| Topics: Civic Communication Front Porch Forum A joint report by the Pew Center for Civic Journalism and The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. Copyright © 1995 Tides Foundation. Washington State Trooper David Foxley, 42, is old enough to remember the days when neighbors chatted over a fence or moved easily among each other's back yards. Foxley, a Kiwanis Club member and co-president of the PTA at his daughter's elementary school, missed those casual, spontaneous connections and yearned for ways to bring people together again. Last May, Foxley found an opportunity to do something about it when he accepted an invitation to a focus group 19 miles from his home in Auburn, Washington. The focus group was one of four held to help The Seattle Times and two public radio stations deal with a different breakdown in connections - the fraying of the links among the citizens, the news media, and the political process. The three media organizations were part of a national project, spearheaded by National Public Radio, seeking to reshape campaign coverage by giving citizens a stronger voice. In addition to soliciting suggestions about coverage, the focus groups were designed to elicit insight into the participants' attitudes about their lives and the issues most important to them. Those insights would provide the basis for a statewide poll; the results would guide subsequent coverage. The energetic discussion had reached the closing coffee-and-cookies stage when Foxley inadvertently linked his own concerns to those of the journalists when he suggested "a front-porch forum, an open forum, where people would go and talk, and people would listen." The trooper's wistful description reminded the local journalists watching behind a two-way mirror that listening and responding to the public was at the heart of their project. And they adopted the name, "Front Porch Forum." Between the focus groups in May and the election in November, the Times and public radio stations KPLU-FM at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma and KUOW-FM at the University of Washington in Seattle built a virtual front porch where residents could talk to candidates and to one another. They used call-in shows, question-and-answer columns, roundtable discussions, and even an unusual candidate debate with five undecided voters as the panel. Their expanded coverage of citizen-identified issues - crime, education, growth, health care - gave people plenty to talk about. The partners had mutual objectives: - To create a climate in which citizens - not politicians and the media - set the agenda for campaigns and public debate.
- To involve readers and listeners more directly than ever before.
- To produce insightful and engaging journalism.
Along the way, the Times discovered the value of melding previously used techniques such as focus groups, citizens' panels, and issues polling into a cohesive package pulled together by a single theme. KPLU and KUOW gained access to a larger audience for the most significant public service project in either station's history. And all three discovered the promotional value of the campaign, using it to reach new audiences while showing readers and listeners they were serious about change. There were pitfalls, too. The partners failed to bring television into the alliance, thereby losing some leverage with candidates and a chance to reach an even larger audience. The attempts to have candidates answer questions was not always effective. And, despite all the efforts to discern the citizens' mood, the partners failed to gauge the full extent of the anger many took to the polls. Forging New Connections Changing campaign coverage meant changing some traditional newsroom views about issues, citizens, competitors, and what was news. To begin, the radio competitors had to form an alliance. KPLU, the public radio ratings leader, offered a mixture of NPR programming, jazz, and local coverage; KUOW switched from classical music to news and information in 1993. Both stations broadcast several NPR programs, including Morning Edition and All Things Considered, but KUOW was the only one that carried Talk of the Nation. Staffers at each station first heard about the election project in the summer of 1993. Eager to take part, KPLU news director Michael Marcotte and KUOW news director Marcie Stillman literally signed a truce, pledging to work together to deliver "maximum impact." Separate proposals, they feared, might cancel out each other or provide a less attractive incentive for National Public Radio, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, to select either of them as a participant in its national project with The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. In a fall meeting with NPR editorial director John Dinges, Marcotte and Stillman promised to devote the equivalent of two full-time news people to the project, as well as part of their limited budgets. Acceptance in the NPR-Poynter Election Project meant both stations would be eligible for additional NPR funding, from the Pew Center for Civic Journalism. By late 1993, KPLU and KUOW knew they were a team. The next connection was with the Times, where executive editor Michael Fancher was intrigued by the possibilities of a partnership with public radio and the opportunity to expand his commitment to citizen-oriented reporting. Fancher appreciated the election project's proposed flexibility. In the five project cities (Boston, Dallas, San Francisco, Seattle, and Wichita), each partnership would design its own project and each partner could produce independent editorial content. "Poynter and NPR weren't coming through the door with a game plan. We were free to find our own path," Fancher said. But Fancher didn't accept the invitation immediately. Unlike some newsrooms, where mid-level editors and reporters are assigned to produce a project after senior management signs on, everyone who would be responsible for what eventually became the "Front Porch Forum"- including lead political reporter Mark Matassa - was invited to discuss the proposed partnership at a January 20, 1994, meeting with NPR's Dinges and Poynter's Ed Miller. "On important decisions we try to involve reporters from the ground up," said political editor Tom Brown. "We have made a major effort, a major effort, to involve reporters. As a result we don't tend to get hugely divisive internal fights over things. It's not as fractured a place as other newsrooms." To some staffers, especially regional editor David Boardman, the project didn't represent much that was new at a paper that had long since abandoned horse-race coverage. Boardman, a frequent Poynter faculty member with a background in political reporting and editing, warmed to the goals of the project, but was cool to the notion that citizen-focused coverage was anything new at the Times. The NPR-Poynter Election Project was based on the notion that the media had to stop covering elections as horse races; Boardman and others, including reporter Matassa, believed the Times had left horse-race coverage behind in the `80s. In fact, the Times stopped horse-race polling in 1983. As Boardman explained, "This idea of covering a campaign as a whole rather than little sections of who's ahead wasn't new." "I probably was more skeptical than most of the people," Matassa said. "I thought that we had done a lot of the things that were the goals of this project." The skeptics became more receptive when they looked at the other aspects of the project. "I could see some value in a partnership with NPR," Boardman said. "We also saw the natural next step for us. We'd already been doing focus groups. In 1988, we used a panel of citizens called the "Puget Sound Panel," a group of citizens who gathered monthly during the campaign to discuss their reactions for publication. Boardman, Brown, and others thought the Times could use the project as a testing ground for ideas that could be extended to other kinds of coverage. Assistant managing editor Carole Carmichael understood the mixed reactions. "We had a history of moving away from the horse race that the others [partners] did not." Still, she added, "there was almost unanimous opinion that `Yes, here was something we should do.' It was a matter of trying to figure out how we were going to build a better mousetrap." No one was skeptical enough to warrant turning down the invitation to join KPLU and KUOW. Once the decision was made, Times management stayed involved. Fancher used his Sunday column to talk to readers about the project, while Carmichael took an active role in the planning and execution. Managing editor Alex MacLeod took part in some of the planning meetings. Their participation sent a clear signal that everyone was part of the effort and that the commitment came from the top. With the newspaper on board, the natural next step would have been to add a television station to the mix. But television was a bridge the new partners refused to cross. For one thing, there was no obvious choice; furthermore, the partners believed television would skew the project. "At the first meeting somebody asked if it was a requirement that there be a TV partner, and the answer was no. There was a collective sigh in the room like `Oh, thank heaven'," Fancher recalled. "Operatively, it was difficult enough to keep three [partners] more or less on the same track without adding another one," Brown said. "We'll explore some kind of TV connection [next time] because they reach a lot of people we don't, but we don't expect any TV station to get as deeply into it as public radio." Setting Goals The partners had other important decisions to make: What were their goals? How could those goals be met? When would the project launch? Representatives from each newsroom began a flurry of meetings. By early March, they had agreed on several mutual goals. Cyndi Nash, associate managing editor, listed them in a memo based on a March 4 meeting: - "To involve readers and listeners in active civic life, and particularly the '94 campaign, more directly than ever before. This includes getting out of the way frequently, and letting citizens ask their own questions and express their own views without our comment, editing, or professionalism."
- "To produce insightful, enlightening, and engaging radio and print journalism."
- "To create good PR for our respective organizations."
- "To go where no media have gone before, and live to tell about it."
"Unfocus" Groups Unlike other NPR-Poynter projects that used a poll to identify issues, the Seattle partners invited several dozen citizens such as Foxley to participate in focus groups, or "unfocus" groups, as one editor put it. The input from the four professionally moderated groups helped design a far more relevant poll. Bill Radke, then interim news director for KUOW, was not a fan of the pre-poll focus groups. He saw little value in using the focus groups to construct poll questions that could have been written by the partners. "I would take the money we spent on focus groups before the poll and spend that on another poll closer to the election," he said. But to KPLU's Marcotte the tactic made sense: "We wanted to abandon our preconceived notions. We wanted to start with as much of a blank slate as possible." Traditional polls began with a list of issues from which participants choose; the Seattle partners wanted the focus-group participants and poll respondents to construct their own list. In another departure from convention, the focus groups were not billed or conducted as political discussions; the subsequent poll also avoided partisan questions such as, "Which party does a better job?" The Forum Begins The "Front Porch Forum" opened for business Sunday, May 22, with a look at the focus groups, an explanation of civic journalism, and an invitation from Fancher to "pull up a chair and join us on the front porch." Underscoring the potential in the partnership, Fancher issued that invitation in his weekly Sunday 2-A column and during an interview on KPLU. "The questions that those of us in the press ask may or may not relate to your problems. They may or may not be the questions that you would ask. [We] want to change that, but we need your help. We've created something we call the `Front Porch Forum.' It's a new way to connect readers and listeners with the political process," Fancher told KPLU's listeners. That same day, reporter Matassa introduced readers to some of their neighbors - a woman from Bellevue and a man from Tacoma frustrated by the frenetic pace of their lives, a job counselor from Seattle who jettisoned some frustration by reducing his commute to a walk, a minister from Renton who believes in a "spiritual community," and David Foxley, the state trooper who christened the project. Matassa explained civic journalism, using the Charlotte Observer's 1992 election project as an illustration. Like Fancher, he didn't pretend to have all the answers or even all the questions. Matassa's tone signaled a change. Instead of the impersonal third-person, he wrote as though he were in the midst of an informal, polite conversation, liberally sprinkling stories with "you," "we," and "us." Readers and listeners were encouraged, almost exhorted, to offer comments or ask questions by phone, mail, e-mail, or fax. The first words on Page One asked: "What do you like about living here? What worries you? What are your hopes?" An inside sidebar offered phone numbers at the Times, KPLU, and KUOW, a "Forum" fax number at the Times, Matassa's e-mail address, and a post office box. Readers were asked to include their name, city of residence, and phone number for verification. The Times heard from such people as Arianna Vander Houwen, a resident of Seattle angered by her inability to get a response to her letters and calls to local politicians, and Tom Swett of Bellevue, an unemployed childless young husband volunteering on a school district committee. Dick and Lauralee Smith of Seattle applauded the Times for its initiative. "Your opening article exactly articulates our concerns that `We the People' have almost completely lost our voice in determining the future of the Puget Sound region (and the nation in general)." Their replies appeared with nine others on a special "Front Porch Forum" page published May 31. Instead of pulling out "sound bites," the often lengthy letters were printed in full, letting the writers tell their stories. Calls to the radio stations aired during "listener response" segments. The radio stations relied on the strengths of their different formats: , KUOW devoted half-hour talk show segments on Monday, May 23, and Wednesday, May 25. The former set the stage with interviews with Poynter's Ed Miller and a focus group participant; the latter invited calls from listeners with suggestions for improving election coverage. , KPLU's Marcotte produced a five-part series, beginning with Fancher's comments. The other four parts covered the underlying gap between citizens and the political system; community values; new and interesting ways citizens are overcoming the isolation of modern life to forge new political dialogues; and listeners' comments about "Front Porch Forum." Next Step: Polling While the partners were launching "Front Porch Forum," pollster Elway Research of Seattle was preparing a statewide poll. With the focus groups as a guide, the 76-question poll was indirect, issues oriented, and open-ended. For instance, one series of questions asked: "In your opinion, what would you most like to see happen in your community in the next five years?" "Who should be responsible for making this happen?" and "What can you do to help make this happen?" The open-ended questions invited the participants to help shape the poll instead of demanding that all answers fit a prescribed set of responses. Elway Research conducted random telephone interviews with 500 Washington residents from June 16 to June 19. Fifty of the 500 completed surveys were turned over to the partners for use in their reporting; each of the 50 had agreed to be contacted by a reporter. In retrospect, the partners say they would have preferred a larger pool instead of sharing the same 50 potential sources. Some of the results were anticipated - crime, social issues, and the economy were among the top concerns - but the poll picked up unexpected anxieties about the future of the family and affordable housing. More than half of the respondents distrusted government's ability to resolve problems. The partners expected citizens' attitudes to be negative; instead, the most striking findings were positive. People were overwhelmingly satisfied with their personal lives and optimistic about the future. Crime was a general worry, but nine out of ten felt personally safe. One trend was clear: The happiest, most satisfied people were those who had some sort of community connection, whether it was talking to neighbors, volunteer work, or belonging to a church. Again, the partners personalized their coverage by talking to some of the respondents and reporting their stories. At KPLU, Marcotte prepared another five-part series that began on Sunday and aired during Morning Edition. Segments included poll highlights, an interview with the pollster, interviews with citizens, and listener feedback. That Monday, KUOW began weekly four-minute reports based on the poll results. The reports aired twice every Monday through the primary, once during Morning Edition and again during the station's mid-morning call-in show, Weekday. The second report was followed by an hour call-in show on the subject of the day. Standing in for Marcie Stillman, who was on leave, interim news director Bill Radke hired freelance print reporter Danny Westneat to produce the "Front Porch Forum" series. The $2,500 investment kept him from overloading a two-person full-time news staff. Radke and Westneat agreed that merely reporting what poll respondents said wouldn't be enough; instead, Westneat's job was to sift through the poll results, take what people said, and look deeper to see if their comments matched reality. His first feature was a good example. With affordable housing high on the "top concerns" list, Westneat began his examination by following a young Seattle couple on a house-hunting trip and recording their comments. He sprinkled in statistics and expert comments about the changing housing market. Subsequent features covered a Generation X that was more hopeful than most believe it to be, Ross Perot supporters from 1992 who were more unhappy than before, ways to create a sense of community, and the alienation within the community that cropped up when children didn't attend neighborhood schools. "I thought these were interesting pieces, more than just about the election they were stories about connections, cynicism," Radke said. KUOW would have covered the election without the project, but Radke firmly believes these stories would not have been part of the coverage. The Times splashed the overall poll results across two-thirds of Page One on Sunday, July 10. The news story written by Matassa was accompanied by a colorful graphic showing two people on the front porch of a one-story house; the accompanying article jumped inside to a full page with a series of pie charts offering more detailed results. The next day, in another Page-One story based on poll results, Matassa examined ways individuals and groups could step in where government was failing. Before the poll results were published, the five major candidates for U.S. Senate were asked the same 76 questions. Their responses were published a week after the initial results were released. The headline told the story: "How Senate candidates differ from the rest of us." Many of the pie charts from the first poll story were used again, this time with the names of the candidates superimposed on the segment of the chart containing their answer. For instance, three of the five - including a county councilman - said they felt like outsiders in local politics; their names appeared on the piece of the pie representing the 57 percent of poll respondents who said they felt like outsiders. Readers could see that all five had a household income over $60,000 compared with only 15 percent of the respondents at that level. They could see who agreed with the minority who thought efforts to control population growth were losing ground, that none of the candidates agreed with the majority who thought progress was being made in tackling transportation problems, and that only one agreed progress was being made in education. Perhaps most important, they could see evidence that partisan lines blur, as Matassa wrote, "when candidates are forced to briefly respond to questions rather than deliver speeches." Slade Gorton, the Republican incumbent, more often than not shared a piece of the pie with at least one of the Democrats seeking to oppose him in the general election. The Reporter's Role One of the first to encourage KPLU's involvement, Paula Wissel was uncertain about the reporter's role in civic journalism and whether she was supposed to abdicate some of the reporter's traditional responsibilities along with shifting reporting styles. "For me, it was kind of hard to figure out how you take this theory and make it into actual reporting. I have a big concern about the whole process. What if all the people are saying things that are completely inaccurate? I think it's dangerous for some of this stuff to go unchallenged." Tom Brown and the reporters at the Times were thinking along the same lines. "A lot of what you do still has to be that kind of journalism, reporting on campaigns and issues, problems. That's where the newspaper can add value to the equation. There are also a lot of instances where you need to do a lot of good, explanatory stuff. I think it's really futile to try to become a sort of empty vessel into which you pour readers' comments and politicians' answers. There is a lot of genuine confusion about a lot of politically related questions. The paper's job is to straighten that out so they can ask better questions and have a better understanding of what's going on." Matassa agreed. "This stuff is a lot better if you can add value as reporters. Take campaign finances - when somebody asked all the candidates to respond to the [campaign finance] reform bill, we added some reporting. We gave more than a response, we gave context for it." They all reached the same conclusion: Good civic journalism does not abandon the values and standards of good journalism. The Paths Diverge The flexibility that attracted Fancher at the outset meant the partners could collaborate or go their own way. In fact, their paths diverged after the poll results were published. The "Front Porch Forum" team didn't meet between early July and late August. The partners continued to cross-promote, but would plan only one more joint event - a general election debate between Sen. Slade Gorton and Democratic primary winner Ron Sims. The Times liked the independence. "The partnership worked out well, better than I thought it would," Matassa said. "We started off together, did five big things together, then went our separate ways." But Marcotte expected more. "It's almost like we went our separate ways after the poll results came out. They were proceeding with their issue pieces. We were doing a piece per week - every Wednesday. In August, when we did the four issue forums, the newspaper just didn't really want to get into it. We saw the opportunity for voices. In retrospect, I felt like we were too much out of touch with each other." "Front Porch Forum" virtually disappeared from the Times for the rest of July and most of August. The sole exception was a sharp letter to the editor criticizing the rosy picture painted by the poll stories. The radio partners continued in-depth coverage through the summer. With the poll as a touchstone, KUOW and KPLU continued independent weekly issues coverage and collaborated on four small-group issues forums. Unlike focus groups that are used to measure intensity and help an organization form a policy, small-group forums featured a contained discussion or conversation about a single topic with broadcast, not research, as the goal. Held in August, the small-group issues forums focused on crime, education, growth, and cost of living; each included five residents drawn from the focus group participants and poll respondents. The small forums illustrated the differences between radio and print. The four sessions generated in-depth reports for KPLU that ran as a series in September and edited versions that aired as forums on KUOW. The Times declined to participate. "One of the organizational things people need to understand is that things that work for newspapers may or may not work for radio," Tom Brown said. Instead, the Times produced its own Page-One series about issues highlighted in the poll and focus groups, publishing five in-depth articles between August 21 and the September 20 primary. The first tackled growth, the problem the largest number of respondents said must be addressed in the next five years. Subsequent articles examined health care, crime, affordable housing, and education. As the series progressed, the paper got better at asking readers to participate. The first article featured a small shaded column asking the same questions as the very first story in May, and offering ways to reach the forum. The second article was accompanied by a sidebar with a full headline inviting readers to "Step onto the Porch." This time, readers were invited to send specific questions for candidates; the radio stations' e-mail addresses were included. By August 31, when the third article appeared, the paper finally achieved the blend of copy and graphics that would carry this small, but significant feature through November. A standing head made the purpose clear: "Front Porch Forum. Putting the people back in politics." The day's topic was identified, the "Forum" was explained and a new bullet list made the contact information much easier to read. Six questions were culled from readers' offerings and posed to the candidates for Senate; the responses were published the Sunday before the September 18 primary. This time, incumbent Gorton refused to participate, as the Times pointed out in 16-point type. Small photos of the six questioners appeared with their questions; larger photos of each Democrat appeared at the top of the column with their responses. The complicated layout was not easy to read. Each question was assigned a number; each candidate's answers to all the questions were preceded by the matching number and printed consecutively in their column. One important aspect was missing: feedback from the questioners about the responses. The lack of feedback and the paper's failure to use more questions during the primary combined to weaken what could have been one of the strongest features. Many more questions made it into the paper during the general election. In fact, the first post-primary "Front Porch Forum" item was a box on the Sunday, October 2, local section front seeking more candidate questions. But the published questions weren't answered the day they appeared and sometimes weren't answered at all. Instead, the Times published lists of questions every Thursday before the primary along with a notice to candidates for U.S. Senate, Congress, the legislature, and judicial positions offering a chance to respond by fax, mail, or Internet. The deadline was the following Monday at 5 p.m. Candidates were admonished to "either answer [questions] as posed, or decline to answer," and to be brief. Candidates could have the published questions faxed to them. The idea widened the pool of candidates who might respond to a question, but lessened the chance that they would respond to the right questions. This is one area Matassa would improve next time around. "We can get a lot of people in the paper asking questions and make sure people asking questions get the last word. We did it once but didn't have space [to use it]." In the midst of the issue series, the Times experimented with the "Front Porch Forum" to gauge public response to a possible invasion of Haiti. On September 15, the day President Clinton spoke to the country about Haiti, readers were urged to contact the Times by phone or fax with their comments about Clinton's speech. The overwhelmingly negative responses were collected overnight for a next-day story; 16 comments were published. As the September 20 primary approached, the partners increased their coverage of specific candidates, but the emphasis was still on issues. After the primary that balance was harder to maintain. The Times bought some insurance by promising a full page to "Front Porch Forum" each Thursday from October 6 through November 3, in addition to other forum coverage. Each week, some element on Page One - a box or a story with a jump called attention to the inside page. The "Front Porch Forum" page housed candidate questions and answers, contact information, and often a small article packed with information about a topic such as campaign finances or voting records on the crime bill. But the forum was only part of the Times's election coverage. While Matassa worked full time on the forum, other reporters were writing stories stamped with an "Election `94" logo. The forum focused on interaction between the public and the candidates; the election team handled "truth in advertising," spot-news coverage, candidate profiles, and other campaign ins-and-outs. The radio stations continued some issues coverage but shifted to candidate coverage and spot news. "No Panel of Journalists, No Scene-Stealing Pundits" Together, however, the partners pulled off one of the most notable events of the general election: an hour-long Q-and-A with five carefully chosen undecided voters asking the questions and U.S. Senate candidates Slade Gorton, the Republican incumbent, and Ron Sims, the Democratic challenger, providing the answers. Matassa set the stage in a preview story: "No panel of journalists, no scene-stealing pundits.... The format will be more discussion than debate." Moderated by KUOW's Bill Radke, the October 26 session was designed to produce as much of an unfettered dialogue as possible. No audience, no television cameras, no reporters' questions, just the five panelists, two candidates, a moderator, and their microphones seated in a circle. And, instead of relying on an article and a few excerpts to give readers the flavor of the event, the Times hired a court reporter to produce a full transcript that appeared the next day, taking up four pages in the front section after a Page-One introduction by Matassa. That night the entire session was broadcast on KPLU and KUOW. "In part, we were trying to make it very apparent to voters that we were serious about what we said we were going to do," Brown explained. "We were trying to step out of the way. It was an effort to get us and our journalistic preconceptions out of the way and open the channel between residents and politicians." It worked for panelist and chemist Patricia Finch, who told the Times, "I got a better feeling for what type of person they were." Fellow panelist John Penberth was thrilled by the outcome. "That's what's so great about living in America. This was America at its finest, right here today. You saw it." The debate exemplified the potential in partnerships. Each partner brought something different to the table. Together, they had clout, overcoming more than two dozen serious efforts by other organizations to host a debate. Alone, KPLU and KUOW probably wouldn't have been able to attract the Senate candidates for a forum. "We, the radio partners, needed them more than they needed us," said KPLU's Marcotte. KUOW's Radke agreed: "When the incumbent agreed to do it, I was blown away." Partnership Benefits Increased clout or leverage with candidates was one offshoot of the partnership; cross-promotion was another. From the first, all three partners were keenly aware of the project's promotion potential; the Times's promotion department was even represented in the planning meetings. The "Front Porch Forum" had considerable crossover promotional value. Each partner was mentioned every time an article appeared in the Times or a segment ran on either station. For KPLU and KUOW, the frequent acknowledgments in the Times were the equivalent of an ad campaign with the potential to reach new, non-traditional listeners, while the Times valued the exposure on public radio shows such as Morning Edition. "On the ratings list they don't show up much," Brown said. "Still, any promotion you get is good." [In the last fall rating, KPLU posted 230,000 listeners or 8.5 percent of the metro population; KUOW showed 163,000 listeners or about 6 percent.] Without specific marketing research it is almost impossible to quantify the value of the partnership or the project to each partner. Still, there are some benchmarks. For example, KPLU's fall fund-raiser brought in $400,000, the highest total in station history; several pledges specifically mentioned the project. KPLU's ratings were consistent with the previous fall, while KUOW showed an increase as listeners continued to accept the new format. The radio station news directors dangled the promotional value as a lure to station management. KPLU news director Mike Marcotte explained in his post-mortem report to NPR: While the `Front Porch Forum' represented the largest public service campaign ever mounted by KPLU, station management was most enthralled by the tremendous public relations value of the project. As one marketing staffer remarked, "You can't buy exposure like that on the front page of The Seattle Times." KPLU managers made sure their superiors at Pacific Lutheran University also were aware of the added exposure. Building on Success At the Times, frustration about the failure to gauge the extent of the voters' anger was soothed by the belief that the project offered the newspaper insights into public opinion that otherwise might have been missed by traditional coverage. More people had the chance to get involved and more readers joined the Times's dialogue. "Without this structure I don't think we could have opened up the channels nearly as much as we did," Boardman said, pleased with the results overall. "I'm more excited now about how we can make use of this outside of politics." Skeptical at first, by the end of the election project Matassa was sold. "Although we've done a lot of this before, it's different when you make it a focus, make it a plan. It was more intense. We learned some stuff we wouldn't have learned otherwise." On the radio side, Marcotte and his staff would do more "truth squad" reporting, produce a better issues poll, and make an even greater effort to bring citizens and candidates together. Radke rues his station's failure to scrutinize political advertising but celebrates the added dimensions "Front Porch Forum" brought to election coverage. A month after the election, the partners promised to extend "Front Porch Forum." In February, they followed up on that promise by inviting readers and listeners back on the porch to talk about mass transit in preparation for a March ballot issue. That was welcome news to State Trooper David Foxley, who followed the "Forum" closely during the election."It's amazing what happens when you make a little effort to get involved." Back to Civic Communication Index | 
