Another C-J (legal) question

Does anyone know what legal recourse citizens have, if any, in holding a newspaper accountable for what at this point, barring a defense of incredible incompetency, is probably best described as intentionally misleading its readers? I'm specifically referencing 8664. Regardless of where one stands in the ORBP vs. 8664 or other alternatives debate, however, one has to be concerned about the unmitigated bias shown by the paper, particularly when it affects what people know about what, if I'm not mistaken, is the single largest publicly funded project in the region since the construction of the interstates themselves. It's occurred at what I feel to be unethical levels and, unbelievably, seems to be getting worse.

To be clear, I have no problem with the C-J taking a side in transportation matters or any others. What I do have a problem with is headline writing and story placement that strongly favors their side, the use of photos and descriptions that misrepresent items discussed, the failure to address obvious contradictions in their own reporting, the ignorance of relevant facts if they don't support the C-J's editorial conclusions, and, perhaps more than anything, the refusal to even respond when they're consistently caught red-handed perpetrating the above.

It's gotten to the point that their irresponsible behavior with regard to transportation reporting can be and has been publicly predicted beforehand and they still follow through with it.

Does a newspaper have any actual, enforceable responsibility to provide balanced news coverage or to be factually truthful in its editorial stances? Is there anything that can be done other than canceling subscriptions and complaining?

No

[Robin Garr]

Wes got it in one. The First Amendment pretty much allows incompetence in journalism, unless you can show that you suffered individual damage (as opposed to merely being a member of a damaged community) by an act of actual malice by the newspaper.

A lot of us who lived through the loss of local newspaper ownership to Gannett Corp. saw this coming 20 years ago. But I'm not sure most of us thought it would get as bad as this.

Thanks for the responses. I suppose I really already knew the answer but, geez, it's been bad lately.

I've been around long enough to remember the pre-Gannett C-J-- mostly features and extras which actually encouraged me to read in my youth. The current C-J often offers almost pure propaganda. I guess I'm surprised that the general public just takes it when so much of their future, financially and otherwise, is at stake.

it must be part of their Newspapers in Reeducation program.

And they wonder why their readership has gone down so much. My hubby and I canceled our subscription last year, and I haven't missed it. If I really, REALLY need to know something, I look it up on their website. They call us every so often to try to get us to resubscribe, for FREE, and are indignant and shocked when we tell them no. "But it's free!"

Do you know how many times I've been in an advertising meeting with someone only to be told, "We'll buy X amount of advertising from you if you'll promise us X number of column inches in editorial."? When I explain that LEO Weekly doesn't work that way - sales and editorial never cross lines- they look at me and say "Everybody else does it!" Next time you're reading your paper or any publication for that matter, notice what passes for news or a story-line.
That kind of attitude really colors the news that the public reads and isn't much of a service to the community.

Unfortunately, Carla, I have firsthand experience of what you describe, though in Colorado. I worked in communications for a Denver university while I took classes there. The university signed a large advertising contract with a local TV station and was supposed to receive favorable coverage as part of the deal.

When it didn't happen to a high enough degree to suit the school, phone calls were made and the situation was "corrected". Usually it meant that faculty, most of whom had no idea how the deal was structured, were regularly interviewed on-air as experts and consultants on any number of topics, some of which were barely even related to their research areas. The sports teams, too, saw increased air time. Being smart people, a few of the profs began questioning how they and the school had become so popular so suddenly. The answer? About $500K with potential for more used as leverage.

Makes you wonder about the news you DON"T hear doesn't it?

Makes you wonder about the news you DON"T hear doesn't it?

Louisville is still small enough that we often do hear and confirm what the C-J doesn't report or simply ignores (thanks to the LEO in many cases), so much so that they get caught spewing garbage fairly regularly. What it makes me wonder is who is profiting and through what arrangements.

Even the Bingham/Gannett argument only goes so far. Hawpe and Runyon have been on staff for a long time and neither are exactly scoring terribly high on the integrity scale these days. I suppose one could argue that the Binghams would have fired them by now.

The C-J recently had an ombudsman, but that position was axed even before the recent 10% staff reduction.

This is somewhat off topic, but I will miss the paper when it's gone. Major dailies across the US are ending delivery service, and it's only a matter of time before the CJ follows suit. There's not enough news there (what's happened to the Scene is criminal) to get me to walk to a paper box. Still, I'll miss the tactile experience of the morning paper. Snapping it open. Folding it over. Doing the crossword. Passing sections across the bed to the wife. It's not the same experience online. Maybe in time. On the positive side, fewer trees will be getting the axe.

[Robin Garr]

Subscribe to the NY Times, Bill, and put together a little Web page that assimilates such Louisville news as is avaiable from the TV stations, the remnant of the CJ, blogs and such. Not to mention LouisvilleHotBytes. Get high-quality national and international news from one of the few remaining newspapers of quality, and organize your local news surfing into a home page that will actually be better than what's left of the CJ.

We're on our way ... We take the Sunday Times, are working on Louisville Web pages (both Google and Yahoo personal pages work well for this) and will likely drop the CJ when something happens that finally pushes us past the edge. Yes, we do still subscribe, although with less and less enthusiasm all the time.

This is somewhat off topic, but I will miss the paper when it's gone. Major dailies across the US are ending delivery service, and it's only a matter of time before the CJ follows suit. There's not enough news there (what's happened to the Scene is criminal) to get me to walk to a paper box. Still, I'll miss the tactile experience of the morning paper. Snapping it open. Folding it over. Doing the crossword. Passing sections across the bed to the wife. It's not the same experience online. Maybe in time. On the positive side, fewer trees will be getting the axe.

...organize your local news surfing into a home page that will actually be better than what's left of the CJ.

...We're on our way ...

We're right behind you on that path. Where do you surf for local news?