| 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 | 
