Allen H. Neuharth, founder of USA TODAY, will provide his unique perspective on today’s lapses in media reporting when he delivers the 1998 Silha Lecture. His remarks come from 48 years of media experience as a reporter, columnist, publisher, and CEO of a major media corporation. The lecture will take place at 12:15 p.m., Thursday, Oct. 8, at the Cowles Auditorium on the West Bank of the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities Campus.

In his lecture "Can the Press Be Both Free and Fair?" Mr. Neuharth will discuss the reasons behind recent notable media lapses, such as Boston Globe columnists Patricia Smith and Mike Barnicle, the Time/CNN nerve gas story, free-lancer Stephen Glass’ fabricated articles in The New Republic, and The Cincinnati Enquirer Chiquita tapes. Among the controversial issues Mr. Neuharth will address are whether these lapses are caused by a lack of standards or ethics, or by overemphasis on sensational stories.

A native of Eureka, SD, Mr. Neuharth, 74, a selfmade multi-millionaire, is best known for successfully starting the national newspaper USA TODAY in 1982, despite initial widespread skepticism within the media community. At that time, he was chairman and CEO of Gannett Company, Inc., the nation’s largest newspaper company. While Mr. Neuharth was Gannett’s president, chairman and CEO for 19 years, the company’s annual revenues increased from $200 million to $3.1 billion. He also founded The Freedom Forum, one of the nation’s largest private foundations, which funds programs and grants for projects regarding free speech and free press.

As detailed in his internationally best-selling 1989 autobiography, Confessions of an S. O. B., Neuharth began his newspaper career as an Associated Press reporter in his native state, then worked his way into management at newspapers in South Dakota, Florida, Michigan, and New York, including The Miami Herald and the Detroit Free Press. Three years after joining Gannett in 1963, Mr. Neuharth became president of Gannett Florida, and started TODAY, later renamed FLORIDA TODAY. He was appointed Gannett’s president and chief operating officer in 1970.

In addition to being chairman and president of the Newspaper Association of America, Mr. Neuharth was named the most influential person in print media for the 1980s by Washington Journalism Review. The many honors and awards he has received includes the 1975 Horatio Alger Award.

Since his "retirement" in 1989 at age 65, Mr. Neuharth has spoken on the international lecture circuit, appearing on national TV and radio talk shows. He has written seven books. He also writes a weekly column "Plain Talk," which appears in USA TODAY and other Gannett newspapers.

Mr. Neuharth resides in Cocoa Beach, FL, with his wife, Rachel Fornes, and their four adopted children. He also has two children by his first marriage, Dan, 45, a former journalist and university teacher, and Jan, 43, president/owner of Paper Chase Farms in Middleburg, VA.

JACK BRESLIN

Bulletin Editor

Silha Bulletin (SB): What has USA TODAY contributed to American journalism in your estimation?

Allen Neuharth (AN): Well, it depends on who you ask. I think it’s fair to say that the advent of USA TODAY has changed both the appearance and the content of most daily newspapers, and that’s either good or bad, depending on your point of view.

SB: What’s your opinion of USA TODAY now? Why is it imitated by so many newspapers for style and graphics and marketing?

AN: I think it’s because in the years since the launching of USA TODAY, more and more print journalists have come to realize that readers, particularly younger readers, are not going to keep fighting their way through dull gray newspapers. Some of them have even come to agree that a good newspaper doesn’t necessarily have to be dull. They haven’t all agreed to that yet. But some grudgingly have agreed to that. Some of that imitation is good for other newspapers and some is not. It depends on whether it is straight imitation or adaptation. Some newspapers have adapted some USA TODAY things to serve their local readers very, very effectively. Some other newspapers have done straight imitations of USA TODAY and I think in most cases that’s not as effective because it doesn’t give it the local appeal that the adaptation gives it.

SB: Why is the paper so popular?

AN: It has found its niche with the audience that it was aimed at. We used to say we’d be glad to let The New York Times have the top one or two percent of the intellectuals in the country or in the northeast and we’d take the next two to 10 percent. So it’s aimed at an audience that is upscale, affluent, influential, well-educated, and mobile, people who have moved around and who have interests beyond their backyard. And I think it has found that niche with that segment of the society.

SB: Critics say the paper’s impact has been more negative than positive, that it contains more glitz than content, that it lacks depth and analysis; it features graphics over substance. How do you answer these criticisms?

AN: Well, I’ve never really answered them. I used to laugh at them because I was amused by the fact that what they really were saying was that USA TODAY was so different that it pissed them off. And journalists, particularly editors and publishers who sometimes pretend that they’re very creative and love to explore new ideas and new things, are in fact basically conservative. And that’s why a lot of newspapers have died. It’s mainly been the fault of editors or publishers who weren’t about to change.

SB: Why are we seeing so many embarrassing media lapses – the Boston Globe columnists, the Times, the CNN nerve gas stories, Cincinnati Enquirer Chiquita tapes? Is it a lack of standards, ethics, over-emphasis on sensationalistic stories?

AN: Well, I think some of it is the fact that primarily because of the Internet the pressure is greater to get it first and fastest than it used to be. Traditionally journalists were taught to believe in accuracy above all else. And that changed. I think it changed with Watergate, and I think the anonymous source is the most evil thing that newspapers and the media have adopted or adapted in the last 25 years. It started with Watergate, (when) journalists coming off college campuses (were) determined to be (Bob) Woodward or (Carl) Bernstein. They believed that because of Watergate’s successes there was dirt under every mat in front of every office. They came out as young cynics. The journalists of my generation were taught to be skeptics. And there’s a hell of a difference between a skeptic and a cynic. All you need to do is be accurate and fair.

SB: A recent poll revealed that 71 percent of the American public believed the media to be frequently inaccurate in reporting. How can we restore the public’s confidence?

AN: Instead of being inaccurate, be accurate. You can fix it simply by being both accurate and fair, and I think that has to happen first of all in the classroom. It has to be taught, and then it has to happen in each individual newsroom.

SB: Is there a way for the American media to get away from the use of confidential sources?

AN: Sure. Ban ‘em. I believe that Woodward and Bernstein could have done their job as effectively. It might have taken a little longer if they had named sources. I don’t think there was a Deep Throat at all. I think Deep Throat was a combination of Ben Bradlee and Woodward and Bernstein and the people at the Post talking to each other and comparing things they got from anonymous sources. When we started USA TODAY we absolutely banned anonymous sources.

SB: What do you see as your legacy to American journalism?

AN: I’m the wrong person to answer that question. First of all, it’s too early to tell. Hell, I’m just a kid. And secondly, I’ll leave that entirely to journalism historians to decide. I have certain things I hope my family remembers me for – that’s very important. I hope there are some things in journalism that might be remembered for better or worse, but I don’t sit around worrying about that. I think about today, and I don’t worry about legacies.

Amid concern about the declining credibility of journalists, the debate over the viability of news councils as a form of non-governmental media accountability has revived. Over the past several years, Silha Center researchers Bill Babcock, Genelle Belmas, and Jennifer Lambe have conducted a systematic evaluation of 25 years of determinations by the Minnesota News Council (MNC). Through analysis of the records of MNC hearings, we have gained insight into the news council model of media accountability.

We performed a content analysis on 111 MNC determinations, which are the official records of the council’s hearings in particular cases.

Much of the work in media ethics characterizes the complaints about media behavior only in terms of the broad issues involved. However, we developed a four-part model to more fully characterize the nature of the complaints – for each complaint, we coded the type, subject, element, and issue involved. In A New Tool for the Assessment of News Councils, presented at the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics annual meeting in the spring of 1997, we suggest that this model might be adopted by ombudsmen or other newsroom personnel to more accurately track patterns of public concern.

An analysis of the determinations belies the persistent perception that news councils are out to get the media. In Can News Councils Help Newspapers Regain Public Trust? presented at the Southeast Colloquium of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) in the spring of 1998, we report that approximately one-half of the complaints against newspapers were rejected. This statistic holds true for complaints against the electronic media as well. The MNC is also addressing the concerns often echoed by the public, such as fairness, accuracy, and access.

Finally, in analyzing individual voting records of MNC members, we found no evidence that either media members or public members were more or less likely to vote for or against media organizations. In Answering the Critics: Are News Councils Out to Get the Media? presented at the AEJMC annual convention this summer, we show evidence that predictors such as length of time on the council also did not affect voting patterns.

Our results suggest that the MNC, in more than a quarter-century of operation, has been neither a forum for lay members to bash newspapers nor a body hostile toward the press. The formation of state, regional, or national news councils modeled after Minnesota’s may be a useful means of helping the news media regain public trust.

JENNIFER LAMBE

Former Silha Research Fellow

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1998,

499 pp., $57.50 Hardcover only.

Mass communication law professors often share the dilemma of persuading students that their course is relevant. Even before they walk into the first class, most advertising and public relations majors have concluded that First Amendment issues concern only their print and broadcast journalism counterparts. Only after nearly libeling a client’s competitor in their first professional press release or ad copy do beginning practitioners realize the need for an understanding of media law.

By exploring particularly relevant areas of mass communication law, the authors of Advertisng Public Relations Law have succeeded in addressing crucial issues and concerns for both students and practitioners. While this pioneering effort to offer a specific legal textbook for public relations and advertising offers comprehensive legal history and analysis, the work suffers from a lack of practical examples and case studies.

The authors present lengthy, sometimes exhaustive treatments of such critical areas as commercial speech doctrine, government regulation, and intellectual property. They consider several relevant concerns, such as product liability, trade secrets or publicity rights – often ignored in general media law texts. But their scholarly analysis often fails to provide specific public relations/advertising examples and practical advice.

Future editions should be more carefully edited for style consistency, needless repetition and readability. Practitioners, professors, and students often appreciate discussion questions and case examples to help relate the law to hypothetical or actual professional situations. This book, which is supposedly intended for classroom use, lacks both.

While the authors have undertaken the laudable challenge of creating a legal text focused on advertising and public relations law, they should have decided who their audience is, rather than trying to cover everyone and everything.

JACK BRESLIN

Bulletin Editor