Mapless Wayfarers Hurrying To Oz

Newspapers are changing, quickly enough that we in the news business don’t fully understand the process or acknowledge it to ourselves. Neither therefore do we acknowledge it to readers - who, not surprisingly, are jarred by all this.

Readers tend to have a pretty clear view of how newspapers are supposed to behave. So, as the practices of journalists change, they feel that we’re failing to follow the rules.

This accounts, I think, for the frequent complaints about stories on the front page that readers feel don’t belong there. It accounts for their discomfort with anecdotal leads on serious news stories. And, because the line between news and opinion has blurred, it explains a lot of the unhappiness about newspapers’ lack of fairness and balance.

“There used to be a sharp distinction between “news’ and “feature’ stories,” wrote one reader last week. “News stories had to have the point up front, but features were more human-interest, to be read for pleasure. They could begin with long, catchy leads - “like the beginning of a Joyce Carol Oates short story’ as your (recent letter writer) said. Please, please keep that stuff in sections like Style, and give us our news neat!”

The changed definition of what constitutes front page news causes a related unsettled feeling. A strict compilation of what is most important has given way to a broader mix - including stories that make their way out on the strength of good writing, a catchy topic or just as “relief” from the diet of hard news.

However, it is the blurring of news and opinion that is far and away the most disconcerting change. Today’s news stories commonly include characterizations, assumptions about motives and other subjective assertions - a development deeply disturbing to readers.

“I’d like you to help me understand the distinction between an editorial, a news story and whatever else you call those things on the front page,” said a caller some time ago, mentioning a news story and a story marked “analysis,” both on the front page that day. “These two are pretty much indistinguishable. There’s as much opinion in the news story as there is in the news analysis. And then you’ve got the thing on the editorial page. What are the words that make these different? I think that the news stories are so shot through with opinion that they don’t really constitute news.”

Readers are onto something real here. We have changed many practices, yet we tend not to be clear or frank among ourselves about how or why.

It’s not that we are wrong to change. Most readers are getting the top of the news from other sources before they pick up the paper; we must give them something different, something more. Readership is down. Profit pressures are up, as is competition for the ad dollar that pays the freight. People’s interests have changed. We need to do everything we can to make the paper more compelling, more essential, from better writing to deeper meaning.

But we need to be clear about the fact that we are changing. We often deny the depth of the changes, as if we don’t feel comfortable with the new ways of doing business, even as we engage in them. Take this entry, under “Opinion” in The Washington Post Deskbook on Style: “On this newspaper, the separation of news columns from the editorial and opposite-editorial pages is solemn and complete. This separation is intended to serve the reader, who is entitled to the facts in the news columns and to opinions on the editorial and “op-ed’ pages. But nothing in this separation of functions is intended to eliminate from the news columns honest, in-depth reporting, or analysis or commentary when plainly labeled.”

“Solemn and complete” separation is nowhere near contemporary reality. Nor is the labeling clear or consistent.

I’m not sure exactly what newspapers should do about all this, but one thing I do think: We should be more forthright in our examination of what we are doing, and more honest - with ourselves and readers. That is what can strengthen the bond of trust.

While we may worry that explaining things could expose a lack of clarity or consistency, in fact, we’d only be acknowledging what readers see already. Besides, having to explain things to readers might help us figure out ourselves exactly where we are in this odd transitional time - and where we want to go.

xxxx