“The United States is now passing through an era marked by divisive, often bitter, social conflict. New groups have coalesced to assault the privileges of the established; new ideas have arisen to challenge the validity of the old. Stridency and partisanship, militancy and defiance are in the air.”
Although this is an apt summary of American political and social malaise today, that sobering perspective was conveyed over 50 years ago in “A Free and Responsive Press: The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Report for a National News Council.”
The findings there, sadly, have withstood the test of time. “Disaffection with existing institutions, prevalent in every sector of society, has spread to the media of public information — newspapers and magazines, radio and television. Their accuracy, fairness and responsibility have come under challenge. The media have found their credibility questioned, their freedom threatened, by public officials whose own credibility depends on the very media they threaten.”
And the ominous consequences have moved well beyond hypothetical scenarios to current realities. As the Task Force report noted, “A free society cannot endure without a free press, and the freedom of the press ultimately rests on public understanding of, and trust in its work. The public, as well as the press, has a vital interest in enhancing the credibility of the media and in protecting their freedom of expression. One barrier to credibility is the absence in this country of any established national and independent mechanism for hearing complaints about the media or for examining issues concerning freedom of the press.”
This foundational thinking led to the creation of the National News Council in 1973. But the Council dissolved in 1984 after 11 years of operations, attributing its demise to “a general lack of news media acceptance of the concept of a news council.”
In the announcement of its closure, its chairman, former CBS News President Richard S. Salant, was prescient in observing that while that organization would cease its activities, the need for its existence would continue. “The press itself in coming years will reach the same conclusion,” he noted.
Bill Arthur, the News Council’s founding executive director, commented, “I fully expect that the day will come when the press of our nation [print and broadcast] will cry out in the wilderness for an organization such as the one we have served.”
Having served on the staff of the National News Council as a Matthew H. Fox Fellow in Law and Journalism a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away — and as the only still-active media professional with first-hand knowledge of its operating practices and pitfalls — I find myself in a unique position to make the case why a new National News Council is needed now more than ever.
In doing so, I also recognize the failures of the original version, which can provide important practical lessons that need to be addressed if the concept is worthy of further development.
Confronting declining news media trust
Fast forward to 2025 and beyond. Today’s news media — in print, broadcasting, cable and increasingly online — are caught between a rock and a hard place. At one end is an ever-expanding demonization of the press by senior government officials and others. Accusations of “fake news” now are routinely made at the highest ranks of elected and appointed officials — attracting headlines, clickbait and even, in some cases, expensive and time-consuming litigation.
At the same time, public trust in news reporting, whether among surveyed Democrats, Republicans or Independents, is anemic. In an October national survey last year, Gallup reported, "Americans continue to register record-low trust in the mass media, with only 31% expressing a ‘great deal’ or ‘fair amount’ of confidence in the media to report the news ‘fully, accurately and fairly.’”
For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media (36%). Another 33% of Americans expressed the faint praise of "not very much’ confidence.”
According to the Pew Research Center, “Midway through the 20th century, the news media was among the most trusted institutions in the United States. Today, it sits near the bottom of the list, outflanked only by Congress in most surveys. … Everybody knows the media has a credibility problem. And seemingly everyone has got a beef with the news.”
There now is an endless loop dynamic — increasing public policy pressure to crack down on news media in formal and informal ways while fueling cynicism from American news consumers across generations. That loop needs to be severed, if possible, with some fresh thinking about how the news media can help break such a damaging and self-reinforcing cycle.
Searching for a better pathway
Political scientist Jonathan Ladd argues, in “Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters,” that industry insiders too often embrace the notion that a trusted, independent prestige press is the natural order of things. In fact, before the 20th century, few news organizations fit the definition of a prestige press, and many had partisan agendas.
Ladd writes that in this historical context, the so-called golden age of American journalism that gave us the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigation is more of an anomaly than the status quo. He also indicates that news leaders fall prey to the myth that trust used to be high because journalists were especially competent at their jobs decades ago. In fact, trust was high for a variety of reasons, including the low-choice media environment, as well as a more forgiving political culture.
Jesse Holcomb, the former principal adviser to the Trust, Media, and Democracy project at the Knight Foundation, observed, “The news industry needs to reckon with these myths. To be clear-eyed about the way forward, it needs to be clear-eyed about its past. But reckoning is only one part of the strategy.
A free press is essential to democracy — full stop. Ralph Otwell, the late former managing editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, noted that the chief purpose of the First Amendment “was simply to further enable democracy to work — the idea being that an unfettered press would inform and lead the citizens to make the best choices in their own best interests. The press was given the role of a mere agent of the people, a conduit for information, a vehicle for letting the truth win its way … If the public finds no truth to believe, no press to trust, no credible agent of information, then the whole system would collapse, and we would again be at the mercy of a repressive government.”
A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that three-fourths of Americans believe it’s possible to improve public confidence in the media. So, what can news organizations do to repair relationships with their most skeptical audiences? In simple terms, it’s especially timely to explore the possibility of a National News Council 2.0 as one way forward.
Focusing on first principles
What would be the essential principles for a National News Council 2.0 to convey? Let’s start with:
Provided there are no significantly misleading statements, the news media should be encouraged to take forthright stands on controversial subjects, promoting editorial views with vigor and supporting them with facts they deem relevant and persuasive.
While news media are entitled to very considerable latitude in determining which facts to stress and which to play down or totally ignore, the limits of robust opinion journalism are exceeded when distortions and misrepresentations occur, producing an overall effect that can be perceived as seriously misleading.
Opinion journalism should be viewed broadly, allowing for the broadest possible latitude in the presentation of a point of view. But when dealing with controversial subjects, the expression of a point of view should be supported by facts that, at the very least, are consistent with that viewpoint.
While minor errors may arise, care should be taken to see that condensation in the creation of a news story does not result in misleading the public in any significant way. Statements taken out of context may carry implications when standing alone that would be rebutted, directly or indirectly, in a more complete rendition.
Care should be taken in the editing of a news account that contains quotations to see that necessary explanations are not omitted and that the quotation is not presented in such a way as to distort the intent of the person being quoted.
When news media show enterprise by publishing a news account based on information gathered from sources before the release of an official report, they should be careful to review the official report, once released, to see if it corroborates the earlier information. If it does not, the news media has an obligation to its readers and viewers to inform them of the inconsistencies or the content of the full report.
Extreme care should be taken in presenting news accounts of scientific or medical research to avoid making such research appear more conclusive than it is.
When reporters are denied access to official sources, they are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the facts available if the report is not made inaccurate in any material element. Interpretive reporting should, however, be labeled as such.
If the significance of the reported facts could be better understood with a further explanation from official sources, even though such further explanation is received after publication of the original story, that explanation should be made available to the public.
When using the statistical results of technical studies as support for various conclusions, journalists should be careful that the statistics are consistent with initial premises.
Although a reporter is not required to reveal sources in a news account, the use of such confidential sources places a greater responsibility on a news organization to determine that the source does not use anonymity as a platform from which to dispense incorrect information with impunity. A news organization is remiss when it relies heavily on unidentified sources and then refuses to make public refutations from the persons named in a news story.
Establishing National News Council 2.0 procedures
A 21st-century National News Council, unlike its predecessor, should be modest in its aspirations and operating procedures. It cannot resolve all the problems facing the news media, nor will it answer all the criticisms voiced by politicians and the public. However, it could be an independent body to which the public can take complaints about press coverage. It could act as a strong defender of press freedom, attempt to make the media accountable to the public, and lessen the tensions between the press and the government.
Several threshold operating procedures worth considering:
Learning from failure
The failure of the first National News Council should not be a barrier to exploring the creation of a new one. But the reasons for its demise are well documented and should be accounted for as fresh thinking is developed, including how to avoid past pitfalls.
As Patrick Brogan noted in the Council’s 1985 book-length autopsy, "Spiked: The Short Life and Death of the National News Council”: “If a news council is ever reestablished, it clearly will have to solve its financial problems first. …The News Council itself was funded with grants from two foundations and never recovered when they ran out.”
If the past is prologue, it is unlikely that the news media itself will support a new News Council in its early days, at least not until the memory of the former Council’s failure has faded.
Brogan also correctly indicated, “A News Council must not, I believe, depend upon the goodwill of the press. It must always be ready to criticize newspapers or television, even those that contribute to its costs.”
On the other hand, news media financial support, with limiting amounts for any individual news organization, should be welcomed. Brogan’s rationale here is spot on again. “If its members are not ready, instantly and on the least provocation, to bite the hand that feeds them, then they clearly are in the wrong line of business.”
Critically, rather than recreating a financial and operational model based on the big thinking of the 1970s, a new National News Council can and should modestly adhere to the maxim “less is more.”
Regarding necessary start-up expenses that exceed what foundations, and the news media will contribute, in our current world of crowdfunding, there are now efficient new ways to generate both short-term and ongoing operational funds through thousands of small tax-deductible donations on digital platforms, such as Donorbox and Fundly.
A new Council also need not rent high-priced offices in New York City nor build up a high-salaried staff with expensive overhead. With today’s virtual organizations that take full advantage of AI’s ever-expanding capabilities, it will be relatively easy for a small group of seasoned employees to manage a caseload of complaints, even if they are voluminous.
In-depth research for complaints that satisfy screening requirements could also be undertaken without expending large amounts of human labor. Some of the nation’s top journalism and media schools, for example, could be invited to regularly provide AI-savvy graduate student interns supervised by faculty members with deep news media professional backgrounds. Such supplementary resources would be a win-win for both the Council and the participating institutions.
As before, the Council itself would also meet periodically to review the staff findings and vote on whether to accept, reject or modify them. Members would not be compensated for contributing time to such a worthy public mission, which is the norm for those who agree to serve on boards of nonprofit organizations.
Admittedly, there may be controversy about how Council members are appointed and whether they bring an unacceptable level of bias to their roles, unable to evaluate alleged news media transgressions objectively. But in a larger sense, our legal system has been able to function well for over 200 years when qualified jurors are empaneled for civil and criminal trials. This problem may not be as insurmountable as it seems at first glance.
As before, some Council members should be current or former news media professionals, given their deep knowledge and experience. Others should come from academia, the ranks of respected former judges or leaders in the private or public sectors.
Even in these polarized times, it should be possible to assemble a respected group of a dozen or so Council members who a broad swath of the public will perceive as credible individuals whose judgments are worth considering. If not, we are in a deeper state of societal dysfunction that is truly alarming.
The immediacy and universal availability of social media also represent powerful attributes that were not available a half-century ago. The low visibility of the original National News Council’s work, which contributed to its demise, now would be obsolete.
The Council’s findings on viral social media blasts would reach millions within minutes, then become amplified exponentially through reposting and mass media coverage. Assertions of “fake news” would be able to be confirmed or refuted by the Council, which would help diminish the rhetorical power of that unfortunate catchphrase.
In turn, this may help instill greater trust in news media and more measured attacks by others who lack factual bases for making them.
The road ahead
Alas, it’s time to admit that the news media’s main line of defense is not the Constitution. Instead, it is public support and trust that must be constantly earned.
Of course, a reimagined National News Council would not be a silver bullet. However, it could help the news media prove that they deserve to be free and that their freedom protects fundamental democratic values, requiring additional support in our all-too-trying times.
Stuart N. Brotman is Digital Media Laureate at The Media Institute and the author of “Free Expression Under Fire: Defending Free Speech and Free Press Across the Political Spectrum.” He can be reached at snbrotman@gmail.com.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here