|
Topics:
Civic Communication
The
Manhattan Mercury
In its civic
journalism projects, The Manhattan Mercury engages the views of
citizens on a paper -sponsored "grand jury," and sponsors debates
among candidates for office. The paper then publishes the results
of both. Case studies plus.
Contents
The
Grand Jury
Project Face to Face
Case
studies by Project
on Public Life and the Press, New York University
Department of Journalism, 10 Washington Pl., New York, NY 10003
(212) 998-3793
©
Project on Public Life and the Press,1994. The
Project is funded by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation.
The
Manhattan Mercury (newspaper)
P.O. Box 767
Manhattan, Kan. 66502
(913) 776-2300 (phone)
(913) 776-8807 (fax)
Ownership
Seaton Publications (Kansas papers)
No. newsroom employees: 15
Circulation
13,000 (daily)
13,500 (Sunday)
Circulation Area(population
Pottawatomie Co., Kan. (20,000)
Initiative
The Grand Jury
Dates
Ongoing since December 1991
Lead
Editor
Bill Felber
The
Grand Jury
The Grand
Jury attempts to engage the views of the informed citizenry in
debate over issues of community interest by impaneling two dozen
citizens selected by the staff and asking for regular feedback.
Every other week, the paper selects a topic and asks panel members
to consider one or more questions, then telephone their views
to an automated phone line. News staff tabulate views, published
in the Sunday edition.
When
and how did this initiative get started?
As a way to get more citizen voices in the newspaper.
What
are the goals of the initiative?
To serve as a feedback mechanism on general community opinion
and to keep the newspaper in touch with various neighborhoods.
It is not presented as a random public opinion survey.
What
does the initiative entail?
Questions selected for panelists by news staff are published on
Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Panelists are expected to respond by
Friday, and responses are published on Sunday.
How
many people are working on it?
No more than one or two at any given time.
Response
to the Initiative
In
the newsroom:
Because the initiative doesn't swallow up news staff time, staffers
are very positive about it.
In
the community:
In general, little reaction. "Some bigwigs don't like it ," Felber
writes. "They think it gives too much attention to the views of
the hoi polloi - particularly when we ask jurors to rate the performance
of the bigwigs."
Among
political leaders:
Various political groups count both wins and losses among the
"verdicts." They don't like to be panned, but they don't complain
when their ideas are endorsed.
Overall
lessons - successes and failures:
Felber believes The Grand Jury has several advantages over a standard
public opinion survey. Because participants are selected from
an informed segment of the population, they are more knowledgeable,
and their opinions tend to reflect a "senatorial judgment of sorts,"
he says. And, Felber adds, jurors also have a greater latitude
with respect to expanding on questions, offering their own thoughts,
insights or alternatives, than would be possible in a standard
public opinion survey.
Project Face to Face
The Mercury
sponsors debates among candidates for local and legislative offices,
moderated and recorded by the paper's staff. The debates themselves
are no-holds-barred forums, with no attempt to offer equal time
or opportunity. An edited transcript of about 100 inches is published,
and the full transcript is available to anyone interested in it.
When
and how did this initiative get started?
As a way to glean genuine candidate stances, without time constraints.
"We aren't forcing candidates to compress answers to complex questions
into one or two soundbites," Felber writes.
What
are the goals of the initiative?
Unlimited time for response, unlimited time for rebuttal, and
unlimited time for give and take, allowing candidates to cross-examine
one another directly.
What
does the initiative entail?
Scheduling debates, eliciting moderators from staff, background
work for questions, transcription and editing of tapes for publication.
How
many people are working on it?
No more than one or two at any given time.
Response
to the Initiative
In
the newsroom:
Highly receptive despite additional work required. "The staffers
who cover politics love to do them," Felber writes. "They feel
they really get to see the candidates operate under close-up pressure."
In
the community:
Uniformly positive, though Mercury staff members realize the debate
transcripts are "tough reads" with appeal "only really for the
folks who are serious about learning the issues."
Among
political leaders:
"The candidates view Face To Face with thinly disguised trepidation;
it is not a format they are comfortable with," Felber writes.
Felber has had a few inquiries about whether it was really necessary
to take part. His response is always the same: "No problem. We'll
just proceed without you and interview your opponent alone." (In
six years, the paper has had 100 percent attendance by candidates.)
Overall
lessons - successes and failures:
Felber notes: "Could this format become pointlessly argumentative?
If it does, we edit the tape to distill the debate to its essence.
Does the format give an advantage to the candidate who is better
at debate and at thinking on his or her feet? Possibly...what's
wrong with that? Finally, because the debate is edited and published,
it can be read in leisurely fashion according the voter's own
time frame; it need not be watched at a popular hour, or missed."
Case studies
written by Lisa Austin, Assistant Director of the Project on Public
Life and the Press, March1994. Lisa is also a member of the CPN
Journalism editorial team.
More
Information
Project
on Public Life and the Press
New York University
Department of Journalism
10 Washington Pl.
New York, NY 10003
(212) 998-3793
Back
to Communication Index |
