture that continuously reinvents itself, that is intellectually stimulating, that is open, and that in many way reflects the community we are trying to cover," Smith said. "It is noisy, chaotic, messy and egalitarian in many ways that traditional newsrooms are not."

Through self-critiques, coaching and meetings, Smith has opened the decision-making process while maintaining his authority as editor.

"What we're trying to create is a learning environment, a teaching environment, an environment that is as fluid, changeable and changing as the environment that we are serving. Newsrooms traditionally don't change very much but the world outside of ours changes with enormous rapidity," he said.

The Baltimore Sun had walls that needed to come down, too. Carroll, who has led turnarounds at The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Lexington Herald-Leader and The Sun, emphasized that no one model can change a newspaper. It's a complex process that stumbles and lurches.

In Baltimore, he found a demoralized staff, the remains of a bitter strike, and staff cliques that didn't speak to one another.

"The newspaper coming out of that operation was very dull. It had all the trappings of a good newspaper, but the core wasn't there," he said.

One of the keys to success was removing the tyranny of the editors. "We decided that we were going to be a collegial newsroom. And editors who screamed at people or made them feel stupid in news meetings couldn't do that," Carroll said.

"I think that people in newsrooms, reporters and copy editors, are very fragile. I think that the best of them don't need anyone to push them. They'll push themselves very hard. But they need someone to encourage them and to give them the courage to act on their best talents and instincts."

Encouragement came by giving reporters the tools to build their crafts. Narrative storytelling brought wit and personality to the feature pages. Careful hiring placed talented writers in key spots. Projects teamed old timers with young talent.

The results led to Pulitzer prizes and ASNE writing awards. Along the way, timeliness became important again.

"We created a sense that this is an urgent business. News is a perishable commodity, and it has to be handled that way. It gives an urgency and it gives you a vibrance in your newsroom," he said.

The Sun needed to wake up readers, too.

"We've tried to convey to our reporters that the basis for good digging is good beat reporting, getting out of the office, and turning over stones and seeing what's under them."

The paper this spring won a major civic journalism award for its extensive coverage of how children could be taught to read by third grade.

"There was some debate whether it was civic journalism, but I would be the last to know," Carroll said. It was a public service project that has involved the community and helped the newspaper.

During the question and answer period, Walt Harrington, a journalist, author and University of Illinois journalism professor, noted that Smith's and Carroll's comments encapsulated the debate surrounding the differences between civic and traditional journalism. Smith operated under the idea that product falls out of process, that the journalism will improve if it begins better. Carroll's basic assumption was that a commitment to good work and good people who can do it will improve the product, Harrington said.

Smith said that he hoped there were no major differences between his goals and Carroll's. Circumstances such as paper size and community dictate the differences, he said.

Carroll, too, found common ground. He said that when he first heard of civic journalism, he thought it was just another gimmick.

"Initially there was a thrashing around of what civic journalism was and there were many things done that a good civic journalist wouldn't do now. They sort of turned me off, and I started thinkingthat I didn't want any part of this," Carroll said.

Now, he said he supports most of what civic journalism does, but he emphasized that it was only one of many ways to do good journalism.

"I think it is very positive in that it turns newspapers to serious subjects that are of importance to communities rather than the fluff and celebrity news that so many are dealing with," he said.

"I applaud anyone who is making a vigorous attempt to make a newspaper better. Nearly every newspaper in America needs it."