“Civic (Public) Journalism movement of regional newspapers in America” Hideya Terashima Fulbright scholar, Media Fellow, Dewitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism at Duke University August 2002 – March 2003 *** CONTENTS *** 1. Preface 2. Motivation and Background 3. What is Civic (Public) Journalism? 4. Founders and Promoters 5. How has Civic (Public) changed a newspaper? - Tracing the Charlotte Observer 6. Spread and development of Civic (Public) Journalism. 7. Experiments of “Interactivity” 8. Criticism and arguments on Civic (Public) Journalism 9. New moment – Public Journalism Network 10.Can Civic (Public) Journalism work in Japan? 11.Conclusion – How can I start it? 12. Afterward 1. Preface This is a report on outlook of Civic (Public) Journalism in U.S., which I researched at Dewitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism at Duke University (NC) from September 2002 through March 2003 as a Fulbright scholar. I have been an editor and a reporter for “The Kahoku Shimpo”, a regional daily in Japan for 23 years. But I had no idea or information on Civic (Public) Journalism till I came to America. why American colleagues’ prominent movement has been known little to Japan so far ? It would be due to lack of practical exchange, among journalists of regional newspapers in both countries. It’s rather strange situation all the more because now we share the time of globalization and internet. I wrote this report from a Japanese journalist’s point of view, comparing something same and different in America and in Japan, so that this can be useful information for both to find common ground and task. Its goal would be to examine how Civic (Public) Journalism can work in Japan, and to build a base of bridge for our connecting and working together. The Kahoku Shimpo is established in 1897 in Sendai, in Tohoku region (northeast part of mainland, Japan). Its circulation is half a million copies with morning edition, 120 thousands with evening edition. 2. Motivation and background Now in Japan, regional newspapers are faced with big challenge. A decade-long sluggish economy has shaken their base in both aspects of advertisement and readers. In particular, readership of evening edition is sharply declining in common. Every evening edition has been read in municipal areas for more than half a century, as closest news media for citizen’s life. But there, circumstances are dramatically changing. Recession hit small and middle business as well as their families, single parent’s families. Rapid aging of traditional readers and increase of younger generation which don’t depend on newspaper but internet or free papers. Some community are dying out, others are being redeveloped. They are going not to be what they used to be. This change is gradually undermining newspaper’s tie with community seriously, as well as influence. It’s making reporters, who still rely on traditional news sources, harder and harder to entry points into community. Typically in the coverage of election, younger generation, problem around family, education, medical system, consumers, citizen’s activity etc. It’s a dilemma on that the more we depend on poll in election, the less its reliability has been getting. We feel difficulty even to know what citizen is simply interested in or concerned about. The Kahoku Shimpo is trying to find the way of renovating evening edition. But for restructuring of management, several regional newspapers recently practiced withdrawal from issuing evening edition. But that means seems not to be successful, but only to have weakened tie with readers still more. It is because they just think of cutting deficit’s section in company, without any new proposal to readers instead of that. It can’t be helped that readers regard them as being irresponsible. Besides municipal areas, regional newspapers have much larger rural areas to cover for morning edition. In our Tohoku region, with its reliance on primary industrial sectors, almost rural communities are also under sluggish economy. Issues among them are such as slump of rice price after opening market, decline of fishing and whaling by tougher international restriction, competition with cheaper agricultural products from Asian countries. Most serious issue is depopulation due to successor’s migration to cities and aging of parents, which leads to collapse of old communities with unique folk’s culture. We have reported those issues with long series of projects to support people and community development. But another challenge is coming. It is bitter decision to withdraw several branch offices in the region for restructuring of management. We haven’t found out new proposal to persuade readers as well as ourselves, yet. I’m afraid that we might lose our influence and news source, still more that readers might feel as if they were left alone also by newspaper that they had relied on for long years. Later impact could be more serious with concern about spreading cynicism and distrust toward us. How can we regional newspaper get over those challenge? How can we re-strengthen tie with readers and community? Have not we thought more of “us” than readers? How can we change ourselves to catch up with new time? We must learn experience and experiment in movement named Civic (Public) Journalism. * I inscribed “Civic (Public) Journalism” because they have two different names for the same movement and have used both for years. Its reason should be explained in following chapter. 3. What is Civic (Public) Journalism? (1) From a Japanese journalist’s viewpoint Civic/Public Journalism is a movement which has revolutionarily changed and renovated journalism in U.S. for about a decade, in particular conception and practice about how to cover and report issues in community among regional and local media. Its method is often expressed as “Tapping civic life “, “Being more interactive with readers”, ”Working with community for solution” etc. Similar idea also has been learned by us, Japanese reporters of regional newspapers through our projects on community’s issues as a experienced rule. But Civic (Public) Journalism is more clearly, systematically organized as a theory and a movement while its experience has been shared among reporters, editors, even newspaper publishers as well as scholars in school of journalism across the U.S. beyond the boundary of organizations. What is Civic (Public) Journalism? . It’s beyond just a technique for better coverage according to Jane Schaffer, Executive Director of “Pew Center for Civic Journalism”, which is non profit foundation in Washington DC and has been promoting body of the movement. She expresses outlook of Civic (Public) Journalism in her speech just after 9/11, 2001 to raise “10 tips for rebuilding frameworks of society “ as following. 1) Let ordinary people see themselves in your stories doing ordinary and extraordinary things – rescuing survivors, searching for missing, overcoming obstacles, grieving their losses. Let them see the capacity they have to transcend tragedy. 2) Give people spare to tell their own stories. They need to share their joy or grief, their despair or triumph. 3) Stay interactive. Create zones of connectivity where people can trade information, chat, vent or ponder. 4) Chronicle history at large; explain, as well as condemn, the terrorists. 5) Toss out old taboos and let your readers and viewers see that journalists are human, too. You are not seeking to profiteer off calamity, rather you share in suffering. 6) Likeness, let public officials be human – unvarnished in their uncertainty, tentative in their approaches. 7) Ban rubbernecking coverage; citizens want to do more than ogle. Celebrate the capacity of individuals to heal, to rebuild, to make a difference in your community. 8) Rise above petty competition. Set more overarching priorities. 9) Position your news organization be a good citizen in your community. 10) Create a forum for people to share their ideas, values and aspirations. Primary features in Civic (Public) Journalism can be seen in “10 taps”. This suggests that journalists as well as news organizations should work for, with, and as citizens “for rebuilding framework of society” where we journalists also are among members, even beyond “petty competition”. It sounds quite new to a Japanese journalist who have thought that “Good journalism is the same meaning as just good reporting” enough to be honored by authoritative journalism awards, and that “Competition among media companies leads to development of journalism”. (2) What’s different from “conventional” journalism? Jennie Buckner, a pioneer of Civic (Public) Journalism as Editor and Vice President of Charlotte Observer, referred to two questions as “What’s worrying us ” in her speech in May 1998. One is “A drift toward the tabloid and the trivial” as seen on reporting affairs of O.J., Marv Albert, or Monica. She pointed out “People will rubberneck, but they don’t trust press that entices them into rubbernecking”, with showing that 1996 pole found only 21 percent of readers have a great deal of confidence in newspapers, which was down from 31 percent in 1989. Another is “A deepening gulf between an elite press and the people we say we serve”. Buckner explain that almost all reporters are educated, but less tan half of Americans have finished college, which certainly causes them to see the world differently than their readers. ”Then we talk to newsmakers more than we talk to readers. We’re victim of our limited experience”. Shaffer, in her speech in March 31 and May 22, 2001, raised common questions which comes from Journalistic convention in newsrooms from her more than 20 years’ career for The Philadelphia Inquire, such as; Ivory-tower journalism, which is we-know-what’s-best-for-the-community kinds of journalism Journalism that covers buildings – city hall, the police station, and the courthouse – instead of issues. Journalism that builds some great scorecard in the sky and then keeps tabs on who’s up or who’s down today : Democrats or Republicans, the teachers’ union or the school boars, the mayor or the city council And editors and reporters tend to; Go to the Rolodex Commandos who can count on for a good, crisp, and fast quote. Find the two, and often only two, main asides of the story- the conflict. Listen quickly until we get the quotes or soundbites we need, the building blocks for our stories. Then we’re outta there and onto the next story. Treating people simply as the “color ” or “wallpaper” for our stories. Shaffer analyzed that those long-time’s convention interrelates with decline of Readership ( In 1965, 71 percents of Americans said they had read a newspaper yesterday. That number had shrunk to 46 percents by April of 2000), as well as Viewership (Network TV news viewership, who regularly watch nightly network news, has fallen from 58 percents in 1993 to 30 percents in April 2000 ). It suggests, it was not that readers detached newspapers, but that rather newspapers detached readers. And it might be rather reasonable consequence of “one-size-fits-all kind of journalism” in quite diverse American communities. And she urges us to reflect that “It may be that we are prisons of journalistic conventions, so busy covering the “news” that we are missing the stories”, too. (3) “Connection making business” Jeannine Guttman, Editor and Vice President of the Portland Newspapers and another pioneer of Civic (Public) Journalism, gives us all an awakening words. “In this day and age, people can get news information from anywhere they want”, said she in Battan Symposium in 2001, “There is only one reason they buy your newspaper, because they have a relationship with your paper”. Adding to decline of readership, now newspapers across U.S. share the threat of growing “Generation G”, who are the kids born between 1978 – 1995, and who will become the largest generation on history in this decade. “By majority, it will be a non-white generation. Technologically, this is a generation raised with computer mouse in one hand and a Nintendo controller or a GameBoy in the other”, Shaffer describs. Gen.Y warns us to prepare for much more diverse communities, involving possible transformation of traditional printed media with “rectangular paper”. Otherwise, newspapers will be dying out. Of course, the same crisis is shared in Japan, too. Decline of regional newspapers is giving concerns to citizens, too. Michael Gulker, a 29 years old student of Divinity School at Duke Univ. says, “Now we have Pulutocracy” (pulute means money, cracy means politics in ancient Greece) instead of democracy (demo means people) in America, because I feel that local media are faced with crisis”. He believes that democracy is based on people’s voice in each community, of which guardian has been each traditional local media. “But now, lots of local newspapers have been incorporated by huge media group, and TV are dominated by other huge media groups. They are market-oriented, and would not be much interested in local issues. If independence or even existence of local media is lost, only pole which is conducted by huge media group take place of people’s individual voices, can influence and move politics in this country”. How to overcome crisis of regional newspapers and journalism in America (and even more than that) with adopting themselves to new time? Its possible answer has been Civic (Public) Journalism. “We (Pew Center) were founded not out of a concern that Journalism was broken, but out of a concern that Democracy was broken”, Shaffer explains the fundamental idea on Civic Journalism. “People were not voting, volunteering, or engaging. From the very beginning, our mission has very interactive: To create a kind of journalism that doesn’t just treat readers and viewers as if freak show. Rather, to create a kind of journalism that also positions them in stories as active participants in a self-governing society. They have a role to play. There are action they could take if they wanted to” Editors of regional newspapers around her country are concluding that the journalism in the future is very different from what they used to be, according to Shaffer. “Sure, we need to keep up with important breaking news. We need to catch the crooks and spotlight the injustices. But we also need a New Media for a New America. We need a new kind of journalism, one that is not just a watching dog and certainly not only a attack dog. We need a journalism that can be a guide dog as well. A journalism that reflects people’s desire to be part of something – a community, a special interest group, a demographic or ethnic slice of America”. For Jennie Buckner, the best definition of “journalist” is “Connection maker”. In their recent project “Exit 25” for Charlotte Observer, they set up a special web-site for people who live in high growth areas to discuss their concern, and it gave people without a strong sense of community a chance to reach out and find like their souls. “We run stories on what they had to say – and it was great stuff. They had advice for planners and city officials who deal with growth. The amazing thing was this: They urged us to provide even more depth in our coverage of growth and development. These folks are hungry for more about zoning, not more than tabloid topics”. With those achievements, Buckner concluded that Civic (Public) Journalism is the “Connection making business”. 4. Founders and promoters (1) “Buzz” Merritt and Wichita Eagle The historical background when Civic (Public) Journalism was born in U.S. seemed to be similar to current situation among newspapers in Japan. In 1980’s, contrasted with “Bubble economy” of Japan that had dominated in world’s trade, American business and society was depressed. “Time were tough for newspapers in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Weren’t doing very well. Circulation and readership were dropping – a decade-old trend. Costs were escalating; newsprint prices were spiking. The economy was slow, so revenues were down while demands for profits were escalating”. Steven A. Smith, Editor of Statesman Journal, OR, reminisced days in 1989 when he had been working for Wichita Eagle, KS, in his speech in Feb 2001. Newspapers around the country had successively ceased their issuing evening editions to cut costs. “ There was a palpable sense that everything good about craft was slipping away. And with Knight-Ridder’s corporate admonition –get with it or get out- ringing in their ears”. With news of layoffs at other newspapers, editors of all over the country were getting from their bosses: “Get with it-the cost cuts, the hiring freezes, the revenue growth. Get with it, or get out”, Smith remembered. “Of course, I was depressed, too. We all were. The day Buzz told us we would have to cut 25 percent of our local news hole, literally overnight, I started looking for a way out. Get a Ph.D., I thought. Go teach”. Davis “Buzz” Merritt was an editor for Wichita. “I had thought of how to renovate newspaper with good journalism”, he talked in my interview in Jan 23, 2003. According to Smith, what Merritt had been thinking then was, “I can’t fight the business of newspapering. It’s too big. Too hard to get my hands around that will have to be someone else’s fight. “The newspapering I knew is gone and won’t be back. And that’s not all a bad thing” “If I want to be a journalist, if I want to be a editor, I have to find a new journalism that means something, that makes sense in today’s world” Time had came in summer of 1990, when an unexpected female candidate won state Democratic gubernatorial primary campaign. “All the wisdom and political experience of the newspaper said she didn’t have a chance”. Merritt was quoted as saying in Columbia Journalism Review (July/August 1992). “Obviously, she knew more about what people were thinking than we did”. At that moment, he realized the limit of conventional way of election coverage. Later, he noted in a book “Public Journalism / Theory and Practice / lessons from Experience” (2nd edition in 1995, co-written by Jay Rosen, Lisa Austin), Particularly in political matters, the traditional journalistic framework is one of a contest that produces winners and losers. In fact, a convention of political reporting is to sort out winners and losers not simply in elections but in all matters of contention. This model denies the essence of democracy, which is to resolve matters in a way that everyone can live with. With Merritt’s Sunday column which announced “We believe the voters are entitled to have candidates talk about the issue in depth”, Wichita Eagle started “Voter Project” in gubernatorial election, September 1990. “Voter participation is falling rapidly; voter interest in candidate and campaign flagging even more. Many reason exist for this, but prominent among them is that people are feup with and numbered by slick, no-brainer, packaged candidates and campaigns”. He contended in his column. Using a research department and a consultant, Wichita Eagle interviewed 500 local residents on critical state issues. What they picked up were; education, taxes, economic development, etc. “I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that newspaper shouldn’t set the agenda, they should report other people’s agendas”. Smith’s reflection is introduced in Columbia Journal Review. “But the fact is, nobody is setting the agenda. The public has an agenda, and our job is to find out what that is and see that it get covered” They ran features “Where they stand” on every Sunday to give readers background on each issues, and kept checking candidates to report what they talked about on given issues or what they didn’t in “Election Watch” section. On the other hand, they encouraged readers that they should participate in vote through a series of articles and promotion activities with “Your Vote Counts” logo. With information on how and where to vote, they helped people register to vote easily at the newspaper’s front desk. Even beyond their readership, Wichita Eagle ran TV spot for more registration and voting jointly with TV station, as well as their delivery of voters’ guide to about 135,000 nonsubscribing households and to local adults literacy classes. Wichita Eagle’s “Your Vote Counts” project continued through ‘91 local election and ’92 presidential election. After ’92 election, voter turnout in their primary circulation area was 43.3 percent, compared with 31 percent for the rest of the Kansas. Merritt was said to have sent a congratulatory memo to his stuff. According to Smith, projects gave editors and reporters chances to “reeducate ourselves to become aggressive about issues”. Merritt talked to Terashima in Jan 2003 in Kennethaw, GA, “It was the beginning of Public journalism”, and he became a powerful leader of the movement. About its legacy in Wichita Eagle, his long time colleague, Sheri Dill showed an interesting date in “Civic Catalyst Newsletter” (Spring 1995) by Pew Center. Percentage of Eagle readers who said the newspapers’ coverage was “very effective” or “extremely effective” in interesting them to vote. Nov.1990 - 34.8% Nov.1994 – 75.4% Readers who were “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with Eagle’s election coverage Nov.1990 – 79.3% Nov,1994 – 88.3% Readers who said the coverage was either “very fair” or “somewhat fair” Nov. 1990 – 72.5% Nov.1994 – 86.4% (2) Jay Rosen “It was in 1991. I had a call from David Mathews of Kettering Foundation to invite me to a meeting in New York”. “Buzz” Merritt talked with Terashima’s interview on Jan.23, 2003. “There, I first met with Jay Rosen, who was invited, too. Mathews was a matchmaker. Soon I and Jay found that we shared same idea about a new journalism for public life. So we named it Pubic Journalism”. Merrit was a practitioner. Rosen was a scholar. Public Journalism as a movement promoted by collaboration among Journalists and academics began with their meeting. * According to Merritt, it was Edward Fouhy to give it another name “Civic Journalism” in 1994 when the Pew Center for Civic Journalism opened. Former Vice President of CBS and ABC News, Fouthy was founder and, for five years, executive director of Pew Center. Jay Rosen, a professor of Dept. of Journalism and Mass communications and at NYU, has been the first advocate and a leading figure of Civic Journalism (he calls it as Public Journalism) since 1990. In his essay “Public Journalism (What Is Public Journalism? A Brief Description)” in August 1999, Rosen announced. “Public journalism is a movement, a loose network of practicing journalists, former journalists who want to improve their craft, academics and researchers with ideas to lend and studies that might help, foundations and think tank that give financial assistance and sanctuary to movement, and other like-minded folk who seek to contribute to a rising spirit to reform” The movement began in earnest around 1993, according to Rosen, whose primary focus has been the media’s role in democracy as a press critic and essayist, too. “although its origins reach back to disgust with the 1988 (Presidential) campaign and to various troubles in the press, including declining trust in the news media, a shrinking and fragmenting audience, a rising tide of cynicism and disaffection in public life, a dwindling sense of mission within newsroom and a general sense that the craft has been misfiring in its attempt to engage people in the news of the day”. What Rosen regarded as “disgust” in 1988 campaign was demonstration of Democrats’ candidate Michael Dukakis, who climbed aboard on tank and rode around to show his tough position on defense like a farce, and coverage of the “media event” by press which took it serious and reported it as “news”. “This is what the system had told them was “politics”. They looked at Dukakis, bobbing along in his tank, and they said to themselves, “This can’t be politics. But here we are, covering the “campaign””, he said at a discussion meeting titled “Public Journalism and Democracy” in November 20, 1997. And “this emptiness, this vacuum at heart of the profession’s public purpose” was then repeated at the Democratic and Republican political conventions, where they had 15,000 media people, and nothing significant was reported because the event is totally scripted. Rosen felt “Here we see crisis of professional purpose” as well as crisis of democracy, all the more because it happened almost at the same time with historic event “the end of Cold war” in 1989. Everyone involving media was drunk with global triumph of American democracy just behind the actuality of erosion at home. Rosen described, “the nation was in a state of civic disrepair” with “fewer people voting, public cynicism, a public dialogue conducted through advertisement and shouting matches and media events, and less and less participation in civic life”. Then Rosen started to get involved in the concept “Public Journalism” with some journalists like Merritt, “whom he discovered”, who were trying to play a different role in their communities by supporting public discussion. Rosen “started to correspond with these editors and I began to visit them their local and talk with them. In these meetings, I tried to get conversation going about civic priorities in Journalism. What should they be? When journalists go out and do what they do? What is it they’re trying to create? News or strong community, a better politics?” At the brainstorming discussion among journalists and scholars at Harvard titled “Planting the Seed for 1996(campaign)”, he announced again. “The purpose of the election is to produce a winner, the purpose of campaign is to produce a discussion“ “While the election is an event, the campaign is a process” “an interplay of forces, one of which is the press”. It is his consistent idea that journalists can learn to use its influence on behalf of a strengthened democracy. Jay Rosen worked as the Director of Project on Public Life and the Press, funded by the Knight Foundation from 1993 to 1997, of which goal was to further the movement for Public Journalism by holding seminars for working journalists and researching their experiments. He is a member of Penn National Commission on Society, Culture and Community, which studies the decline of public debate and what might be done to improve it. He is also an associate of the Kettering Foundation of Dayton, Ohio. (3) James K. Batten “I think we need to cultivate a journalistic ethic that celebrates the magic of writers and editors and photographers and artists who are blessed with the gift of connecting – not just wafting self – indulgent massages out of newsroom’s door”. They say that this appeal in James K. Batten’s speech on April 3, 1989 at the UCR, CA,outlined much of the philosophy of what has come to be known as Civic (Public) Journalism. He was also quoted as saying in the same speech, “We need to challenge editorial page editors and political editors and writers to invest new ways to make the public’s important business rivetingly interesting – and much more difficult to ignore” Batten, a died in 1995 at the age of 59, was a great patron in the movement as Chairman, Chief executive of Knight-Ridder, which is one of largest newspapers chain in U.S. owning 16 daily (at present 32 daily and network of 56 regional web-sites) such as Akron Beacon Journal (OHIO), The Charlotte Observer (NC), The Philadelphia Inquirer (PA), The Miami Herald, Tallahassee Democrat (FLA), The Wichita Eagle(KS). 1989 was his second year to have taken office as the top when he announced his fundamental idea at UCR. According to Jay Rosen’s latest book “What Are Journalist For?” (Yale University Press), Batten had entered the “tricky terrain” then. The percent of adults reported that they read newspaper everyday was 51 percent in 1988, although the figure was some 73 percent in 1967. “Like all managers of newspaper companies, he was worried about the steady erosion of readership, a lengthy trend that had began to threaten the bottom line”, “for a publicly traded company like Knight-Ridder any downward slide was sure to be judged harshly by Wall Street analysts and the apostles of shareholder value” He had been faced with big challenge in and out of his president’s room. Columbia Journalism Review (July/August 1992) introduced how Batten got the first inspiration about Civic Journalism. At Knight-Ridder, the emphasis on listening /pandering to the reader was part of the ”customer obsession” drive that new chairman Batten started pushing. One of its experiments was 25/43 project, named for the age range of the targeted readers. After three years of massive readers’ surveys, an idea jumped out at him from his finding. “People who say they feel a real sense of connection to the places they live are almost twice as likely to be regular readers of our newspapers as those who say they lack such ties”. He was quoted as saying in his speech in Kansas, “If we can find way to enhance these feelings of community connectedness, that may help produce at least part of the readership and circulation growth American newspapers are pushing for”. From which side of Batten’s mind did his fundamental idea of Civic Journalism come over, a reformer of journalism? or a strategist of big newspapers company? Terashima tried to ask this primary question to “Buzz” Merritt at Kennethaw, GA, in Jan 25, 2003. Merritt started to explain it from the historical background about Knight-Ridder, which was formed in 1974 by merger between Knight newspapers Inc. and Ridder publications Inc. According to Merritt, culture of Ridder was “Newspaper should get profit”, contrary to Knight that Batten belonged to was “Newspaper should take care of journalism, and should get profit”. He didn’t deny Batten’s strategy as a manager, but “Batten had tried to protect good journalism. It was his consistent attitude till his death”. It was also in 1989 when Jay Rosen knew Batten, at the meeting of editors of KnightRidder, which he was invited. “Jim and Jay had already met before I and Jay did”, said Merritt. He and Batten had been long and good friends, too because they worked together for more than 10 years for The Charlotte Observer in NC, where is home state for both of them. They and Rosen shared same idea and formed strong triangle to make Civic (Public) Journalism a movement with different roles from one another. “Jim (Batten) supported what I practiced in Wichita, and made it blossom in many newspapers”. Among the most prominent achievements of Civic Journalism were carried out by The Charlotte Observer. Batten also got partnership with Pew Charity Trust to set up Pew Center for Civic Journalism in September 1993 to spread the movement around U.S. In his interview about Public Journalism by YourSITE.com in July 2002, Merritt talked about necessity of “Leadership from the top”. “The people in charge must be at least benign toward the idea, and ideally, strongly is favor of it”. He emphasized. “A few ‘heroes’ to carry the torch and demonstrate what Public Journalism looks like. Even if leadership from the top is not present, a few dedicated reporters and editors can begin planting seeds. It is much preferable, of course, if top leadership recognizes those heroes”. It must have been a look of Batten whom Merritt remembered at the moment. (4) Pew Center for Civic Journalism Besides close collaboration between journalists and scholars, they have an independent prompting body for their movement, Pew Center for Civic Journalism, Washington DC. It has worked as an incubator for experiments of Civic (Public) Journalism opened to any news organization with various functions as follows, Founding for Civic Journalism projects “James K. Batten Awards for Excellence in Civic Journalism” since 1995, named after Batten Holding workshops, symposium, convention Publications (involving videos) Quarterly newsletters “Civic Catalyst” We have Japan Newspapers Editors and Publishers Association, which is the only organization joined by almost all the local, regional and national newspapers and news agencies in our country. It also has conferences and newsletters for general aspects on newspaper journalism and business, of which annual “Japan Newspapers Editors and Publishers Association’s Award” is the most authoritative one presented to excellent reports and projects. But it has not a function like Pew Center, as it mainly works for development and prosperity of the entire newspaper industry. “Development of journalism” and “it of newspaper industry” is not yet separated notion in Japan. Pew Center was established to “help stimulate citizen involvement in community issue”. With its nonprofit and public nature, while Pew Center has been a partner with lots of journalism organizations such as AEJM, The Kettering Foundation, it started to be an incubator for journalism in 1994 to provide funding to news organizations. Its “Pew Project” is something like unprecedented in Japan, because it is that a nonprofit organization supports costs of projects of newspapers, which aren’t be covered in normal newsroom budgets or which would might have been turned down as “too adventurous” “Pew Project” has been selected among proposals of Civic Journalism submitted to Pew Center by news organizations. Approximately total $25 0000 is granted to around 15 initiatives annually, and by 2002 it amounted to 121 initiatives participated by 226 news organizations. “We at the Pew Center have come to use the shorthand that we are sort of a venture capital fund for risky journalism experiments around the country”. Executive Director, Jan Shaffer mentioned in her speech in June 1997. “ But we are also serious journalists about the business of serious journalism. Then we use the results of our research and our funding – the successes as well as the failures – the lessons learned, to educate the rest of the profession. We’re betting on leadership, on creativity. We’ll have some hits and some outs. But that’s the nice thing about being a non-profit. We don’t have to worry about being profitable. We can afford to take risks” It’s also noteworthy that Pew Center’s workshop has been attended by more than 3,520 journalists, and its quarterly newsletter is read by more than 10,000 journalists and “civic leaders”. James K. Batten Award is an annual $25.000 cash prize. It was created in 1995 to spotlight excellent achievements in Civic Journalism that tries to engage people in community issues and to support their involvement – active and deliberative – in the life of their community. Eligible for the competition are not only print but also broadcasts and online news reports. 22 projects shared the Award so far, with 13 other citations. The Symposium, which is joined with annual prize-awarding ceremony, has worked as the largest event for civic journalists to appeal publicly and share their latest achievement. According to Pew Center, characteristics among those initiatives are as follows. Interacts in useful ways with readers, viewers and listeners Helps people identify issues or problems Taps into the concerns of various stakeholders Engages people in considering choices, trade-offs and consequences Examines possible solutions Illuminates the common grounds on difficult issues Makes use of the internet to involve citizens Demonstrates a shift in newsroom techniques to tap into the community Advances participatory democracy in other ways Awards’ Advisory Board is consisted of following members. Jinnine Guttman / Executive Editor/VP, The Portland Newspapers Teresa M. Hanafin / Editorial Director, Boston.com Amy McCombs / Former President and GM, KRON-TV(NBC) W.Davis Merrit / Former Editor, The Wichita Eagle John X. Miller / Public Editor, Detroit Free Press Bill Mitchell / Online Editor, The Poynter Institute Jack Nelson / Former Chief Washington Correspondent, Los Angels Times Joe Ritchie / Knight Professor in Journalism, Florida A&M University Jan Schaffer / Executive Director, Pew Center for Civic Journalism Steve Smith / Editor, The Spokesman-Review Terence Smith / Media Correspondent, Senior Producer, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Mizell Stewart, Ш / Managing Editor, Tallahassee Democrat Pew Center closed office in early 2003 after finishing its a decade’s role to have promoted Civic Journalism movement. Jan Shaffer newly opened J-Lab: Institute for Interactive Journalism jointly with Maryland University. J-Lab will eventually inherit Pew Center’s work to help news organizations use innovative computer technologies to ways for people to engage in critical public policy issues. J-Lab also plans to give $15000 awards each year to journalists who build the best news models that foster public participation. Pew Charitable Trusts was established in 1948 by oil company founder’s family to support non profit activities in the areas of culture, education, the environment, health and human services, public policy and religion. It makes strategic investments that encourage and support citizen participation in addressing critical issues and effecting social change. In 2000, with $4.8 billion in assets, the Trusts granted $230 million to 302 nonprofit organizations involving Pew Center. 5. How has Civic (Public) Journalism changed a newspaper - Tracing the Charlotte Observer Founded in 1886 in Charlotte, North Carolina; Joined Knight Newspapers in 1955; acquired The Charlotte News in 1959; merged all operations except editorial pages in 1983; The Charlotte News, an afternoon newspaper, ceased publication in 1985; Circulation : 224,125 daily; 294,666 Sunday; Executive Editor, Jennie Buckner (1) “Your Vote ‘92” It is Charlotte Observer to have built a model of Public Journalism with their election campaign “Your vote in North Carolina ” in 1992, in the wake of the first experiment by Wichita Eagle. It is also characteristic as the joint project with The Poynter Institute, a non-profit academic institute for journalism in St. Petersburg, FL, which had functioned as a promoter of Public Journalism at its early stage. <Beginning> Another call for change of journalism came from a speech by David Broder, The Washing Post, in Riverside, CA in early 1991. He warned that in coverage of election and politics, voters did not only feel shut out from the election process, they also see no relation between the grandstanding style and the substantive but difficulty of governing that must come after the election. His speech also charged press for getting too close to the political process and too far from the voters. “We have to try to distance ourselves from the people that we write about – the politicians and their political consultants – and move ourselves closer to the people that we write for – the voters and the potential voters ” (“The Charlotte Project”, The Poynter Papers: No. 4) It was July in 1991 when the first meeting by people of Poynter and Observer was held in Charlotte. Poynter sought for a partner among newspapers to achieve the change through as Broder suggested through a radical experiment. So did Observer in particular because they got a bitter experience to miss the call in a “horse race” pole of Senate election in 1990. Experience in Wichita was also conveyed to Observer during their discussion, of which main subject was “how to let the voters, not the candidates, establish the issues of the campaign”; and “how to link the substance of the campaign to the realities of postelection governing”. In the beginning of the experimental coverage, Observer decided to initiate its listening with a community poll having two objectives; Identify a “citizens agenda” that would become the principal guide to campaign coverage. Recruit a “citizen panel”, a large cross-section of the readership that could be used throughout the campaign to advice the Observer on the issues and the newspaper’s coverage. <The Citizens Agenda> Charlotte Observer conducted the poll of 1,003 randomly selected adults in the late December 1991 and early January 1992, focusing on “what they are concerned about” and “what they want the candidates to discuss” in the upcoming election. It was cosponsored by WSOC-TV, which agreed with issue-centered poll. They shared cost of $18,000 including subsidy by Knight-Ridder group. And six major concerns uncovered were; Economy and Tax, Crime and Drag, Health care, Education, The environment, Issues of family and community. They became the citizens agenda. At the end of the poll, responders were asked whether they ‘d like to be included in coverage by participating in a Citizens Panel. More than 500 people agreed. “We will seek to reduce the coverage of campaign strategy and candidates’ manipulations, and increase the focus on voters’ concerns”. On Jan.12, Observer manifested their challenge for the brand new election coverage on Executive editor, Rich Oppel’s Sunday column with his photo and headline “We’ll help you regain control of issues” on the front page. “We will seek to distinguish between issues that merely influence an election’s outcome. We will link our coverage to voters’ agenda, and initiate more questions on behalf of voters”. Beside his column, top news featured citizens’ voice to express current disappointment about politics and politicians, with its headline “People more and more upset politics” and Observer’s campaign logo “Your Vote in ‘92”. It was the first step of Observer and Poynter’s strategy to connect readers to both the political process and the newspaper’s coverage. After the first report on the poll reviews in Jan.19 titled “Fear for the Future”; ”What’s important to you”, six issues were introduced in detail throughout six-week series. From the beginning, articles were filled with people’s voice, together with several features monitored people’s opinion such as “Your turn” “Choices”. Poynter summarized Observer’s practice on interactivity with readers as following; Readers were invited to prepare questions to be used by Observer reporters when interviewing candidates. Similarly, readers were asked to comment on upcoming events and candidate appearances; their suggestions often helped guide the subsequent coverage. Volunteers from the Citizens Panel were often substituted for the usual cast of “experts” when comments on the news were being solicited. Complex issues and solutions were personalized; the Observer asked individual readers to describe how they were coping with their own problems. In one series, the lives of three representative families were used over and over as a context for other families to relate more personally to the issues and the available alternatives. “Horse-race” polling almost disappeared, although the Observer continued to put on the record polls commissioned by other news organizations. Two more issues polls were taken during the campaign, to keep reflecting people’s concern on coverage correctly. Readers were asked to publicly evaluate the Observer’s coverage; their observations were published regularly. <Change of coverage> Candidates were covered consistently on the line with Citizens Agenda. All profiles were augmented by grids comparing candidate records and statements with the Citizens Agenda, too. They say that Observer concerned candidates might just ignore the whole project. But actually even the incumbent Senator couldn’t. Poynter Paper introduces an exiting episode; “Incumbent North Carolina Sen. Terry Sanford tried to dodge participation in the Observer’s early coverage of the issues, justifying his reticence on the basis of being unopposed in the primary. But he came into the game after the Observer printed, ‘Sen. Sanford refused to answer the questions…’, followed by naked white space where his opinion would have been published in a comparative grid. It may have been the most creative use of white space in the 1992 election” Observer created several more devise to keep the candidates focused; “Where He Stands” / a recounting of a candidates’ record, including speculation on how that candidate might tackle specific problems if he elected. “Watch For” / a small feature, usually attached to along profile, diagnosing a candidate’s campaign strategy on particular issues. “What they’re saying” / an unfiltered summary of candidates’ positions using their own words from stump speeches, press releases, news conferences, interviews. “A Consumer’s Guide”/ a review of candidates’ statements on key issues. Campaign coverage was not limited to political reporters. The first major piece on issues, “Economy “, was written by a business reporter, and edited by business desk. Political reporters are skilled at following candidates on the trail, but if complicated social and economic issues were going to be the driving force of the coverage, reporters experienced in those areas would have to be enlisted. Business, education, health, feature, media, and even religion reporters were covering the campaign. To make Citizens Agenda primary and common strategy of their newspaper, editors and reporters of every section could work together beyond traditional border in newsroom. Overall coverage of the presidential race nearly doubled from 1988 to 1992. In 1992, Observer used 118,108 square inches of space – more than 60 full pages – compared with 10,460 square inches in 1998. The largest increase came in coverage of the issues, where the commitment of space tripled, from 1,890 in 1988 to 5,716 in 1992. In 1988, “campaign analysis” stories about campaign strategies, represented 21 percent of Observer’s coverage. In 1992 that figure dropped to less than 11 percent of a much larger total. Coverage of “horse-race” polling fell from 634 inches (6.1 percent) in 1988 to only 263 inches (1.4 percent) in 1992. <Readers’ questions> When reporters interviewed candidates, they consistently delivered readers’ questions. Throughout the campaign, Observer run a regular feature “Ask the Candidate” to publish answers of candidates and their campaign staffs. Observer also gave members of the Citizens Panel chances to interview candidates directly. Pat Buchanan was interviewed by eight members of panel. Three panel members questioned gubernatorial candidates at a debate on school reform. Observer’s attitude was the same even when they covered President Bush. Poynter Paper introduces an episode; “We submitted nine questions from readers for President Bush last week, and the White House sent back answers for three of them, published here. “They are the first answers we have received since we began sending the President your questions more than two months ago. “In April, he declined to answer readers’ questions when he spoke in Charlotte at a fund-raising dinner. His staff said he needed more time. He still has not answered those questions. “Meanwhile, other candidates visiting the Carolinas – Bill Clinton, Pat Buchanan, Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin and David Duke – answered your questions. “When we learned the president would visit Faith, we asked you again for questions. More than 40 of you telephoned in questions for Bush about the economy, taxes, health care, foreign policy, and other issues. “But the president’s campaign staff said he would not have time to spend with a reporter answering a sampling of those questions. So we faxed them to Washington, asking if Bush could answer them in writing instead. Voters emerged as participants in the campaign—Jay Rosen reviewed in his essay “Getting the Connections Right: Public Journalism” (CPN Journalism, 1996) “Oppel was deploying the power of newspaper with his threat to leave a blank space under Sanford’s name. But he had had other weapons on his side: the renewed authority that came from the legitimate attempt to make the campaign dialogue a discussion of important issues. The pre election poll, the newspaper’s interview with citizens, and the fact that readers were constantly urged to phone, write and fax with questions and comments gave teeth to the claim to be representing citizens. This claim, which is always to some degree rhetorical, became more and more empirical as the Observer found ways to first define, then pursue a “citizen’s agenda”. All of this helped to make the Observer’s power play an instance of fair play” “‘That’s not the way I have my campaign structured’ is a subtle invitation to Oppel to enter the universe of handlers of pollsters. By declining this invitation, Oppel stayed within the universe of the citizen. He also let Sanford know how the Observer would be “structuring” the campaign: as a dialogue on public issues. Like any good journalist, he hung tough with Sanford as the Senator tried to squirm away. But here, toughness was placed in the service of public dialogue” <After election> It was an another goal of the project to make people’s voice in election reflect on issues of governance after that. In particular, voters-driven coverage was adopted in the coverage of the North Carolina Legislatures. To update the agenda, the Observer took another poll on statewide issues and followed legislatures’ performance, with the headline “What you said …what they said…what they did…What they didn’t do”. The Poynter Paper introduced one editor’s voice, “Readers commenting on what the legislature did and what they were disappointed with is pretty powerful stuff, more powerful than a traditional story in which the newspaper brings in a verdict of its own” Members of the Citizens Panel were often consulted for opinions on issues. (2) Next step <“Taking back our neighborhoods”> “Freedom Park Conversations” in 1993 was the next chance for the Observer to adopt reader-driven coverage into daily subjects in the community. The project came out with an affair – a local park was closed by residential neighbors who complained of noise and traffic. It caused tension between races because the park was popular among black people in the community predominated by white people. The Observer soon moved and offered itself as a catalyst for possible solutions. It created “a forum for rational talk” in the newspaper and gathered people’s voices including black community, young users, city council and county commission which control the park. “Taking back our neighborhoods” became an another big project since “Your vote in ‘92”. In October 1993, two policemen were shot to die by the suspect they had chased in Charlotte. The case shocked citizens with a reality of “city of crime”. The Observer started the project in June 1994 with scientific analysis on the background of the tragedy - growing crime rate in central-city. And poll of 401 residents in high-crime neighborhoods about what must happen to make their streets safer – “add police, improve courts”, “Curb drug abuse”, “Help children succeed”, “Crack down guns”, “Job opportunities”, “Get neighbors involved”. Editor, Jennie Buckner’s column on front page called on citizens’ involvement. “This series will take us into neighborhoods in Charlotte’s crime crescent – where one in 13 people is likely to be a victim of violent crime. The series also will focus on solutions. We’ll show you how people and programs are making a difference in these most troubled places and how some neighborhoods have begun to stem the violence” “Tackling crime in neighborhoods with the worst problems will improve the quality of life for us all. So this is a series for all of us, whether we live in a high-crime neighborhoods or not” “We hope you’ll give us your thoughts on solutions. We hope you’ll tell us about making a difference. We hope you’ll decide to get involved in some way. If enough of us do, we can take back our neighborhoods” Partnered with WSOC-TV in the wake of “Your vote in ‘92” and two radio stations, the project had been run till Spring in 1995. The Observer featured one of high-crime community in central-city named Seversville in July 1994, where one in nine people was murdered, raped, robbed or assaulted each year. The articles on seven full pages included; Reports on life threatened by crime in Seversville, and on residents who struggle to make it safer place for children, who help depressed, jobless people. In particular, it pointed out the difficulty of providing activities for children in a neighborhood without a community center and very few outlets for recreation. “Observer Panel” - Discussion by community leaders and residents in Seversville who have worked with the Observer, and who were invited as “advisory panel” Q & A with authorities about questions on crime, community needs, housing which Seversville residents often ask “Needs List” with call phone number – about 24 urgent help that Seversville residents ask for - donations and volunteers, goods and services needed for their housing, jobs, and for community. It included drivers and vehicles to transport children on field trip, leaders for a Girl Scout troop, a mobile basketball goal, volunteers to help residents organize job bank and learn basic education and job skill etc. The Observer featured several more communities after reporting Seversville in the same way including each “Needs List”, “Observer Panel”, and held town hall meeting between authorities and residents. Moved with a series of campaign, Mayor of Charlotte pledged to build recreation center for Seversville. Other major achievements were; Parks officials took children on canoe trips and hike, and opened gym for basketball (Seversville) University students offered to tutor children (Seversville) Police cracked down on neighborhood troubled spots and patrolled on mountain bikes (Commonwealth-Morningside) Residents organized program to restore a sense of community (CommonwealthMorningside) The county renovated an activity shelter (Commonwealth-Morningside) Abandoned apartment buildings, attracting drug users and prostitutes, were torn down (Wingate) Parks officials repaired playground equipment and spruced up a neighborhood park (Belmont). Residents pressured a local bar with a history of violence to stop selling alcohol (Belmont) <Community coordinator> The Observer got fund from Pew Center for Civic Journalism for the project. With it, they hired temporally a “Community coordinator” to help newsroom get more interactivity with neighborhoods. Visiting communities and their meetings, the coordinator organized the advisory panel during the reporting, set up town meeting, and assembled “needs list”. <Media Partner> In 1996 – 4 years after “Your Vote ‘92”-, Observer practiced further step with the project “Your Voice, Your Vote”. Inheriting methods of ‘92, the election campaign was partnered by 15 newspapers and broadcasts, which made unprecedented statewide campaign. They invited 13 candidates for senators and a governor and asked questions for 3 hours that were jointly made based on voters’ survey. Though newspapers competed independently on other kind of campaign stories, they had an accusation “Media Cartel” by others. Why partner? Jennie Buckner answered about this question in speech and panel discussion simply, “There’s little chance each media organization could have accomplished this on its own” “We decided we wanted to do a statewide look at what issues were most important to citizens”. (3) Legacy <In the newsroom> Visit to the Charlotte Observer by Terashima was on Jan 22, 2003. In interview with Taylor Batten, Government Editor and a son of James.K.Batten, he said, “Experience in ’92 and ’96 election coverage became tradition in our newsroom”. In Senator’s election in ’98 with which Batten took charge of coverage, The Observer invited three candidates in NC separately to interview each of them for three hours. Interviews were made in line with new “Citizens’ Agenda” about six subjects including tax, education, security, which was assembled after voters’ poll. The Observer reported difference of idea and policy among candidates on front page and two more full pages. Batten stressed “We also consistently hold citizens’ meeting with members of state and city congress”. Fannie Flono, Associate editor, editorial board, is proud of involvement in “Taking back your neighborhoods” in her career. “As a reporter, it was the first chance for me to think about ordinary neighbors in community, and to find them people with various ideas for solution. I remember the big open session at town hall, when citizens appealed what they need. People could change themselves, and newspaper could empowered them”. With the project, Flono knew lots of children whom she could seldom have a chance to meet with before, and wrote columns to ask citizens for helping them . That experience gave her a life work. Flono started “Email-network” with current children in and out of Charlotte last October. Every week, she asks a question about school or society via email to 75 teens on mailing list. Answers are featured as “Young voices” on Tuesday’s Opinion page. “I’d like to bridge between children and a newspaper more to let them know what community our Charlotte like. And I’d like children to get involved in community with hope and dream”. <More interactive> They had much snow in the morning on Jan.22 in Charlotte. Steve Gunn, Metro Editor, was so busy to keep updating news about snow storm for The Observer’s online. Information had been emailed to him from readers, which said “Traffic got better”, “I found a terrible traffic accident in my neighborhood”, “I was helped by some kind guy in the snow”, “I’ll offer myself baby sitter for troubled family” etc. Gunn picked up some and edited them for online news. The Observer always let readers know where to give news tips and feedback via phone and email on both printed paper and online. “I’ve gut 30 or 40 emails from readers. But they’re rather fewer than I expected”. Gunn practiced a new and unique initiative of interactivity with community in 1998. The project named “Exit 25” was inspired with daily life of his neighborhood. Exit 25 is the name residents call their own newly developed area, which was growing fast enough for residents not to be able to share sense of community in all car-based life. They also were troubled with problem of traffic that made people impossible to cross or walk along roads safely. “I had heard of the circumstances in the area they even couldn’t meet with each other. Then, I thought of that it could be cool and important for our newspaper to let them know and talk with each other. The Observer might be bought there, too”. With the project, The Observer created web-site for people of Exit 25 as meeting-place at the same time as the series on newspaper started. Web-site soon got feedback and it became a big online session. “Growth” of area, traffic jam and problem of commute, complaint about developers only seeking for profit, better and safer educational circumstances for children, sense of having been ignored of by politicians, gap of conscience between older residents and newcomers. But also new residents contributed much to constructive discussion with both good and bad examples in their previous resident area such as Los Angels, New York, Florida etc. The Observer run eight parts’ “Exit 25” series on newspaper from various residents’ view points such as commuter, teenager, builder, storekeeper, mom etc with lots of readers’ comments on web-site . ”Nice job on the article in today’s paper…” “I like these articles. But I do not agree some of the reports… ”. Gunn said, “Feedback always came soon. We got about 200 emails for less than 3 weeks. Some were from outside North Carolina”. He added, “Web is indispensable tool to strengthen interacitivity for newspaper, I believe. You could try and get it soon”. 6. Spread and development of Civic (Public) Journalism (1) Outlook Civic (Public) Journalism of some kind has been practiced in at least 322 newspapers, one fifth of all newspapers in Th e U.S. for a decade since early 90’s, according to the report “Measuring Civic Journalism’s progress” by School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison (September 2002). These are the numbers of newspapers of which projects were funded by Pew Center, or submitted for Batten Award, and submitted for recognition or advice to the Center. The projects were published by news organizations located in 220 U.S. cities and in all but three states (Hawaii, Nevada and Wyoming). 75 percent out of the projects were published by organizations with circulation of 225,000 or less. Nearly 45 percent were published by small to middle sized organizations with circulation of 100,000 or less. It shows that Civic (Public) Journalism could fit and penetrated regional newspapers more. The invention of Civic (Public) Journalism began with election coverage in projects like Wichita Eagle’s “Your Vote Counts”, Charlotte Observer’s “Your Vote ‘92”. The report by UWM analyzes that early projects addressed the role of the press in democracy, but also had to invent the new voters-driven coverage, developing a wide variety of nowtypical techniques in Civic (Public) Journalism in U.S. Such as citizens’ agenda through polling, discussion by focus group, reports combining issues and candidates. Although Civic (Public) Journalism was incubated among several Knight-Ridder newspapers in early stage, it spread beyond “border” rapidly. Election coverage peaked in 1996 at 25 projects. The Maine Citizens Campaign by Portland Press Herald, which began in1995 but continued through 2000, engaged 90 citizens in continuing discussions of issues they identified as important in the ’96 presidential campaign and expanding deliberations through public forums. “Community” was the next major field that experience and technique gut in new election coverage was adopted. Charlotte Observer’s “Taking Back Our Neighborhoods” demonstrated methods of Civic (Public) Journalism to work effectively in coverage of community issues. These are always combined with number of complicated factors in America; race, crime, collapse of family, drag-addiction, drop-out from school. Communities also are demographically changing and threatened by crisis of decline for economic factors. Methods of Civic (Public) Journalism – dig voices of community, bridge their discussion with solution – gave regional newspapers lots of achievement. And it opened further possibility to give voice to “disfranchised communities” in American society, which include increasing population of minority people, even younger generation who has been detached from newspapers for long time. (2) Case study 1. < Community > “Living below the line” (Sep 22-28, 2002) - The Herald Sun The Herald Sun - Durham, NC. Circulation; morning edition 100,0 00 copies The project focused on “Poverty” spreading behind prosperity in Durham, the city of high-tech industry. Hinted by the 2000 Census, which showed increase of families living below federal poverty line by 122 percent for a decade. “It impressively contrasted facts which wealth of this area has been increasing, and which ‘poor class’ decreased in other parts of this country on Census. We thought it could be a good theme for practicing ‘Civic Journalism’”, Ron Landfried, Day Metro Editor of the Herald Sun said. Trying to meet poor family, they started to discuss how to make it a project one year before, and conducted 3 months’ penetration in communities since Jun 2002. Herald Sun practices a big project a year, and so far they had covered subjects such as “Hosing” “Crime” “Education” etc. “This time, it was rather hard work to get consensus in newsroom because ‘Poverty’ was as big theme as ever. Still more it was the first attempt on the idea of Civic Journalism for us. Finally Bill (Hawkins, Vice President, Executive editor) decided it”. Durham used to enjoy “Golden time” when huge tobacco factories and their employees – almost black people -filled downtown, but they’ve all gone by early 90’s. Editor and reporters found out that the current “Poverty” was spreading among the class who couldn’t get job opportunity in the latest industrial sectors because of lack of enough education level and new skills. Such a “new poverty” class also included lots of white people, and it was new tendency particularly in the South, contrasted by increase of successful black middle-class. Coverage also uncovered another increasing part of “new poverty” was Latino people who have been migrating rapidly, and who live with too low wage level to get insurance or to get education for their children. Seven days’ series “Living below the line” figured out actuality of changing communities with people’s stories through 3 full pages or more every day. Among those are such as; “Poverty’s grasp on families threatens children’s future” “The vicious cycle; Drug and poverty” “A lack of education can keep trapped in poverty” “For single mothers, poverty makes raising a child more difficult”. Last 3 days of the series seek for solutions such as; “’Work First’ seek to move people from poverty into regular work” “Buying a place to live is among the most effective routes for the poor to improve their lives” “Churches, faith organizations lead outreach to our most troubled citizens”. Reports on each subject were reinforced by dates, map, graphics and analysis, and were made more practical and helpful for afflicted people with full of information on “rescuenet” by public sectors, religious and civic organizations. “Connecting” was among major aims of this project. One of the most effective devise was “poverty-area map”, which Herald Sun’s staff created based on Census in demographic method with computer. The map revealed that those areas almost concentrated on downtown Durham, which also warned dissolution of central city. On 7 th day, Herald Sun also featured proposals for solution by a resident of community who also is their editor, and eight responsible persons of each organization including city council, Durham county department of social service. They were the members of “Community forum”, whom staff of Herald Sun Chose and invited for refining how the project should be covered. “We held forum three times and discussed with members on problems around “poverty” such as drag, dropout of younger people, and finally on what solutions could be. We needed experts, and they gave us great help to find entry point of coverage”, said Landfried. “Drifting time” for tapping community was also important for reporters. Despite busy work in newsroom, Landfried has tried to given it to his staff patiently. Virginia Bridges, 27 years old reporter, was picked up for the project because of her good penetration in community in daily coverage. For writing the story of a young woman who dropped out school and got drag addiction, Bridges visited jail to meet her even three times. “We got good relationship. After that, coverage became rather easier”. Bridges also covered the story of a young single mother whom she met at a charity home for poor people, who struggled for getting regular job and her own apartment with studying hard at Durham technical community collage. One and half a month later, Bridges wrote another good story about that single mother, with a headline “Community steps in to help mother – Struggling to raise her two children woman now has a job, an apartment and a career plan”. It was because her previous report moved readers with quick responses with donations and help, including Durham tech President, who offered her a job in the college library. Now Bridges and her colleagues who worked for the project keep writing following stories relevant to “Poverty” and its solution often on front page. “Civic Journalism is, I think, same meaning as good journalism”, said Landfried. (3) Case study 2. < Younger Generation > “On the Verge” (2000) - The Portland Press Herald, Maintoday.Com Portland Press Herald – Portland, ME. Circulation; morning edition 75,000 copies. “When I was working as the community coordinator for the Portland Press Herald, I noticed that many local teens felt disenfranchised by the city as a whole. There was no place for them to gather socially. Business owners often chased them out because they wouldn’t spend money. There was no teen center”, Jessica Tomlinssson talked for Terashima’s interview on Feb.3 2003. “I proposed a series to look at how teenagers felt about life in Portland, and to give them a voice”. Before her move to Maintoday.com two years ago, Tomlinsson had worked for a year long project “On the Verge” in 2000 as a community coordinator for Portland Press Herald. Combination of the team was quite unique with a reporter, a photographer, and an online content developer and a online community organizer for Maintoday.com, whose collaboration was set up by Tomlonsson. They had another motivation to choose this subject. 41 percent of Press Herald readers are age of 35 – 54, so called “baby boomers”. 19 percent are 25 – 34, and 11 percent are 18 – 24. Teenager are called “Gen X” “Gen Y” in America, who grow up with computer game and internet. The concern is shared by newspapers beyond countries that readership of papers would go down seriously when current teenager become 40 years old. “That’s why we’d like to build a relationship with them now. Whether they get information from a paper, online, or on PDA, we hope we’ll be the ones they turn to”. Melissa Kim, online content developer, wrote in her essay for Instituto De Prensa. In multiple meaning, the project could be “a new experiment” of Civic Journalism. It was coincidence that shocking case happened in Columbine, CO in April 1999 that two teenagers brought gun into their high school and killed 14 people and themselves. The news let citizens concern more about teenagers, and gave Press Herald persuasive reason to get the project. “The first part of the project was to ask high schools students around the state to write essays about their typical day. It was very informative. We received hundreds of entries. We published them all online, and published the top 10 in print”, said Tomlinsson. The second step was to meet them. They set “pizza open house” as listening post in downtown. Teenagers were asked to drop there to talk with the project team from Sept. “Creating the place for free conversation”. They hosted pizza parties, had booths at local festivals, went to schools and libraries for more chances. One of the most featured initiatives was “camera”. “We hand out disposable cameras and ask teens to document their lives in photos. We handed out hundreds of cameras and posted these photos online”. Press Herald also held roundtable discussions with teens around the state to talk about what they thought were the top issues facings teens. Reporter, Barbara Walsh embarked on years-wealth interviewing. “She walked around with them, ‘dated’ at movie theater, or even visited their bedrooms together with photographer, Gregory Rec. She made friends with them”, said Tomlinsson. The result was a powerful series of stories told from teenagers’ point of view. Peer pressure, sex, dating, family and parents divorce, race, color, stress were found as their everyday’s concern and featured for five part series. Walsh met no less than 150 teenagers for each series. Reports described teenagers’ voices as their conversation were; “We like to party! We like! We like to party! We like! We like to party!” “Theeeey are the populars, and we’re nooot” Web-site for teenagers, named “20 Below” was created on Maintoday.com before series in print started. It was an accident really, according to Tomlinsson. “I was working for the newspaper when a group of high school journalism students came to tour the online division of the newspaper. The entire online division was at a retreat that day and they asked me to host this group of teens. We spent the day together talking about teen issues and available outlets for creative expression. They wanted to know why there was not a place online for teens to express their opinions, share ideas and showcasing artwork. Then I met with the online folks afterwards to carry out their idea”. Series also were published on web-site “20 years Below” at the same time. Feedback was sent via letters and emails by parents, teens, teachers, other generations. Some letters were run in the newspaper, what couldn’t fit in print was published online. Press Herald had an “Online discussion board” so that people could air their opinions and reactions to the stories. “Many teens felt stereotyped. Some parents were angry about the articles on divorced families. But a debate and discussion was raised”, Kim wrote. “Teachers began using On the Verge as a way to spark discussions in classroom. We heard from teachers across the state, telling us that they’d pinned up all the series on classroom wall.. They sent in letters and essays that their students had written as a result of On the Verge topics”. Press Herald’s Newspapers in Education (NIE) Department created a reprint of series and worked with teachers to create a “Teacher’s Guide”. The NIE sponsored a Teacher’s Roundtable in the fall of 2001 for teachers to talk with the reporter and photographer. “So the question was – once the series ended, how did we keep up the momentum with our teen audience and sustain their interest in the newspapers and newspaper products?” Kim’s question represented it of team, as well as Press Herald. Following up in print has been practiced with “Fresh Tracks” – CD reviews by teens – and “Generation Next” – weekly feature focused on young people. Another answer was “Online”. “Web-site was the place where teens could have their voice heard, and the relationship between teens and the paper could continue. Teens are always being urged to contribute work for publication online, and in turn, are exposed to news from the paper, classified ads for cars and jobs, entertainment and movie listings, and other items that might turn them into loyal readers of the paper”, Kim analyzed. “20 Below” has been very successful with lots of page views. “On the Verge” on the web-site is still popular enough to get lots of feedback. It has got about 30,000 hits a month in state where there are only 124,000 teenagers. “We innovative partnerships with local teens and organizations, too. Web-site get even 60,000 hits in a month when we hold annual online ‘High school band contest’”, Tomlinsson said. Attractive devices continue to be added on “20 Below” which covers every teenagers’ cultural fields and invite their contribution of posting letters, photos, reviews, essays and information. “We give presentations at statewide journalism conferences to recruit contributors, we partnered with the United Way to create a teen job bank and we sponsor a statewide art award to get images of artwork”. It’s much to be seen whether younger generation could read newspaper in future or not. But Press Herald has reached them and started to build relationship with them in new way, collaboration between print, online, and NIE. Tomlinsson said, “It was not that Younger people had detached newspaper, but that we had detached them”. Kim also suggested, “If you identify a new audience for your newspaper, then go to where they are. Use their voice to inform the stories. Reach out to them and create a relationship with them. Offer a way for them to provide feedback”” 7. Experiments of “Interactivity” (1) Outlook Civic (Public) Journalism has not only renovated newsroom but has returned a newspaper to community. In that point, “Interactive” is one of the most important factors I learned through this research. Actually, I’ve known that expression in Jazz such as Miles Davis Quintet or Bill Evans Trio. Just like their great performance, lots of achievements of Civic (Public) Journalists in the U.S. are characteristic of various ways of interactivity with readers and community. With rapid spread of Internet since 90’s, they have been developing newer initiatives to combine online with traditional way of reporting year by year. Now, adoption of web-site and email network into coverage has been essential for Civic (Public) Journalism projects particularly on community or younger generation, even helps newspapers cultivate new readers. “Online is now one of twin engines for our newspaper”. Jennine Guttman, Executive Editor of the Portland Press Herald talked impressively in interview by Terashima on Feb 3, 2003. She herself used to be among the news crafts who concerned that online – and its culture - might invade and replace newspapers near future, which is shared by my Japanese colleagues. “But I found, online and printed paper belong to different culture, just like TV or radio. I believe that printed paper survive. Not to chose either, we can make online collaborate with newspaper to strengthen interactivity with readers. ‘On the Verge’ was its experiment”. With a big hit of web-site “20 below”, Press Herald cultivated not only new readers, but also new advertisers for their online. Jan Schaffer summarized result of the APME /Pew’s poll about “Interactivity” among newspapers in U.S. for the Fall 2001 APME News as follows; Eight of 10 newspapers responding give readers one or more options for obtaining the email address of reporters. Nearly eight of 10 have established email, voice mail or web-site tip line. More than seven out of 10 newspapers offer readers one or more avenues other than letters to the editor for publishing their own ideas. More than four of 10 publish telephone numbers of reporters with every story, and more then one-quarter post some or all of their reporters’ telephone numbers on web-site. Fifty-six percent had convened conversations about a key community issue outside of the newsroom. Many of those responding also say that they are offering tip lines, creating Reader Advisory Boards, opening up their news meetings to outside visitors or establishing community publishing venues. Schaffer analyzed, ”When the Internet took off in the mid-90’s, Civic journalists saw possibilities for more than just archiving stories, updating incremental news and opening up unlimited space. Early work began with feedback zones, tip lines, online chats – and venues for the stories readers wanted to tell us, not just what we journalists wanted to tell them”. Some of the latest web-based initiatives enable more and more citizens to participate in projects in new ways. (2) Case study 1. Clipable map in “Waterfront Renaissance” - The Herald (WA) 2001 The Herald – Founded in Everett, Circulation; 60,000 copies for morning edition “Waterfront Renaissance” is the project of “Community development” in Everett with 100,000 population, neighbor of Seattle. Communities are under sluggish economy along with decline of huge aircraft factory of Bowing, which had cut more than 20,000 employees for recent years. Herald tried to let citizens rediscover another rich resource, with which they could draw a dream for future. That was waterfront in four areas on seashore and a river around Everett. “We had discussed how to make it a project on whether waterfront should be developed or preserved for 3 years. We wanted it in the way to reconnect with our community. And a young New Media Editor, Mark Briggs could embody the project with new technology”. Steve Powell, Editor of the project talked for Terashima’s interview on Feb 14, 2003. It was 9 month before the start of project that Briggs introduced his idea at a meeting in newsroom. “Clippable map” was an initiative of interacitive mapping program. By clipping and dragging icons – symbols of park, wildlife preserve, shopping, restaurant, boardwalk, marina etc - onto a map of four areas, users can participate in simulated development. It also was a new kind of poll to collect citizens’ voice, attracting even kids who like computer games. “Waterfront has been the controversial subject because it attracts various interests among citizens - business, environment, new service etc”. Briggs thought that it also could be a good subject for new experiment. Project started by applying for Pew Center for Civic Journalism grants in September 2000. Successfully getting $15,000 for the project, Herald spent $5,000 and two months on developing Clippable map with a help of a software company in Seattle. Together with icons – which increased from 12 symbols to 26 in the end -, Briggs devised the way to divide each map with small grids so that they can count people’s choice of icon on particular parts of four areas. Briggs also created web-site of “Waterfront Renaissance”, which was home of Clippable map. Project launched in April 1. Reporter Kate Reardon wrote a five part series about the situation around waterfront areas and future development, including reports on other regions. The team also organized a lot. A trolley bus tour for waterfront areas, meeting at communities, schools and organizations featuring a promotion video, which was produced by $5,000 Pew funds. Town hall meeting was successful with an expert on waterfront preservation and more than 150 citizens. Powell and Readon appeared on local public radio station KSER and also talked with citizens at open house set at Herald. “It became a huge multimedia project, which was really first experience for us. Getting lots of feedback for project, we felt like trying anything”, said Powell. Crippable map got a big hit with signup of more than 1200 people. For people without web access, the team ran survey about once a week in a paper and in house-ads. About 400 people participated in this way. They combined those numbers with the online numbers to figure out the most popular choices for the waterfront areas. Votes by icons amounted of about 20,000 through four areas at the end of the project in early June. The results of poll were summarized to be a map with top four – seven choices, and given to Everett City together with result of town hall meeting. “City officers were concerned about our project at first, because they had worked for their own plan on waterfront areas for years. But newspaper didn’t set any agenda. We only gave citizens a chance of more participation and discussion for our future”, said Powell. Mayer of Everett sympathized with their intention, and offered cooperation. Port office of the City has already adopted a part of citizens’ proposal for official development plan. “We published all the participants’ name on a paper at the end of project. It could strengthen tie between Herald and citizens again, and it could make me rediscover the richness and possibility of our nature, too” The project also got “Innovator Award” in annual Civic Journalism Awards by Pew Center. “We had three dozen of inquiries about Clippable map from other news organizations ”. Briggs plans another project with Clipping map in 2003, partnered with TV station in Seattle. The subject would be problem about traffic and transportation. (3) Case study 2. Computer Kiosk / The Missoulian (MO) What Rod Chaney, Local government reporter, developed was a community survey system with computer kiosks. It is designed to locate and move four computer kiosks around the community to ask people to answer questions, to survey the public opinion informally, to get feedback on issues, to increase citizens’ knowledge of issues and events and to expand access to sources and community voices for reporting. This can change the definition of “man in the street ” polling. Chaney designed a large box that holds a computer, a monitor, and a keyboard in a secure fashion to prevent thieves from stealing and damaging the kiosk. “Like most projects, it has good and bad points”, Chaney answered to Terashima’s interview via Email. The system worked particularly well on two special projects. The most successful was to leave a kiosk at a worker’s camp during the forest fire season in 2000. These camps are set up to house the thousands of firefighters who battle fires in the summer. “I got hundreds of comments from them about work conditions, events they’d seen, and notes to their families. I simply left the kiosk near the camp’s dining hall for two days, and they did the rest” The more difficult effort was, according to Chaney, to have placed four kiosks at different places in town, all asking for opinions about a piece of public art that was scheduled to be demolished. The places were chosen in expectation of getting comments from specific types of people. “For example, we set up one kiosk in a military veterans’ center to get opinions from older people with military experience. However, many of those people appeared unfamiliar with computer. And putting them outside an auditorium where a governor candidates’ debate took place didn’t work because people didn’t have time to get to them in the short time after the debate finished”. Chaney stressed that the system is still on the way of experiment. (4) Case study 3. “NEXT” / The Seattle Times (WA) “NEXT” means next generation, and is a forum for young people to express their opinions and to communicate with each other. Seattle Times started it in January on online “Seattletimes.com” and newspaper’s opinion section every Sunday. The project features 23 freelance writers, who are high school and collage students and recent collage graduates from Seattle area. They were selected 400 applicants. Some students‘ major is journalism, but most are not. On the web-site NEXT, they are writing political and social issues like “Attacking Iraq: The View from Campus” as well as a military draft, stereotypes, poverty, music. They also have four columnists, who write the subject such as “Bush v. Abortion: The president leads attack on abortion rights” “High-tech: Where are the women?” “The matching game: Ah, love… Uh, marriage…”. Web-site NEXT includes page of polls by young people, of which questions are like “Who would you vote off the island? Saddam Hussain / Kim Jong Il / George W.Bush” NEXT has its Advisory board organized by eight young Seattle Times’ staffers – online, advertising, art and editorial. They had prepared for setting it up since November 2002. Calleen Pohlig, NEXT Editor and Assistant Editorial Page Editor answered for email interview by Terashima. “Before NEXT, they (young people) didn’t have a forum of local media that respected their opinions and ideas about issues that affect them. We meet (writers) monthly and eat lots of pizza while we debate topics and set deadline” But advisory board has not given them any training for better writing. “We want them to write like themselves. I edit for AP style, accuracy and libel, etc, but not much else” Feedback from similar young people has been pretty much. “People seem to be glad the section is here and they enjoy reading about issues from a different perspective”, Polig wrote. Feedback to articles are always updated and introduced on “Letters” page. Some discussed, “Your article fails to mention our unwavering support of Hussein throughout the 1980's, when he was much more powerful and more able to repress his people. Indeed the Iraqi people have suffered most in the last 10 years from the U.S.-led sanctions regime imposed and enforced by the U.S. and the U.N.” Other sympathized, “A bigger advancement for women would be to encourage them to excel intellectually, physically and spiritually, from infancy. Obviously your parents did this well. Encourage other parents to do the same. You have a strong writing voice and I encourage you to use it. Be well; be balanced” It’s among the most advanced initiative of interactivity for a newspaper to organize amateur writers’ team and to make them engage in publishing their articles in regular space in online and in paper. “One of the objective for launching this new section is – to serve our younger readers better and increase readership among young generation”, Polig concluded. Portland Press Herald and Maintoday.com (ME) have started similar experimental online project “Bulletin Board” at almost same time. They collected 30 online audiences as “corespondents” including high school students’ newspaper club. Amateur writers publish their reports focusing on outdoor activities, teen group and high school sports. “In few years, we wish we could let them publish articles for newspaper, too, though we also have some objection from professionals”. Jessica Tomlinson, Maintoday.com talked to Terashima. “Bulletin Board” always sets the application form for participation in several categories on its web page. 8. Criticism and arguments on Civic (Public) Journalism A typical criticism about Civic (Public) Journalism is found on Wall Street Journal, 10/17/1996. Spotlighting the Charlotte Observer and some other regional papers, it questioned firstly whether it was right or wrong for a newspaper to get funds for practicing Civic (Public) Journalism from an outside organization, Pew Center. And secondly, whether it was right or wrong for a newspaper to cross the line from reporter’s role to “activist” for community. Questions seemed to be about two points, Civic (Public) Journalism might invade “independence” and “objectivity” that a newspaper should keep. <Independence> Pew funds have been granted for more than a dozen of news organizations’ projects each year. “Subsidy by outside organization has any influence on those newspapers’ coverage or its objectivity?”. That was Wall Street Journal’s question. Many among them were regional papers including The Portland Press Herald & Maintoday.com with “On the Verge”, The Herald with “Waterfront Renaissance” and The Missoulian with “Computer Kiosk”. In case of Press Herald, $15,000 Pew fund was for purchase of several hundreds of disposal cameras and pizza open house. At Herald, $15,000 fund was for production of Clippable map, a promotion video, and for a cost of town hall meeting. At Missoulian, $5,000 fund was for production of computer kiosks. In fact, Pew funds have been granted to initiatives that would not be able to be covered with conventional frame of newsroom budget. Not a word about “influence” on coverage by Pew Center was heard through this research. “Without Pew grant, our project couldn’t be carried out”, Herald’s Mark Briggs said. People of regional newspapers feel that criticism of this kind often comes from the camp of big newspapers. “They can do any journalistic experiment with their own money with no worry”. Evaluation about “right or wrong” on Pew funds is difficult, because no similar example exists in Japan to compare with. But we can’t deny its incubating role to give lots of regional papers a chance of practicing even the most advanced initiative such as Clippable map. Pew Center has reviewed results on each of funded initiatives, and has let other journalists and news organizations know and share their colleagues’ achievements. As a result, we can find that Pew funds have helped regional papers get more credibility in each community that can be the fundamental of “independence”. There seems to be a different factor on the background of big newspapers’ criticism on Civic Journalism, which might be a competition among big newspaper groups. Traditionally Knight-Ridder’s newspapers have been many among applicants for Pew funds, partly because Civic Journalism movement started with the group’s newspapers such as Charlotte Observer. Even Knight-Ridder’s PR news on annual James K. Batten Excellence Award for Civic Journalism had often announced “Awards competition, designed to recognize and celebrate the success of Knight Ridder people”. Big newspapers including New York Times or Washington Post have been expanding each territory by purchasing regional newspapers, which now rival Knight-Ridder and several other groups. “Are they – big papers - eligible to talk about ‘independence’ of a newspaper? ”, one journalist said ironically. “They are eager to buy newspapers around U.S. for just profit. Who’s really invading?” The Herald Sun wouldn’t apply to Pew’s fund for their first Civic Journalism project “Living below the line” in 2002. It’s one of only two newspaper which has been still independent from any newspaper group in North Carolina. <Objectivity> “To detach” and “objectivity” is not the same -. Davis “Buzz” Merritt talked about Civic (Public) Journalism at lunch-on lecture for Media Fellows – international journalists Program at Dewitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism, Duke University, NC on Feb 24, 2003. Questions by journalists from Washington Post and German broadcasts almost concentrated on “Objectivity”. A News program director for a German TV sighed to Merritt’s experience at the Wichita Eagle, “It’s an astonishing, burning subject. How do you get an objective report when you stop ordinary way of election campaign coverage? ”. Merritt must have asked similar question several hundred times so far, though he has proposed journalists to change definition of “Objectivity”. Since people like George Gallup established method of “Poll” in 1920’s, it has been a major part of U.S. politics as well as its coverage. While computer made it easier and quicker, big newspapers and major TV networks, news agencies got partnerships in running poll in several groups, as if they’ve occupied public opinions in America. Poll also has been depended on by traditional journalism as a symbol of “Objectivity”. In a Japanese journalist’s impression, no other countries make more poll-driven politics and poll-driven reporting than U.S. It often can be dangerous because poll just depends on a limited number, all the more dangerous because it is U.S., only superpower in the globe. To what extent, “Public opinion” can represent people’s voice? How many samples can get objectivity? What the objectivity in poll originally? I asked these questions to next day’s lunch-on lecturer, G. Evans Witt, C.E.O of polling company, Princeton Survey Research Associates. “Exactly America might be ‘the most poll-driven country in the world’”, Witt admitted. But his explanation about more scientific way of poll was not persuasive at all, while even election only represents voters. “Objectivity, as defined by the knee-jerk, absolutist school of media ethics, means standing so far from the community that you see all events and all viewpoints as equally distant and important – or unimportant” ”The result is a laying out of facts in a sterile, noncommittal manner, and then standing back to ‘Let the reader decide’ which view is true” Phillip Meyer, professor of school of journalism at UNC Chapel Hill, figured out “objectivity” in traditional journalism in his essay “Public Journalism and the Problem of Objectivity”. Merritt talked, “We should detach the situation when we chose the value to report and framing with professional’s objectivity”. Meyer also summarized it and wrote, “There is a potential connection between computer-assisted investigative reporting and public Journalism. To get at the structural analysis that will fuel public deliberation, we need date-rich investigation. And to manage large bodied of date, we need not only computers but a disciplined method that allows us to ask a question of the date in a way that we will not be fooled by answer” <Bhudda’s three eyes> In Jan 2003, I got a chance to watch and listen to 372 citizens’ deliberation in Philadelphia. The big meeting “By the people – Americans’ role in the world ” (Kettering Foundation sponsored) invited ordinary adults of every generation who were selected across America. My interest was “how 9/11 in 2001 affected democracy in U.S.” because result of midterm election in Nov. 2002, Presidential party got unpredicted landslide victory, showed that U.S. citizens might become more patriotic and rely on stronger power. But reality was quite different. Citizens discussed in 24 small groups frankly their concern and embarrassment; “Is it right to force our democracy and its value to countries with different culture? ”, “I found now that what happened in the world can happen on my family, too”. Another citizen spoke out “What America can do is to demonstrate process of democracy to the world”. I met a dentist whose patient died at World Trade Center, and met a high school teacher who took students there to discuss America and the world. Each group summarized their deliberation as “citizen’s question” for 2 days, and asked 24 questions to policy makers such as Blezinski on 3rd day. It was an experiment, but was real process of democracy. Citizens’ discussion was observed and covered by 24 journalists and the academics. Members were the people who engaged in Civic (Public) Journalism such as Jay Rosen, “Buzz” Merritt. Ordinary news reporter would end in only covering the event for 30 minutes. But they followed citizens’ group discussion for three days and interviewed citizens to discuss what they should learn from citizens’ deliberation. This reminded me of past achievements of them that brought people’s voice into process of solution. Journalists and scholars looked as if they tried to find out another starting point in new era. It was the work that even no “scientific” polls could be replaced. That experience reminded me of Katmandu, Nepal that I stayed for coverage in 1997. At an old temple, I was attracted by a big tower symbolized Buddha’s face with “third eye” in his forehead. A Nepali guide said, “That is an eye to see through the truth. Eye of the insight”. Only two eyes might not enough to watch the truth. In Philadelphia, I found that people had exactly three eyes there: citizens’ eyes, Journalists eyes and academics’ eyes. Those were eyes of Civic/Public Journalism to watch their society. I believe that it could be the best answer for question of “Objectivity”, too. 9. New moment – Public Journalism Network “Public Journalism Network” was established on January 25, 2003 at Kennethaw State University, suburbs of Atlanta, GA. 24 participants of its Charter meeting was journalists and academics who have engaged in Civic (Public) Journalism movement for a decade. They included “Buzz” Merritt, Jay Rosen, Jan Shaffer, Chris Waddle, Vice President of Aniston Star, Cole Campbell, Kettering Foundation, Dennis Foley, The Orange County Register. International members from Nigeria or Columbia were also among them as well as Terashima. PNJ will be the first professionals’organization for promoting Civic (Public) Journalism, of which ultimate aim is to help journalists and democracy in the world with their international solidarity. Before Charter meeting, they have discussed it for four months on web-forum. The first reason for a new organization was closing shop of Pew Center for Civic Journalism in Spring 2003, which have played a great role for spreading Civic/Public journalism. People engaged in the movement would need a navigation vehicle to take it into the future. Leonard Witt was chosen as President of PJN, who is the Robert D. Fowler Distinguished Chair in Communication at Kennesaw State University, and former executive director of the Civic Journalism Initiative at Minnesota Public Radio. Witt is expressing another more urgent reason why they need to create PJN now on the web-site. “Sense of crisis” of him has been shared with all other participants. “Any day now we could be going to war with Iraq. But who asked you your opinion about this? Your tax dollars will pay for it and in some cases someone dear to you might die in it. Yet the mechanisms we now have to get the people’s voices heard are limited. Yes, you can vote and you can call or write your elected officials. You might get an oped piece or letter in the newspaper, or have a pollster call you or be stopped by a reporter who might ask for a sound bite or two. Or, as happened around America last weekend, you can paint a sign and take to the streets. A couple of those messages and a few sound bites might be amplified to the rest of the American public” “A group of some 24 journalists and professors from around the country and around the world will gather at Kennesaw State University this weekend because they believe there must be better ways to get residents involved in public life and to have their voices heard. All are advocates of public, or civic, journalism. They believe this 10-year-old movement needs a navigation tool and will form a new public journalism professional society. These charter members believe that journalists in general are too preoccupied with reporting from the top down, too apt to report conflict and extreme points of view and too far removed from many of the communities they serve. Public journalists want to learn through deliberation as well as debate, seek truths from the middle as well as the extremes and want journalists to help residents become more involved in public life” It also has been an aspiration for “Buzz” Merritt to convey Public Journalism among international journalists. He believes in experience of Public Journalism in America can contribute to democracy in other parts of the world. “The nature of American journalism, embedded in the Constitution, is that it is free to do what is pleased with the gift of freedom. The retention of that gift is wholly dependent on a healthy democracy; even the First Amendment is not immune to the ravage of a democracy that becomes moribund”. It’s Merritt’s fundamental idea about freedom and democracy, and journalism which should guard them – from his book “Public Journalism / Theory and Practice / Lessons from Experience” . “But, journalists in U.S. has taken freedom as if it was a natural right”. Merritt talked to Terashima. “In the countries of former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and In Africa, journalists and citizens are struggling and fighting for freedom. American journalists would not even imagine them. I want to help them know that democracy is the best way for it. It could be a new role and stage for us, Public Journalism Network” What Terashima proposed in creating PNJ through web-forum were; To make it a bridge which enable journalists in America and foreign journalists to connect with one another and work together for common issues, which can work in the time of globalization and mutual relevancy. To create archives to introduce the history and achievements of the movement on web-site, so that the foreign journalists can understand “what Civic/Public Journalism is”. To make it include representative essays on its history, academic reports, review of works such as “Taking back our neighborhoods”, and to introduce works of foreign journalists. It is because it’s essential to get a place to compare with one another’s works so that we can learn what’s difference or common, which could build common ground to be worked together. PJN will set up its own web-site hosted by Kennethaw State University in March 2003, which serve as a forum on Civic/Public Journalism. Also its membership committee will start to invite new participants, which is opened to any journalists and journalism educators in the world. First official event as a PJN will be to hold a workshop at AEJMC annual convention at Kansas City, KS, in August 2003, in advance of the first annual meeting. “We aim at holding meetings in every continent, too in future”, said Witt. Proposals will be embodied by PNJ, which included “Creating a data base, annual compendium or other form that will catalog developments in public journalism’s theory and practice” among its first year’s task. PJN’s declaration and major activities would be as follows; *********************************************************** Declaration for Public Journalism A Declaration Written by the Charter Members of the Public Journalism Network Kennesaw, Georgia, January 25, 2003 The Public Journalism Network is a global professional association of journalists and educators interested in exploring and strengthening the relationship between journalism and democracy. We believe journalism and democracy work best when news, information and ideas flow freely; when news fairly portrays the full range and variety of life and culture of all communities; when public deliberation is encouraged and amplified; and when news helps people function as political actors and not just as political consumers. We believe journalists should stand apart in making sound professional judgments about how to cover communities, but cannot stand apart in learning about and understanding these communities. We believe the diversity and fragmentation of society call for new techniques for storytelling and information-sharing to help individual communities define themselves singularly and as part of the whole set of communities. We believe the stories and images journalists produce can help or hinder as people struggle to reach sound judgments about their personal lives and their common wellbeing. We believe we must articulate a public philosophy for journalism that helps journalists reach deeper into the communities they serve and that helps communities work more closely with the journalists who serve them. We believe democracy benefits when journalists listen to the people. We believe we can learn and grow as practitioners, educators and scholars ・and strengthen practice, education and scholarship ・by examining, experimenting with and enhancing the theory and practice of journalism in relation to the theory and practice of democracy. We believe in the value of studying the dynamics of communities and the complexity of public life. Just! as journalists need to adhere to professional and financial discipline to succeed, we believe they must adhere to democratic discipline. We believe the best journalism helps people see the world as a whole and helps them take responsibility for what they see. What: The society will: Support conversations and collaborations among journalists, citizens and scholars that can enrich and transform journalistic practice. Encourage studies of and experiments with journalistic practices (and democratic practices that strengthen journalism). Articulate a philosophy for public journalism that is theoretically sound, empirically grounded and practically feasible. Spread promising ideas and practices so others can test or adapt them. Help journalists reach deeper into the communities they serve and help communities work more closely with the journalists who serve them. Seek ways to ensure that diverse voices and disenfranchised communities are better represented and understood in news gathering and dissemination. Support the teaching and study of public journalism in colleges and universities. How: The society will pursue its goals by a host of activities. It will: Send society representatives to every major journalism convocation, conference and convention – and several outside of journalism – to foster conversations about journalism’s work in democracy and public life. Hold its own convocations a couple of times a year, so members can think out loud together, think up or review experiments, and celebrate advances and meaningful failures. Encourage the development of an applied research network and other universitybased centers, programs and curricula. Develop materials to facilitate teaching public journalism. Run an annual contest to highlight how journalism can excel by building innovative relationships among journalism, communities, citizens, public life and democracy. Maintain a top-of-the-line Web site to serve as a forum for creating, discussing and spreading insights and knowledge * Quotation from Web-site of Kennethaw University 10.Can Civic (Public) Journalism work in Japan? I believe that idea and methods of Civic (Public) Journalism could be adopted into Japanese regional newspapers. Especially some advanced initiative using internet could help us get better interactivity with readers and community. “Email date-base” built at The Spokesman-Review, “Clippable map” invented by The Herald, web-site “20 below” created by The Portland Press Herald & Maintoday.com would be among which could be tried in my newspaper. It could renovate the way of coverage in our regional newspaper effectively, because we also have practiced our own community Journalism so far. But we still have a lot to get over till Civic (Public) Journalism spreads as a movement in Japan. Change needs time because nature and climate in Japanese journalism is different from if of America. Can Civic (Pubic) Journalism work in Japan? – “Yes, but it might take time” (1) What we’ve gut – “Japanese Civic (Public) Journalism” <Banishing Spike Tire campaign> In Japan, we have cultivated our own Civic (Public) Journalism, too. In 80’s through early 90’s, The Kahoku Shimpo practiced 7 years-long project “Banishing Spike Tire” campaign. Spike tire was a kind of vehicle’s tire for winter season. Each tire had several hundreds of sharp iron studs for helping vehicle’s break work on the snowy and icy road, and for preventing vehicles from slipping. But it caused serious problem. Although a spike tire worked while roads were covered with snow, its studs damaged surface of roads serious enough to produce huge amount of dust of cement and asphalt, and scattered them into the air in every early spring as well as even in snowless winter. My hometown, Sendai, which has been known as a city with beautiful green woods, turned to be famous place with air pollution. However, real cause had not been known because some people thought that dust might be brought by seasonal east wind from China, others thought that dust might be brought by vehicles and trucks moving into central city. Project launched in early 1984, after the Kahoku Shimpo we got a letter from a reader whom troubled with dust. The letter asked us for a research about the real relation between of dust and spike tires. We got partnerships with Sendai City office, and their analysis that found out that dust was small pieces of cement and asphalt broken by spike tires. Our reports about it shocked citizens and tons of feedback that worried about their health and early countermeasures by public. With a series of reports, City office moved fast for surveying the interrelation between quantity of dust and traffic in whole city areas. Then, medical department of Tohoku University joined force to practice another survey on citizens’ health, which measured dust accumulated in lungs of residents in each area. A good momentum came from residents in several communities, who stood up to stop using spike tires. Instead, they willingly used winter tire of other type and chains. Their action spread to other communities rapidly and strongly enough to be entire citizens’ movement, together with our newspaper’s campaign and City office’s another unique action. It opened a center for pulling out studs from tires in downtown. Staffs were volunteer university students. The center soon got popular enough to be visited by thousands of citizens who brought their spike tires. On the other hand, the movement had a resistance by people who worried about whether “safety” on winter roads was secured without spike tire or not, and traffic police was among them. The Kahoku Shimpo dispatched a reporter to northern European countries that have kept safe traffic and life without it. People of the countries also taught us that good environment is the fundamental of quality life. Our reports brought the more environmental idea and deliberation to citizens’ movement, and helped us increase supporters. With the movement partnered by citizens, City office, university and newspaper, number of vehicles with spike tire had decreased year by year. That drive had exactly improved air pollution, too. Another step was implemented by City office and Prefecture office that regulated use of spike tires except a few months of midwinter. Development of the movement gradually spread among other regions in northern Japan, it gave strong pressure to Japanese tire makers including Bridgestone. Another pressure to them was the joint action by attorneys in Sendai and other cities such as Sapporo, Matsumoto, who collected several ten thousands of citizens’ petitions and required Governmental committee for public hazard to totally stop produce and import spike tires in due process of law. However, fundamental strategy of the movement was “not to make anyone enemy, but to include them in the partnership”. Our newspaper’s campaign rather encouraged tire makers to develop new winter tire which would be in more harmony with environment and safer. It was a few years later for tire makers to have succeeded to produce high-quality winter tire named “Studless”. We even helped their effort of sales promotion in our region with reports. New partnership with tire makers opened the gate for final goal of the movement. The highlight came in 1990 when Diet enacted the law submitted by Agency of Environment to regulate the use of spike tires almost entire regions in Japan. Then, I was Tokyo correspondent. Everyday, I walked around governmental area in central Tokyo to cover coordination for the legislation inside government including Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Home Affairs. In final stage, Association of Mayors adopted a resolution for legislation to ban spike tire, and lot of legislators supported. We’ve been proud of that no other movement to fight against public hazard could be partnered by those many kinds of people. 7 years long project was joined also by a number of reporters including me who worked for last 5 years. The experience – starting and thinking with citizen – became a part of tradition in our newspaper. <Let Our Green Woods Shine> In another project “Let our green woods shine” in 1988, we never hesitated to confront City office about their policy. Then, they designed to expand subway line through underground of central city. But they wouldn’t have concerned that the plan included removal of several big and beautiful zelkova trees along the main street. Sendai City used to be famous as “Town of Green Woods” since the time of “Samurai”. But it was burn away by bombing of U.S. Air Force in the World War 2. Green Woods had gone away with thousands of people’s life. Several hundreds of zelkova trees were planted a few years later after we got peace as symbol of “Reconstruction and Peace”. Growth of Zelkovas encouraged citizen year by year, and trees could take the name of “Town of Green Woods” back to citizens. Plan of City Office could not but damage a lot the historical landscape, which became citizens’ treasure. “Whose trees are they? Whose town is it? No any room to be reconsidered?” We cast such questions with detailed reports. Lots of feedback came soon via telephone calls and letters to express their wish to preserve zelkova and to ask for officials’ rethinking the plan. Even a citizens group was organized to discuss the question about redevelopment and historical landscape, and they started to stand on the corner of downtown for petition among citizens. Sendai City is almost famous with its traditional summer festival “Tanabata”. It has origin in old Chinese legend of stars that two young lovers, who were detached by god on both side of milky way, in the end allowed to meet just one summer night a year. For festival’s days, People display tall bamboo poles with beautiful decoration of paper crafts and wish letter for god such as “Let me marry him” “Let me be a baseball player”. On that year, people wrote their wish to preserve Zelkova. It became another citizens’ movement that was also joined by a lot of children across communities. It must have been one of the most beautiful and effective protest activities in the world, I believe. The Kahoku Shimpo also reported this problem as a chance to let citizen think the issue “growth control and preservation of environment of city” because it was the time Sendai City was about to join big cities with 1 million’s population. We consistently appealed that deliberation was essential and played a role of “Catalyst” between citizens and administration. Half a year later after the start of a series of reports, Meyer of Sendai determined to review their plan in line with citizens’ wish. And he announced that corrected plan would minimize the removal of zelcova trees, and would compensate for the damage with replant of young trees after construction. Now, zelcova trees are decorated by some millions of illumination in nights of Christmas time, too. It’s another festival named “Starlight Pageant” created by initiative of citizens group to prey long life of zelcova trees and peaceful coexistence with citizen. (2) What need to get <Soil for fostering a movement> We are proud of having unique experiences on Japanese Civic (Public) Journalism enough to share with American journalists and citizens. But it has not been theorized or organized as “a movement” so far, though empirical methods and spirit has been inherited in features section of the Kahoku shimpo. We have no Jay Rosen in Japan. That’s the absolute difference in Journalism between America and Japan. In other word, something lack in Japanese journalism is collaboration and contribution by “School of journalism”. Dennis Foley, Ombudsman of the Orange County Register and a Charter member of Public Journalism Network, expressed his idea to synthesize both newsroom and classroom “in the true spirit of public journalism” on its web-forum. “I'd like to build on the notions of driving civic journalism into newsrooms and classrooms. I've had the fortunate opportunity to do both. I've practiced, promoted and pushed public journalism with reporters and editors and with university communications students and professors through conversations and teaching public-affairs reporting classes. The students accept it readily because it makes sense. It is presented as the way to think about and cover their communities, without the need to contrast it to "traditional" journalism. The goals and values are the same anyway, it's the method and attitudes that are a big part of the "controversy" within newsrooms” Chris Waddle, Leonard Witt, Tom A. Warhover - The Columbia Missourian / Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Missouri Colombia, MO -, Maxwell McComb – Jesse H. Jones Centennial Chair in Communication Department of Journalism, University of Texas, Kachy Campbell –School of Journalism & Communications, University of Oregon -.They are the people I met who have been engaged in Civic (Public) Journalism in both classroom and newsroom, or educators of ex-journalist. They have another network in KEJMC – Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication -. Campbell is its chair of Civic Journalism Interest Group. Foley continued as follows; “In those newsrooms, open-minded journalists usually catch on to the ideals and benefits of public journalism in adding dimension and more thoughtfulness to the way they look at their coverage. I've experienced the fear and loathing among journalists and some professors over this "assault on the dominant paradigm" of Journalism, but isn't this the way in scientific study? The dominant theory is tested repeatedly by others and, over time, the theory is amended and sometimes swept away by what at first seemed a radical, even erroneous concept, which then becomes the dominant theory? I say let's keep pushing. Good ideas have staying power because they work (they are pragmatic, as Jay Rosen says)” – it must be an interactive relationship between journalists and educators which nurtured Civic (Public) Journalism. In Japan, we newspaper journalists have traditionally inherited idea like this, “Journalism can’t be taught in classroom, but in news-site. It can be organized only through personal experience and practice”. This is a pride of news crafts, however the idea might make their world narrower. School of Journalism is, I’ve found here at Duke or UNC Chapel Hill, only the place for young students, but also for any journalists to exchange and share their experience and idea, brand new initiative and information of the world. In the movement of Civic (Public) Journalism, scholars have played an essential role as advocates, catalysts co-workers, educators for younger generation in classroom. This kind of movement has never happened in Japan with no schools of journalism, no Jay Rosen. Only newspaper companies exist. We have seven newspapers in our “Tohoku” region, and share mountainous issues across region - decline of agriculture, fishery and global economy, nuclear power stations, depopulation and community, aging society, short of children’s doctors, work place for younger people etc -. But we have few chances to discuss them with one another beyond companies. It’s closely connected to the fact that our region is separated in 6 small prefectures. They almost succeed to the territories of feudal loads in the time of “Samurai”, each of which is overlapped by areas of seven regional papers. That historical climate might prevent us from nurturing “Civic (Public) Journalism for Tohoku” as a movement. However, Bill Hawkins, Vice President and Executive Editor of the Herald Sun advised me “Start from your newsroom. A good achievement always makes followers”. Without first action by the Wichita Eagle, a ball might not have been rolling even in America. <beyond “Kisha club”> “Kisha” means a reporter or a journalist in Japanese. Kisha club is a traditional, unofficial organization joined by reporters of newspapers and broadcasts. It’s a kind of guild organized by reporters who take charge of each governmental ministry and local public office. Generally public offices serve a room with desks, chairs in their buildings for Kisha club, as well as other convenience like telephone and fax. Its function is to share the information presented by the public office via PR section including press conference. Kisha club often makes agreements on the date to publish an article on particular information, and even gives members who violated it a penalty. Kisha club helps reporters’ efficient coverage and friendly relationship with public offices. Problems about Kisha club has been pointed out and argued for these a couple of decades. It was foreign correspondents in Tokyo who criticized its closeness and exclusiveness to prevent their free competition and access to governmental ministries’ information, because Kisha club has been reluctant to accept foreign journalists. Their pointed out that it could violate freedom of press guaranteed under democracy and that Japanese media might spoil independence of media by themselves. Besides getting conveniences, it was because reporters’ too much dependence on Kisha club could allow easier information control by officials. Meaninglessness of Kisha club in time of internationalization was exposed in ironical way. When Japanese royal princess got pregnant in 2001, it was the Washington post to report the news first while Japanese news organizations were bound by their own Kisha club’s agreement. Particularly from the Civic/Public Journalism’s viewpoint, problem on Kisha club is more serious. Reporters’ dependence on it makes them stay longer at public offices, and detachs them from communities with real citizens’ voice. Still worse, That could even give them “Top-down” eyes as same as officials in spite of our original role to be a catalyst in society. Also it might be a hotbed of “Elite journalism” which would rather be a part of power. Now we are discussing earlier abolishment of Kisha club among Japanese media. It must be the indispensable condition for us to spread Civic (Public) Journalism. 11.Conclusion – How can I start it? (1) Starting from our newsroom “Change takes time. But don’t worry. Start from your newsroom first. Good achievement always gets followers”. It was a great advice by Bill Hawkins, Vice President of the Herald Sun. Even Civic (Public) Journalism movement in America could not have started without the first action by the Wichita Eagle. What I should practice or suggest for my newspaper would be: Organizing a study group with colleagues in newsroom and online section on Civic (Public) Journalism, featuring experiments and achievements by American regional newspapers. Giving occasional lectures for both older and younger generation. Discussing new devices of interactivity with readers by combining newspaper and online. Topics should include creating online-forum on our newspapers’ web-site, building email date-base of readers to get new way of “Q & A”, more diverse feedback Implementing some initial experiments of Civic/Public Journalism like above on evening edition (afternoon paper). Inventing a practical training for young reporters to learn how to tap community, adopting the method of “Civic map”. Looking for possible collaboration and partnership with universities to give lectures or seminars on Civic/Public Journalism in classroom for both students and journalists. It could be a step for another blueprint, creating “School of Journalism” for Tohoku region. Evening edition would be more urgent and practical experiment field, because renovation of evening edition – readership has been declining year by year - is the first priority for the Kahoku Shimpo to be in a hurry. Though online has already replaced afternoon paper in America, our newspaper still issues more than 100,000 copies of it a day for royal readers. Reviving evening edition with new initiatives of Public (Public) Journalism could be a great experiment that is unprecedented even among American newspapers. (2) Building an international bridge <Tie with PJN> Getting support by Public Journalism Network would be indispensable in spreading Civic (Public) Journalism and in promoting “Internationalization” in the Kahoku Shimpo. It would be my another task after returning home. PJN plans to include journalists in the world and to help them exchange experiences and ideas via web-site forum, international conference and other activities. Creating exchange program of younger journalists is among my proposals to PJN. In early 90’, we have practiced a joint project with regional newspapers in Minnesota, Texas to exchange reporters and articles for a several years. At present, we have been dispatching one reporter a year to USA TODAY in DC for 3 months’ training for overseas experience. But among ordinary Japanese Journalists, still now, general knowledge on American Journalism seems to be only “CNN, NY Times, Washington Post”, still less regional and local newspapers - so do American journalists in my experience -. Relationship with PJN would bring us more direct, practical and continuous collaboration. It could bridge newspapers and journalists in Japan and in America who have known little about each other, and help them find common ground to talk with and work with. Those initiatives could also help us share and create international Civic (Public) Journalism. <Time of mutual relevancy> “Everything relevant to our life is important and deserves coverage. If chocolates which we eat everyday were made from cacao taken with a slave labor in Africa, we need to report the fact to consumers”. Joyce Davis, Assistant Foreign Editor, Knight-Ridder News Service talked at workshop at Terry Sanford Institute, Duke University on September 20, 2002. I agreed with her in spite of my dissatisfaction that few reports about citizen’s life in Afghanistan were found in their media campaign on 1st anniversary of 9/11, which should have been the most relevant topic to America. In North Carolina, they have been troubled with sluggish economy and it was among major subject on the midterm election in Nov 2002. At superstores, almost every cheap commodity seemed to be ”made in China”. Traditional industries such as agriculture, textile or furniture production were declining, and local small business was going out after Wal-Mart came in every cities and towns. Those all things happen now in Japan, too. Wal-Mart has just merged one of the largest superstores chain in Japan “Seiyu” recently. In our Tohoku region, cheaper agriculture products from foreign countries occupy shelves of food shops, and threaten life and culture of farmers. On the other hand, Factories, which had given work places for communities migrated one after another to China. It was difficult so far to get so huge whole picture, only from a community’s viewpoint, about that the trends in each part of the world were connected with one another as “Global economy”. That is just one of examples to demonstrate that we are living in the time of “mutual relevancy”. It urgently requires us, journalists of regional media, to get multiple eyes – local and global-. Who’s taking a profit away from each community? What could be a solution? Growing concern, including it about terrorism and war, also require us a network of journalists to connect deliberation in international communities. We, the Kahoku Shimpo are proud of having implemented an advanced project of “Japanese Civic (Public) Journalism” in this field, too. “The circle of Oriza (‘rice’ in Latin) was project in 1997, which sought for renovation of rice producing communities from the global point of view. After the opening rice market, its prices fall down sharply and spur the decline of agriculture, which have been a major industry as well as a base of culture in Tohoku region. We held brainstorming sessions with farmers in more than 20 communities. On the other hand, we dispatched reporters to 24 rice farming countries in five continents to know what challenges rice farmers have shared in the world. Reporters penetrated rural communities in each country to rediscover value and another possibility of rice. Messages from farmers of the world who have struggled to keep their own life and culture under global economy were brought home. Reports conveyed strong international wishes for solidarity with Japanese farmers and their assistance by advanced skill. 89 stories on the front pages and live sessions in communities elicited huge positive responses across Tohoku region. Besides their diverse community development activities, some farmers groups got power to support poor farmers’ rice production in Thailand, other group even have created grass-roots exchange program to invite young Nepali farmers for half a year long skill training since 1997. It was Media Fellow program at Dewitt Wallace center, Duke Univ. to give me first experience to meet and discuss with foreign journalists from Germany, South Africa, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Chili and U.S. Exchange with them taught me that we live in the same world, the same time. It also gave me another viewpoint to find out more similarity than difference in American journalism. That was the works of my colleagues in American regional newspapers, Civic (Public) Journalism. It might be my life work to have my colleagues in Japan share my experience and finding. Fusion of culture of two countries’ journalism could make them much richer, I wish. 12. Afterward My research on Civic (Public) Journalism started in last half of September 2003, though my original theme for Fulbright project was “Community development and the role of Media in the U.S.”. People’s activities to promote self–reliance, self-governance have been always the main subject in my covering declining rural communities in Tohoku region (northeast Japan). I wanted to find out examples of how to change communities better in America. But brand new idea replaced it after I met across web-site of Pew Center. Civic Journalism let me notice “Change is not to be looked for outside world, but for inside first”. We can change ourselves, and it can also help communities change with new relationship of collaboration between newspaper and citizens. I made trips to visit journalists and newspapers in Washington DC, Philadelphia, Kennethaw (GA), Charlotte (NC), Portland (ME), Everett (WA) by air, by Amtrack, by Greyhound. American colleagues could accept and include this Japanese wanderer in their network, and could share their experiences and ideas willingly. Their honesty and devoted deliberation for “better journalism for community and democracy” took me to another starting point of life. In Atlanta, where I stopped after attending Carter meeting of Public Journalism Network in end of Jan 2003, I dropped in the Ebenzer church that used to be a home church of Martin Luther King Jr. Moving holy songs and sermon inspired me an idea, which could summarize my long journey. “People’s prayers must get voices. Voice must get actions for better community, better society and democracy. We journalist must be a bridge for them” I started to write this report on mid December, and finished on March 10, 2003, just 3days before my return to Japan. I must admit its incompletion. But Prof. Kenneth Rogerson, Vice Director of Dewitt Wallace Center, could tell me “This is just beginning. You can be making it complete through your new life”. My report could not be done without his patient guidance. Also my great thanks go to Mr. William Hawkins, Vice President of the Herald Sun. He could always encourage me as his junior, and tell me everything he knew and experienced about newspaper journalism in America. And Ms Laurie Bley, director of Media Fellow program at Dewitt Wallace Center, must be given my best gratitude and affection for her devotion to support me – it’s beyond my description. This report should be a tribute to Laurie. Everything has just begun. Hideya Terashima March 10, 2003 at Media Fellow room, Terry Sanford Institute, Duke University