WEBVTT 00:00:32.509 --> 00:00:34.509 Good evening and welcome to this Friday edition of Horizon. I'm Michael 00:00:35.868 --> 00:00:38.926 Grant. Normally on the Friday edition, we bring Valley journalists 00:00:38.959 --> 00:00:42.375 together to talk about the week's events. This week, our program shifts to 00:00:42.408 --> 00:00:45.726 the decision makers perspective the view from the people who call the 00:00:45.759 --> 00:00:49.085 shots from major newspapers here in the Valley. We'll take a look tonight 00:00:49.118 --> 00:00:52.551 at the state of the print media in Arizona and the state of the state 00:00:52.584 --> 00:00:56.231 itself. Joining me tonight to discuss these issues are Pat Murphy, 00:00:56.264 --> 00:01:00.351 publisher of the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette Jetta Boomers, 00:01:00.384 --> 00:01:05.111 associate editor for the New Times and Max Jennings executive editor for 00:01:05.144 --> 00:01:10.742 the Tribune newspapers. Pat former Governor Meeko has obviously asserted 00:01:10.775 --> 00:01:15.161 time and time again that it was a media conspiracy that in no small 00:01:15.194 --> 00:01:19.406 measure drove him from office. And some of the poll data that I have seen 00:01:19.439 --> 00:01:24.605 indicates that at least some portion of the of the public subscribes to 00:01:24.638 --> 00:01:29.376 that view to defend yourself. I don't think I have to defend myself. No, 00:01:29.409 --> 00:01:34.367 there's no truth to it. Obviously, any troubles that engulfed the governor. 00:01:34.400 --> 00:01:37.376 He invited on himself with his own deeds and his own words and his own 00:01:37.409 --> 00:01:42.316 actions. He of course got involved in the loan, he got involved in the 00:01:42.349 --> 00:01:45.686 Protocol Fund and the alleged cover up of the death threat. So those are 00:01:45.719 --> 00:01:48.316 the three things that troubled him in front of the legislature as well as 00:01:48.349 --> 00:01:50.936 in the criminal court. But you're not, you're not responding to the 00:01:50.969 --> 00:01:55.816 significant public perception. Oh, I think it was a media conspiracy deal 00:01:55.849 --> 00:01:59.546 with that first. I think, I think there's a feeling in the public in any 00:01:59.579 --> 00:02:02.326 event that there's a conspiracy, somewhere at all times, there's a 00:02:02.359 --> 00:02:07.007 conspiracy by the Federal government, the bankers, the media doctors, 00:02:07.040 --> 00:02:11.186 whatever. And there's no way in the world that truth, persuasiveness, 00:02:11.219 --> 00:02:16.396 veracity or anything will ever overcome that dormant feeling. And I think 00:02:16.429 --> 00:02:18.696 one of the reasons that that is, is because there's a distrust of the 00:02:18.729 --> 00:02:23.616 power of the media, especially the large dailies that you run. And I think 00:02:23.649 --> 00:02:26.696 in any community where you've got a great concentration of power and a 00:02:26.729 --> 00:02:29.717 couple of media outlets, you're going to have that thing. And I think for 00:02:29.750 --> 00:02:32.786 a long time, there's been a lot of discussion in Arizona about the power 00:02:32.819 --> 00:02:36.946 of the R G and this was a way of attacking that power and saying now 00:02:36.979 --> 00:02:40.536 they're abusing that power if you ever had it in the first place is I 00:02:40.569 --> 00:02:44.207 think in some people's minds questionable, but I think that this was 00:02:44.240 --> 00:02:47.886 latched on by the MECA people and their supporters. Let me also offer one 00:02:47.919 --> 00:02:53.666 other thing too. Do any of the three of you really like Evan and unless 00:02:53.699 --> 00:02:57.656 someone jumps up enthusiastically and say yes, let me assume that the 00:02:57.689 --> 00:03:04.656 answer is no. And does that foster and encourage that impression too? That 00:03:04.689 --> 00:03:08.906 as a human being, the guy really was not cared for and therefore, how can 00:03:08.939 --> 00:03:14.547 the press be dispassionate and fair with someone as a public official who 00:03:14.580 --> 00:03:17.896 as a person they really don't care for and don't care for his politics and 00:03:17.929 --> 00:03:21.346 don't care for some other things. Well, keep this in mind the governor and 00:03:21.379 --> 00:03:24.186 his followers did not stop with just the Republican, the gazette. When 00:03:24.219 --> 00:03:27.146 they said there was a conspiracy, there was a conspiracy of the Phoenix 40 00:03:27.179 --> 00:03:30.297 and the attorney general and the gays and the sodomite and the marxists 00:03:30.330 --> 00:03:34.346 and disloyal republicans and democratic agitators and so forth. There was 00:03:34.379 --> 00:03:38.427 a conspiracy at every turn. Now the reason people in the public, it seems 00:03:38.460 --> 00:03:41.475 to me locked on to that and were sympathetic or some people were, was 00:03:41.508 --> 00:03:47.245 because Meek was perceived as the little man fighting these forces of evil 00:03:47.278 --> 00:03:50.626 and, or power and influence. And I think that there's a natural underdog 00:03:50.659 --> 00:03:54.577 type factor there. But as a newspaper editor, this concerns me a great 00:03:54.610 --> 00:03:58.305 deal that, that there large numbers of people out there who simply do not 00:03:58.338 --> 00:04:02.626 trust us anymore, who have lost faith in us who do not believe that we 00:04:02.659 --> 00:04:06.085 play down in the middle who are concerned about our own personal integrity 00:04:06.118 --> 00:04:10.196 , those of us who are in a position to lead and we have to listen to those 00:04:10.229 --> 00:04:13.946 concerns. I think as an industry and start trying to address them, I just 00:04:13.979 --> 00:04:17.495 , I don't know how to do that, but I, I'm deeply sensitive to that and I'm 00:04:17.528 --> 00:04:22.596 worried about it's in point and I think it was cited by maybe at that time 00:04:22.629 --> 00:04:27.455 , still press secretary to, to Governor Mein. But the contrast in, I 00:04:27.488 --> 00:04:33.745 believe it was a Republic story and a star story on the same meeting, I 00:04:33.778 --> 00:04:39.106 don't want to get into the details of that. But to your point, there's 00:04:39.139 --> 00:04:43.616 that sort of disparity in coverage when you can run one headline that says 00:04:43.649 --> 00:04:48.276 agreement reached and another paper say agreement falls apart. Does that 00:04:48.309 --> 00:04:52.937 foster that insecurity that the public seems to have? And it does and 00:04:52.970 --> 00:04:55.075 those things are explainable. I mean, you have, I mean, that's one of 00:04:55.108 --> 00:04:58.197 things that belies the conspiracy theory. You've got various reporters who 00:04:58.230 --> 00:05:00.416 are interviewing different people. In this case, you had two different 00:05:00.449 --> 00:05:03.127 cities whose Hispanic leadership came out of that meeting, both of the 00:05:03.160 --> 00:05:06.515 different response to what that meeting meant. But I think that what 00:05:06.548 --> 00:05:09.447 happens is you've got a lot of different reporters looking at something 00:05:09.480 --> 00:05:13.870 and the thing that got a lot of us upset after a while only because we get 00:05:13.903 --> 00:05:18.262 upset about these things is that there seemed to be a homogene homogeneity. 00:05:18.963 --> 00:05:20.963 It seemed to be very same. English is not my first language. A sameness 00:05:24.812 --> 00:05:27.740 about sort of the approach of things. And I remember being out at the 00:05:27.773 --> 00:05:31.019 Capitol one time during the trial and I was waiting at the elevator and a 00:05:31.052 --> 00:05:33.829 couple of reporters came up and one of them said our lead so far is, and 00:05:33.862 --> 00:05:35.959 these were two competing journalists, these were journalists from 00:05:35.992 --> 00:05:39.568 different publications who were both agreeing that that morning the lead 00:05:39.601 --> 00:05:43.433 so far was X Y or Z. Well, I agree that that was the most important item 00:05:43.466 --> 00:05:47.902 that day. But anyone overhearing that conversation would say, see, they're 00:05:47.935 --> 00:05:51.142 all just kind of getting together and trying to pull out something. And I 00:05:51.175 --> 00:05:53.663 think that there is a problem we're dealing with is that the public 00:05:53.696 --> 00:05:57.142 particularly, let's say during the Meko trial, they saw what happened on 00:05:57.175 --> 00:06:00.282 television and then they picked up the paper the next morning and read 00:06:00.315 --> 00:06:04.231 that reporter's account of what they saw. And of course, no two people 00:06:04.264 --> 00:06:07.512 ever see the same thing. If 20 reporters stand on the corner and seeing 00:06:07.545 --> 00:06:10.743 the same car wreck, they're going to see 20 different versions of that car 00:06:10.776 --> 00:06:13.967 wreck. And that's exactly what happened. The viewers did not have the same 00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:16.926 version of what they saw as the reporters. And so therefore they started 00:06:16.959 --> 00:06:20.317 attacking the reporting because it was a rare opportunity for them to 00:06:20.350 --> 00:06:24.666 compare from a front row seat as well, what they saw compared with what 00:06:24.699 --> 00:06:27.067 the reporter wrote. And that's the first time many people there have had a 00:06:27.100 --> 00:06:30.377 chance to do that. But the inhibitions on the print media are these as you 00:06:30.410 --> 00:06:36.356 , as you well know, the print media has 10, 15, 20 inches of space to tell 00:06:36.389 --> 00:06:39.717 what happened in an eight hour span. Television is, is showing the eight 00:06:39.750 --> 00:06:44.455 hours. Now, if a viewer were to sit in the equivalent of 10 or 15 or 20 00:06:44.488 --> 00:06:48.887 inches time to see what was happening, television would portray the whole 00:06:48.920 --> 00:06:51.717 story either. But Pat, that's what those of us inside the business. 00:06:51.750 --> 00:06:55.015 Understand, we understand how extremely difficult it is to compress eight 00:06:55.048 --> 00:06:59.416 hours of testimony into six or seven or 800 words. But we understand that 00:06:59.449 --> 00:07:03.137 , but the public does not. And therefore we're losing our credibility with 00:07:03.170 --> 00:07:05.825 the public. And I think one of the reasons is, and I keep remembering this 00:07:05.858 --> 00:07:09.325 from a town hall that we went to several years ago. It was based on the 00:07:09.358 --> 00:07:12.226 media, the media being fair and honest and the things that came out of my 00:07:12.259 --> 00:07:15.245 group that what really impressed me was that people wanted the distinction 00:07:15.278 --> 00:07:19.265 between the news stories and the opinion pieces and they hated stories 00:07:19.298 --> 00:07:23.526 that embarrassed people. They really don't like the embarrassing stories. 00:07:23.559 --> 00:07:26.217 There was no way to cover Meacham without embarrassing Mr Meacham. I mean 00:07:26.250 --> 00:07:28.887 , he continually embarrassed himself. And so therefore you had to either 00:07:28.920 --> 00:07:31.515 ignore the story altogether or you were going to embarrass him that's 00:07:31.548 --> 00:07:34.666 going to automatically turn some people off. But let's talk about that 00:07:34.699 --> 00:07:39.955 first point separation between editorial and news pages. I think you ask 00:07:39.988 --> 00:07:44.325 seven out of 10 people, uh, in this valley, they'll say that if the paper 00:07:44.358 --> 00:07:49.575 editorially does this on the last two pages, then those same editors are 00:07:49.608 --> 00:07:53.967 saying to their reporters, you do it that way on the 1st and 2nd, front 00:07:54.000 --> 00:07:59.116 pages. Is that true? Well, obviously it isn't true, but I certainly hear 00:07:59.149 --> 00:08:02.526 that, you know, several times a week, I know everybody else here does too. 00:08:02.559 --> 00:08:06.106 And I think that's our fault to a large degree. We have got to explain 00:08:06.139 --> 00:08:09.426 that somehow we are, we are in the business of communications and yet our 00:08:09.459 --> 00:08:13.145 readers do not understand the basics about how the media operate now, 00:08:13.178 --> 00:08:16.145 whose fault is that the public? I don't think so. The one thing that we do 00:08:16.178 --> 00:08:20.007 and it's inadequate, obviously in terms of eliminating all the suspicion, 00:08:20.040 --> 00:08:24.476 but we deal forthrightly when people call, we talk about it, we go out to 00:08:24.509 --> 00:08:29.067 clubs or groups and make speeches. We invite people into the company to 00:08:29.100 --> 00:08:32.407 see how we operate. So they can see that distinction. We answer 00:08:32.440 --> 00:08:36.135 correspondence. In fact, we kept asking governor me time and time again, 00:08:36.168 --> 00:08:41.025 give us specific details of where we have been unfair, inaccurate or 00:08:41.058 --> 00:08:46.177 biased. And he failed in the 15 months to produce a single example, the 00:08:46.210 --> 00:08:50.265 documentation that he provided to me on May 19th, 1987 about our 00:08:50.298 --> 00:08:56.336 unfairness and inaccuracy were 367 xerox copies of columns and news 00:08:56.369 --> 00:09:02.116 stories in which he quibbled with where the story was played A one B one D 00:09:02.149 --> 00:09:05.765 two or what not, but not the facts essential to the story. Could it be 00:09:05.798 --> 00:09:10.907 helped at all? And would it be advisable if for example, newspapers were 00:09:10.940 --> 00:09:15.667 from time to time more judicious about the timing of the announcement of 00:09:15.700 --> 00:09:21.066 their editorial position. For example, allowing the story to mature more 00:09:21.099 --> 00:09:27.206 on the news pages before taking an editorial position on the editorials, 00:09:27.239 --> 00:09:35.239 you have to drop salt into a pot. I'm sorry, too complicated for you. 00:09:35.408 --> 00:09:39.275 It is, it is impractical from this standpoint. The world moves so fast 00:09:39.308 --> 00:09:44.145 that the average newspaper reader wants to find out today, what somebody 00:09:44.178 --> 00:09:47.356 thinks about whatever is happening in the news because two days from now 00:09:47.389 --> 00:09:51.537 something else is happening and they want to but should people and I'll be 00:09:51.570 --> 00:09:54.157 the devil's advocate here. And I could ask this question to myself. Should 00:09:54.190 --> 00:09:59.427 people in, in opinion and leadership roles in newsrooms? Publishers, top 00:09:59.460 --> 00:10:04.116 editors write columns strongly expressing their own personal viewpoints, 00:10:04.149 --> 00:10:08.057 which we've all done. And does that not send a subliminal signal to the 00:10:08.090 --> 00:10:10.976 people who work for us and to our reporters that well, maybe the boss 00:10:11.009 --> 00:10:14.746 would really uh and maybe even subconsciously a reporter might respond to 00:10:14.779 --> 00:10:18.125 a Murphy column or Jennings or rumors about a column. No, that's, uh, 00:10:18.158 --> 00:10:22.586 that's, uh, it does not because frequently you'll find in the Republic and 00:10:22.619 --> 00:10:27.356 the gazette columnists disagreeing with editorials or editorials 00:10:27.389 --> 00:10:30.547 disagreeing with columnists or the publisher disagreeing with editorials 00:10:30.580 --> 00:10:34.236 or what not left hand page disagreeing with the right hand page from time 00:10:34.269 --> 00:10:37.456 to time. Correct. I think where papers get in the most trouble is on their 00:10:37.489 --> 00:10:40.686 editorial pages because I think that a, I don't like that they're unsigned 00:10:40.719 --> 00:10:44.255 editorials. I don't like that myself. I want to know who the idiot was, 00:10:44.288 --> 00:10:48.644 who wrote this editorial. I know, but why can't you just tell me that? 00:10:48.677 --> 00:10:51.024 Just sign their name? I mean, I, you know, you sign your column, when you 00:10:51.057 --> 00:10:53.872 do your column, you sign your column, I sign my new stories. I don't know 00:10:53.905 --> 00:10:57.404 why editorial writers can't do that. It's consistent across the country 00:10:57.437 --> 00:11:02.122 are tribute for, for a time signed its editorials because of those reasons 00:11:02.155 --> 00:11:05.813 saying that's nonsense. Editors are written by people not by institutions. 00:11:05.846 --> 00:11:08.909 And we did that for a while and we went back to the traditional thing 00:11:08.942 --> 00:11:13.309 that the editorial voice is unique. That left hand column represents truly 00:11:13.342 --> 00:11:16.451 the institutional voice. And you can say, well, that's nonsense. There's 00:11:16.484 --> 00:11:19.169 no such thing as an institutional voice. Well, I think that some of us 00:11:19.202 --> 00:11:23.390 think there really is. There is. And I think there is too. And there was, 00:11:23.423 --> 00:11:25.221 in fact, we were talking about this earlier, there was a very good example 00:11:25.254 --> 00:11:28.211 of how these, the left hand and right hand don't agree in this last week 00:11:28.244 --> 00:11:31.817 in the Republic between Ed Montini writing columns just blasting. Things 00:11:31.850 --> 00:11:35.058 took OK over its policy over its medical thing and an editorial last 00:11:35.091 --> 00:11:38.106 Saturday in the Republic, which was as gay baiting as any editorial I've 00:11:38.139 --> 00:11:41.106 ever read in my entire life. And I mean, obviously these two things were 00:11:41.139 --> 00:11:44.518 absolutely out of sync so nobody was, they were not communicating for 00:11:44.551 --> 00:11:47.518 conspiracy so much for conspiracy. You're on center stage, you're, you're 00:11:47.551 --> 00:11:52.787 between the pat myself on the kind of newspaper you work for, which is 00:11:52.820 --> 00:11:56.976 known to write from the viewpoint of an advocate. It's not very hard to 00:11:57.009 --> 00:12:01.775 tell where your quote, reporters quote, stand on a particular issue. How 00:12:01.808 --> 00:12:04.807 does that, how do you get away with that and maintain your credibility? 00:12:04.840 --> 00:12:07.385 Because we traditional journalists would say that destroys your 00:12:07.418 --> 00:12:10.505 credibility because reporters always made this bias is known and we won't 00:12:10.538 --> 00:12:13.895 let our reporters do that. We do that the very same way that news and time 00:12:13.928 --> 00:12:17.821 do that every week. I mean, our role is not to tell you day would happen. 00:12:17.854 --> 00:12:21.182 Our role is to interpret that for you and try to put some sense into 00:12:21.215 --> 00:12:25.111 who's winning and who's losing and why all these things are going. So 00:12:25.144 --> 00:12:27.971 you're saying the New Times could not come out daily. Is that what you're 00:12:28.004 --> 00:12:31.691 saying? It has to be a weekly publication. I realize it's weekly. But are 00:12:31.724 --> 00:12:35.346 you saying that? Yes, no, you could not do what we do with daily. I mean, 00:12:35.379 --> 00:12:37.706 people always say, why don't you become a daily newspaper? And I said, 00:12:37.739 --> 00:12:39.765 then you're not going to have the New Times, then you're not going to 00:12:39.798 --> 00:12:43.446 because our role in this market is as a role of being, taking the news of 00:12:43.479 --> 00:12:45.606 that week or the news of the last month or the big issues that are 00:12:45.639 --> 00:12:49.066 broiling and try to make some sense of what's going on. If you don't like 00:12:49.099 --> 00:12:51.427 the viewpoint that's being presented, you don't have to read the story, 00:12:51.460 --> 00:12:55.135 but we don't present it as though this is a hard news straight fact. He 00:12:55.168 --> 00:12:58.375 said, she said journalism. Yes. But what about Max's second point? Which 00:12:58.408 --> 00:13:05.616 is, yes, but you are still passing it off as, as journalism. Of course, 00:13:05.649 --> 00:13:09.076 this journalism is most award winning newspaper in the state of Arizona. 00:13:09.109 --> 00:13:13.927 Of course, it's the most important journalism that's being practiced in 00:13:13.960 --> 00:13:17.846 Arizona. Thank you, Max. As fact. Of course, you think we make these 00:13:17.879 --> 00:13:22.885 things up, we don't make these, but we do. Well, I think, I, I think we 00:13:22.918 --> 00:13:27.307 have a lot of columnists to expect. In fact, if you will look at our news 00:13:27.340 --> 00:13:30.086 stories, we have quoted more people and we have interviewed more people 00:13:30.119 --> 00:13:33.436 than you guys have ever considered doing in a news story. And so the depth 00:13:33.469 --> 00:13:37.616 of those stories is so far beyond what the dailies can do that. It's, we 00:13:37.649 --> 00:13:41.436 do it seven days a week, but you do it seven days a week. I get that. Let 00:13:41.469 --> 00:13:44.246 me shift to news judgment and the second point that you made a couple of 00:13:44.279 --> 00:13:47.395 minutes ago, which was embarrassing stories. And I think the public does 00:13:47.428 --> 00:13:52.936 feel uncomfortable with that. The Kip Chie story comes to mind the Lee 00:13:52.969 --> 00:13:57.047 Watkins story from 25 years ago, whether or not the Tribune ought to go 00:13:57.080 --> 00:14:02.005 with, with that sort of data, do we intrude too much? Does the print media 00:14:02.038 --> 00:14:07.787 invade privacy too much? Do we not step back away and say, well, what real 00:14:07.820 --> 00:14:12.265 interest is there in this thing? I have a quick answer to that. I think, I 00:14:12.298 --> 00:14:15.616 think the answer to that with our increasing capabilities and the media 00:14:15.649 --> 00:14:20.167 are becoming more capable is that occasionally? Yeah, we go too far and we 00:14:20.200 --> 00:14:24.515 violate privacy and we shouldn't do that and editors should put a stop to 00:14:24.548 --> 00:14:29.515 that. But the real danger for the media is not in our society is not going 00:14:29.548 --> 00:14:32.846 far enough. We are not aggressive enough. Yeah, I would disagree with Max 00:14:32.879 --> 00:14:36.486 . I don't think there's a case that I can think of where we've gone too 00:14:36.519 --> 00:14:39.967 far because that's in the eye of the beholder. How far is too far. But in 00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:44.717 your, in your eyes as an editor and a publisher, uh you've never gone too 00:14:44.750 --> 00:14:48.057 far. I can't think of one and, and what I was gonna say is that there are 00:14:48.090 --> 00:14:52.566 many, many times we sit and look at the story and say there are 00:14:52.599 --> 00:14:56.407 impediments or restrictions. There has to be some holding back on 00:14:56.440 --> 00:14:59.467 something in the story because of privacy consideration. She said, never, 00:14:59.500 --> 00:15:02.596 no, I can't think of all those years. You've been this, I never published 00:15:02.629 --> 00:15:05.635 a story. We wish you hadn't published. I would have came to invasion of 00:15:05.668 --> 00:15:08.986 privacy. No, I can't think of one. On the other hand though, I seem to 00:15:09.019 --> 00:15:12.866 recall p and I made an editorial judgment that it was not going to go with 00:15:12.899 --> 00:15:20.899 the Lee Watkins conviction when he was 19. And then 00:15:21.139 --> 00:15:25.057 we covered the news of the story, which was that one newspaper was holding 00:15:25.090 --> 00:15:29.895 back on another, another newspaper had not, we had to cover the story. So 00:15:29.928 --> 00:15:34.047 so in that scenario, we ran with it first and in your view, that was bad 00:15:34.080 --> 00:15:37.537 judgment. I e that Lee Watkins was convicted as a 19 year old for robbing 00:15:37.570 --> 00:15:42.696 a post office was bad. We simply said we had it wasn't your judgment. But 00:15:42.729 --> 00:15:46.096 then it was, it was your judgment that after we ran it, then you could use 00:15:46.129 --> 00:15:49.145 that identical, same information again and again and again, now, I don't 00:15:49.178 --> 00:15:51.717 think the public understand that, but I don't think the public understands 00:15:51.750 --> 00:15:53.893 that. And see the other thing the public does not understand is of the 00:15:53.926 --> 00:15:56.601 things that's real inherent in this conversation. And that is what was the 00:15:56.634 --> 00:16:00.563 scoop of that story, the scoop of that story went to the Mesa Tribune. But 00:16:00.596 --> 00:16:03.383 nobody knew that except the Mesa Tribune and the Republic in the New Times. 00:16:03.416 --> 00:16:07.322 Because outside this media, nobody cares who got the scoop. No one cares 00:16:07.355 --> 00:16:10.242 who's first. And we spend a great deal of time trying to be first on 00:16:10.275 --> 00:16:13.052 things. Let me suggest that if I thought you were weekly, how can you be 00:16:13.085 --> 00:16:16.342 first? As we first, we have broken more scoops in a weekly newspaper, 00:16:16.375 --> 00:16:20.218 which is a great testament to my. You're going to allow this to go, you're 00:16:20.251 --> 00:16:24.348 gonna have to pay for the balance. Let let me suggest that the public 00:16:24.381 --> 00:16:28.367 would be the first group to criticize if we were to begin with holding 00:16:28.400 --> 00:16:32.098 stories on the basis of we thought it was going too far. Let me give you a 00:16:32.131 --> 00:16:36.688 classic example. It has now become known that John F Kennedy, while 00:16:36.721 --> 00:16:40.367 president was having an affair with Judith Exner in the White House, 00:16:40.400 --> 00:16:45.157 Judith Exner who happened to be the girlfriend of a mafia. Now that story 00:16:45.190 --> 00:16:48.696 was known in Washington at the time but was covered up or at least not 00:16:48.729 --> 00:16:52.856 reported. Even the Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradley has said 00:16:52.889 --> 00:16:55.726 now in retrospect that they covered up stories, they should have reported 00:16:55.759 --> 00:16:59.346 about the sitting president of the United States. Now, what the 00:16:59.379 --> 00:17:02.025 considerations were at that time, I just don't know whether it was 00:17:02.058 --> 00:17:06.736 partisan favor favoritism friendship or a question of privacy. But the 00:17:06.769 --> 00:17:09.915 public, at least the public I've talked to have been outraged that that 00:17:09.948 --> 00:17:12.736 story was not reported about a sitting president and I can give you one 00:17:12.769 --> 00:17:15.855 even closer to home. My understanding is that in his last term in office, 00:17:15.888 --> 00:17:19.835 Carl Hayden was virtually senile did not even come to Arizona to campaign 00:17:19.868 --> 00:17:24.134 for his last United States Senate seat and was indeed was his office was 00:17:24.167 --> 00:17:27.456 being run by his, by his people and he had, he was no longer with the 00:17:27.489 --> 00:17:31.217 program. That story never appeared in Arizona until long after Mr Hayden 00:17:31.250 --> 00:17:34.535 who was a very revered senator in the state for many years was dead. And 00:17:34.568 --> 00:17:37.897 the question is raised, wasn't that a pertinent public policy question? 00:17:37.930 --> 00:17:42.986 What's the difference today? And is one of the differences the either the 00:17:43.019 --> 00:17:46.597 level of competition or the aggressiveness of the reporters in that there 00:17:46.630 --> 00:17:50.565 is today a fear factor that if I don't go with this story, somebody else 00:17:50.598 --> 00:17:55.226 is going to, is there a heavier level of competition? I think competition 00:17:55.259 --> 00:17:58.776 is a factor but it's not that heavy. I think that there is a real genuine 00:17:58.809 --> 00:18:03.585 hunger by the more intelligent, better read, more sophisticated American 00:18:03.618 --> 00:18:07.467 public. For more information, more details, they're swamped with 00:18:07.500 --> 00:18:10.867 information and they may suffer overloads sometimes, but there still is 00:18:10.900 --> 00:18:14.776 that demand for more information. Now, I think as proof of that is not 00:18:14.809 --> 00:18:17.897 only the success of newspapers as a whole. But look at the number of 00:18:17.930 --> 00:18:21.906 magazines that have just begun to flourish in this country, new magazines 00:18:21.939 --> 00:18:27.805 on specialized topics, look at desktop publishing, computer data banks. 00:18:27.838 --> 00:18:31.186 It's just incredible the kind of amount of information that the public is 00:18:31.219 --> 00:18:35.666 demanding. And I think that's a real life example. And a recent one of 00:18:35.699 --> 00:18:40.276 that was when the meco lawyers began to take the deposition on a Sunday 00:18:40.309 --> 00:18:43.835 night of Christina Johnston who was a witness who was going to be called 00:18:43.868 --> 00:18:48.156 to discredit the D P S director Ralph Milstead, they leak that deposition 00:18:48.189 --> 00:18:52.436 to everybody in town. The Republicans, I recall ran some of the 00:18:52.469 --> 00:18:57.656 accusations that Christina Johnston made. We ran a story saying that that 00:18:57.689 --> 00:19:01.585 uh she had made accusations but did not detail what they were and then 00:19:01.618 --> 00:19:05.585 they plan for the transcript. So the competition, obviously there had 00:19:05.618 --> 00:19:09.575 different effects on different people. And what about the, the media as 00:19:09.608 --> 00:19:12.357 manipulate? 00:19:12.390 --> 00:19:16.436 It was better than saying this no, but the and I, where I, I guess 00:19:16.469 --> 00:19:20.835 registered most on it was, was uh Ron Bell book and we're gonna talk about 00:19:20.868 --> 00:19:25.696 it again here. I don't think anyone gave a whole lot of credence to the 00:19:25.729 --> 00:19:29.085 various charges made in that book. And indeed, Mr Bella said he wasn't 00:19:29.118 --> 00:19:32.867 really sure about the accuracy of a lot of his information yet. Programs 00:19:32.900 --> 00:19:37.976 like this and newspapers like yours give him the kind of publicity. It is 00:19:38.009 --> 00:19:41.397 precisely, I think what he was after, when he, when he published that 00:19:41.430 --> 00:19:44.906 thing and that is a treadmill that I never have figured out a way that you 00:19:44.939 --> 00:19:48.266 really get off of a 00:19:48.299 --> 00:19:52.035 great deal because there is no denying that the media are used and, and, 00:19:52.068 --> 00:19:56.815 and by the most, you know, not, not relating to Mr Bees, but by despicable 00:19:56.848 --> 00:20:00.137 people. And I say that we spend most of our time talking to liars and back 00:20:00.170 --> 00:20:03.206 stabbers and glory hands. I think that's really true. And they use this 00:20:03.239 --> 00:20:06.085 all the time and that worries me a great deal. And I don't know how to get 00:20:06.118 --> 00:20:08.936 around that, but that's part of the flow of information that people have 00:20:08.969 --> 00:20:11.926 to. We have to expect the reading public to draw some judgment. Do they 00:20:11.959 --> 00:20:14.867 really believe the Bellas book after we have presented this information 00:20:14.900 --> 00:20:19.467 Jefferson had in mind with his uh marketplace? But let, let me talk about 00:20:19.500 --> 00:20:23.897 this manipulative power of the press which I don't think exists. Um people 00:20:23.930 --> 00:20:27.357 that would call me at the office and say that we were, we were uh 00:20:27.390 --> 00:20:31.397 manipulating the public about Evan Mee. I would say, well, obviously, 00:20:31.430 --> 00:20:35.016 you're not manipulated. Why is that? Well, I'm smarter than most people 00:20:35.049 --> 00:20:37.996 who read your newspaper. There's certain kind of elitism of those people 00:20:38.029 --> 00:20:42.147 who say I can't be manipulated but other people can. And that's one of the 00:20:42.180 --> 00:20:46.736 real quandaries we're in uh we're not manipulating anybody. Uh people can 00:20:46.769 --> 00:20:51.075 be manipulated but not by any conscious effort by our, on our part, you 00:20:51.108 --> 00:20:54.607 can say we're not manipulating anybody, but you cannot say we're not 00:20:54.640 --> 00:21:00.266 influencing anyone and that's different. Well, but boy, that is a, people 00:21:00.299 --> 00:21:04.156 are influenced by a picture. People are influenced by a picture and a lot 00:21:04.189 --> 00:21:08.535 of angels can dance on the head of A P too. But I think the point is that 00:21:08.568 --> 00:21:12.147 when, when I decide to do a story or when my newspaper decides to go out 00:21:12.180 --> 00:21:15.736 after an issue or when you guys decide to send, send an investigative team 00:21:15.769 --> 00:21:20.496 or on some place, we are deciding what we think the public is, is 00:21:20.529 --> 00:21:24.585 interested in and we create an issue out of that story. Now, that's a type 00:21:24.618 --> 00:21:28.976 of manipulation. I think, I don't think we're doing it in a, in a bad way. 00:21:29.009 --> 00:21:32.305 We're doing it because your newspaper created a fear about cancer in the 00:21:32.338 --> 00:21:36.147 West Valley. It certainly did and it got a congressional hearings based on 00:21:36.180 --> 00:21:38.887 that and it got the Department of Health Services to move when it had for 00:21:38.920 --> 00:21:42.367 five years. I think we manipulate, manipulated the public into worrying 00:21:42.400 --> 00:21:44.877 about the plight of the American Indians. And I think you're very proud of 00:21:44.910 --> 00:21:48.075 that. I don't think we manipulated, we inform the public about that and 00:21:48.108 --> 00:21:51.476 it's up to them to be manipulated based on the information to do that 00:21:51.509 --> 00:21:55.107 series, that public opinion would not have been swayed. So you did. But 00:21:55.140 --> 00:21:58.726 that's the normal process and influence public opinion. That's the normal 00:21:58.759 --> 00:22:03.137 news judgment process we have to do, go through every day. What do you 00:22:03.170 --> 00:22:06.686 guys keep giving me logical segues? And that, and that's one of them. Uh, 00:22:06.719 --> 00:22:12.746 and that is the media as agenda setter instead of agenda cover, er, the 00:22:12.779 --> 00:22:17.305 Pierce report commissioned by the newspapers, polls, poll commissioned by 00:22:17.338 --> 00:22:22.147 the newspapers. Do we do too much of that? Do you? I keep saying we, I 00:22:22.180 --> 00:22:26.607 don't know why do you do too much of that in terms of let's set that 00:22:26.640 --> 00:22:31.117 agenda, let's figure out what is important. Cancer and in West Phoenix, 00:22:31.150 --> 00:22:34.246 whatever the case may be, instead of sitting back and waiting for the 00:22:34.279 --> 00:22:38.416 event and covering it, you do that every single day in our newsroom 00:22:38.449 --> 00:22:42.256 because you have literally 100 stories for every one story that you can 00:22:42.289 --> 00:22:46.847 print or more. And editors sit there every single day and decide literally 00:22:46.880 --> 00:22:50.835 what is news and what isn't news. And sometimes I think they make very bad 00:22:50.868 --> 00:22:54.377 decisions. Sometimes things that are very relevant to the public do never 00:22:54.410 --> 00:22:57.166 see the light of day because some editor made a bad decision. And that 00:22:57.199 --> 00:23:00.676 worries me a great deal. But uh my question of allocating resources too. 00:23:00.709 --> 00:23:04.772 If you have 100 reporters, you have 120 stories to cover, 20 are not going 00:23:04.805 --> 00:23:07.541 to get covered. You have to make a decision. What about something like the 00:23:07.574 --> 00:23:12.242 Pierce report, which is where you you commission someone to actually do 00:23:12.275 --> 00:23:15.502 that, then you cover the results of that and obviously kick off quite a 00:23:15.535 --> 00:23:22.055 big bit of fro with it is that the newspaper becoming too much, if not an 00:23:22.088 --> 00:23:26.506 advocate, a guider and director focus. We simply, I think what we did was 00:23:26.539 --> 00:23:31.545 to crystallize. At one point in time, all the questions were being raised 00:23:31.578 --> 00:23:35.156 about the future of this valley. What about water quality, air quality 00:23:35.189 --> 00:23:38.597 support of arts and culture? What about leadership in the community, 00:23:38.630 --> 00:23:42.986 political turmoil rather than go out and examine those questions ourselves 00:23:43.019 --> 00:23:47.516 with the possible economic or political biases that we might have. We 00:23:47.549 --> 00:23:51.045 invited some outsiders to come in and take a look at it, used their 00:23:51.078 --> 00:23:56.196 conclusions as a story and covered it and invited community debate, 00:23:56.229 --> 00:23:59.065 community discussion. There were several things that accomplished. We 00:23:59.098 --> 00:24:02.617 acted as a catalyst to begin community debate and discussion just as the 00:24:02.650 --> 00:24:06.127 New Times story on Cancer on the West side, did we believed it was a 00:24:06.160 --> 00:24:11.276 significant enough question to be asked the future of the Valley to go out 00:24:11.309 --> 00:24:14.016 and do a study of it. And see, I think that's one thing that we have to 00:24:14.049 --> 00:24:16.936 remember is that that's part of what our job is. I agree that that was the 00:24:16.969 --> 00:24:19.555 kind of thing that a newspaper should be doing. And in fact, if there's 00:24:19.588 --> 00:24:23.026 any criticism I have of the media in Arizona is that it's far too lazy, 00:24:23.059 --> 00:24:26.785 not that it's too aggressive. But I think that setting up public issues 00:24:26.818 --> 00:24:29.065 and saying, look, look at these issues, look at these things that are 00:24:29.098 --> 00:24:32.266 important. That's what our job is supposed to be. We're not a political 00:24:32.299 --> 00:24:35.926 animal that has a set agenda that's tied to a political party or tied to a 00:24:35.959 --> 00:24:40.147 certain precinct or tied to a, you know, a two bill agenda. We're supposed 00:24:40.180 --> 00:24:42.916 to be taking a broader look at that community and saying what is important 00:24:42.949 --> 00:24:46.627 here and how can we make it better? And where is everybody messing up? 00:24:46.660 --> 00:24:49.325 Right. And I think that the public needs to understand that that's what we 00:24:49.358 --> 00:24:53.117 see our role as I concur. And I think that we have to simply take a 00:24:53.150 --> 00:24:56.535 leadership role at times with our news coverage and we might not, you know 00:24:56.568 --> 00:24:59.986 , really articulate it that way. But in fact, by choosing to do a series 00:25:00.019 --> 00:25:03.597 or an investigation, we have decided that this is a social or political 00:25:03.630 --> 00:25:07.387 issue or whatever, that's of importance to the state and to our 00:25:07.420 --> 00:25:11.226 communities and it needs public focus and we do that all the time. And I 00:25:11.259 --> 00:25:13.946 think I'm comfortable with that, but you get a lot of people asking, well 00:25:13.979 --> 00:25:18.637 , what makes you, you know, the one to make that judgment? Because that's 00:25:18.670 --> 00:25:22.055 for you, that's the job. And in fact, it's interesting because if you ask 00:25:22.088 --> 00:25:23.847 them, who would you rather have doing it? Would you rather have the 00:25:23.880 --> 00:25:26.946 churches doing it? Would you rather have the politicians doing it. Would 00:25:26.979 --> 00:25:29.496 you rather have the business community, the Chamber of commerce doing it? 00:25:29.529 --> 00:25:32.426 I mean, who would you rather have doing that job and isn't their responses 00:25:32.459 --> 00:25:36.416 , our elected officials and then you cover what the agenda that our 00:25:36.449 --> 00:25:39.181 elected officials because most of them have as much of this talk about our 00:25:39.214 --> 00:25:43.201 elected officials as they do about the media. I mean, I think that when 00:25:43.234 --> 00:25:46.543 you look, when you look at how politicians respond to issues, it's very 00:25:46.576 --> 00:25:49.412 self centered. Now, one can say that newspapers are self centered in that 00:25:49.445 --> 00:25:52.672 there and that they're pushing their own agenda. But I think that agenda 00:25:52.705 --> 00:25:55.431 is a pretty wide agenda for Scott. I think history will show that the 00:25:55.464 --> 00:25:59.201 Arizona legislature, for example, has been almost totally reactive to 00:25:59.234 --> 00:26:03.268 media coverage and the media pressure and the media, you know, opinion and 00:26:03.301 --> 00:26:05.928 those kind of things I had been for the media leading the way on some of 00:26:05.961 --> 00:26:08.448 these important issues for the state. I don't think the legislature would 00:26:08.481 --> 00:26:11.138 have done anything to the, I think the two of the biggest stories in this 00:26:11.171 --> 00:26:15.098 state right now or two of the biggest conditions is the politics of 00:26:15.131 --> 00:26:18.507 revenge that's being carried out now against members of the legislature 00:26:18.540 --> 00:26:22.448 and others. And also the paralysis of fear that seems to spread over the 00:26:22.481 --> 00:26:24.829 business and the political communities and trying to deal with this 00:26:24.862 --> 00:26:29.045 political turmoil. Panelists, we have exhausted our time that was a 00:26:29.078 --> 00:26:33.456 spirited discussion and we got to approximately 10% if we intended to get 00:26:33.489 --> 00:26:37.676 to. But that's not surprising. Thanks a lot. Coming up on our next horizon 00:26:37.709 --> 00:26:42.206 program, the cities of Phoenix and Tucson are at odds again with the EPA. 00:26:42.239 --> 00:26:46.325 This time over sewage treatment regulations. Though, the EPA is worried 00:26:46.358 --> 00:26:50.766 about pollution problems. The cities have some environmental concerns of 00:26:50.799 --> 00:26:54.055 their own. We hope you'll join us for a closer look at those issues on 00:26:54.088 --> 00:26:57.647 Monday. Thanks very much for being here tonight. Have an incredible 00:26:57.680 --> 00:27:05.680 football weekend. I'm Michael Grant. 00:27:32.868 --> 00:27:36.357 If you have comments regarding this evening's Horizon program, send them 00:27:36.390 --> 00:27:42.868 to Horizon Channel eight Television, Arizona State University. 10 P 85287.