“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