|
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 |
