Newsroom Turnarounds: Civic vs. Traditional Approaches

One of the main props in rebuilding newsrooms in the 1990s has been civic journalism. But
along the way, the conversation about new ideas and practices has created two camps. On
one side are editors willing to try some new ways to connect their journalism with public
life. On the other side are editors who want to adhere strictly to the traditional journalistic
techniques.

Steve Smith	John Carroll

Two camps, two voices, one shared passion: They love newspapers and worry about the future.

The passion for breathing life into troubled newspapers brought three editors to Baltimore in
August for the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication. From the civic journalism camp came Steve Smith, editor of The Gazette in
Colorado Springs. Representing the traditional side was John Carroll, editor of The Sun in
Baltimore. And with a foot in each camp, Jody Calendar, managing editor of The Record in
Bergen County, NJ, played centerfield.

All three shared their successful experiences with throwing bombs into a newsroom and rebuilding.
The panel discussion, sponsored by AEJMC’s Civic Journalism Interest Group and the Newspaper
Division, uncovered some common ground between civic journalism and traditional journalistic
values.

Smith and Carroll both strive for wit and energy in their newsrooms. They encourage their
reporters and editors to take risks, Calendar pointed out.

“Whether you call it civic journalism, whether you despise civic journalism, you’re both
saying the same thing. You’re both saying newspapers have to be more relevant, that we
have to care more about our writers and our editors, that we have to reach out into the
community, and that we have to be responsible to do the investigative work, to keep the
governmental watch, to keep our eye on private industry, to go forward in terms of … an
obligation to serve the community, not just the stockholder.”

Smith’s challenge was to connect his staff, 90 percent of whom had lived in the area for more
than 10 years, to a community that was different – the majority had lived in the area less
than five years. To change the content of the newspaper, he changed the culture of the
newsroom. Civic journalism values anchored the changes.

“We wanted to create content that more accurately and authentically recreates the daily history
of our community in all of its wholeness and all of its richness as opposed to presenting a
journalistic conception of that whole rich life through traditional journalistic routine and
reflex,” he said.

He acknowledged that many of his ideas were gimmicky – bombs designed to break down barriers.
But he had no extra budget, no extra staff, and everyone still had to make deadline.

His gimmicks included tearing down walls so “sports collides with features;” holding open
staff meetings in the center of the newsroom; setting up task forces to study, rip and
rebuild newsroom practices; encouraging community involvement by journalists outside the
newsroom; and inviting the public to attend morning story planning sessions. On one morning,
Smith said he was pleased to find 45 people from the community sitting at the meeting table.

“I am trying to create a culture that continuously reinvents itself, that is intellectually
stimulating, that is open, and that in many way reflects the community we are trying to
cover,” Smith said. “It is noisy, chaotic, messy and egalitarian in many ways that traditional
newsrooms are not.”

Through self-critiques, coaching and meetings, Smith has opened the decision-making process
while maintaining his authority as editor.

“What we’re trying to create is a learning environment, a teaching environment, an environment
that is as fluid, changeable and changing as the environment that we are serving. Newsrooms
traditionally don’t change very much but the world outside of ours changes with enormous
rapidity,” he said.

The Baltimore Sun had walls that needed to come down, too. Carroll, who has led turnarounds
at The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Lexington Herald-Leader and The Sun, emphasized that no
one model can change a newspaper. It’s a complex process that stumbles and lurches.

In Baltimore, he found a demoralized staff, the remains of a bitter strike, and staff cliques
that didn’t speak to one another.

“The newspaper coming out of that operation was very dull. It had all the trappings of a good
newspaper, but the core wasn’t there,” he said.

One of the keys to success was removing the tyranny of the editors. “We decided that we were
going to be a collegial newsroom. And editors who screamed at people or made them feel stupid
in news meetings couldn’t do that,” Carroll said.

“I think that people in newsrooms, reporters and copy editors, are very fragile. I think that
the best of them don’t need anyone to push them. They’ll push themselves very hard. But they
need someone to encourage them and to give them the courage to act on their best talents and
instincts.”

Encouragement came by giving reporters the tools to build their crafts. Narrative storytelling
brought wit and personality to the feature pages. Careful hiring placed talented writers in
key spots. Projects teamed old timers with young talent.

The results led to Pulitzer prizes and ASNE writing awards. Along the way, timeliness became
important again.

“We created a sense that this is an urgent business. News is a perishable commodity, and it
has to be handled that way. It gives an urgency and it gives you a vibrance in your newsroom,”
he said.

The Sun needed to wake up readers, too.

“We’ve tried to convey to our reporters that the basis for good digging is good beat reporting,
getting out of the office, and turning over stones and seeing what’s under them.”

The paper this spring won a major civic journalism award for its extensive coverage of how
children could be taught to read by third grade.

“There was some debate whether it was civic journalism, but I would be the last to know,”
Carroll said. It was a public service project that has involved the community and helped
the newspaper.

During the question and answer period, Walt Harrington, a journalist, author and University
of Illinois journalism professor, noted that Smith’s and Carroll’s comments encapsulated the
debate surrounding the differences between civic and traditional journalism. Smith operated
under the idea that product falls out of process, that the journalism will improve if it
begins better. Carroll’s basic assumption was that a commitment to good work and good people
who can do it will improve the product, Harrington said.

Smith said that he hoped there were no major differences between his goals and Carroll’s.
Circumstances such as paper size and community dictate the differences, he said.

Carroll, too, found common ground. He said that when he first heard of civic journalism, he
thought it was just another gimmick.

“Initially there was a thrashing around of what civic journalism was and there were many things
done that a good civic journalist wouldn’t do now. They sort of turned me off, and I started
thinkingthat I didn’t want any part of this,” Carroll said.

Now, he said he supports most of what civic journalism does, but he emphasized that it was
only one of many ways to do good journalism.

“I think it is very positive in that it turns newspapers to serious subjects that are of
importance to communities rather than the fluff and celebrity news that so many are dealing
with,” he said.