CPN - About CPN

CPN is designed and maintained by ONline @ UW: Electronic Publishing Group.

E-mail us at cpn@cpn.org

Topics: Civic Communication

The People's Voice

His 32 years in the U.S. Senate did not fully prepare Ted Kennedy for what he faced on the evening of Friday, September 16, 1994. In the midst of a close race for re-election, Kennedy had agreed to take questions from a panel of interrogators at the studios of WBZ-TV in Boston. Ordinarily, taking questions from journalists would be a breeze. One of the little secrets of politicians is that journalists are easy to manipulate; their usually obligatory "two-part questions" are predictable and easy to parry, even when hostile.

But these were not journalists Kennedy was to face. These were five ordinary Massachusetts citizens, representatives of those with the power to deny him a sixth term. For more than an hour, he took their questions, thus becoming a reluctant and defensive participant in an experiment in democracy.

When he left the studio, his discomfort was far from over. The panelists, with the help of journalist-moderators, dissected his performance as other journalists listened quietly to their analysis. For the next 48 hours, voters all over the Boston area would share the experience and study the senator for themselves in the pages of the Boston Globe and over the air on WBUR-FM and WBZ-TV.

"The People's Voice" was being heard.

An Old Idea is Revived

Giving citizens a role in the campaign was not a new idea. In theory, it was as old as the idea of elections, but in recent years, citizens had become passive spectators watching carefully choreographed campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion rather than inform it. Candidates held the initiative, while citizens had to settle for misleading TV ads about Willie Horton and irrelevant sound-bite journalism. If campaigns were ever going to address the important issues of the day, they had to address those matters that had a bearing on public life after the election.

In 1990, "Buzz" Merritt, editor of the Wichita Eagle, came to the same conclusion. So, too, did Rich Oppel at the Charlotte Observer in 1991. Dissatisfied with the status quo, both Knight-Ridder editors decided to try something new.

Their ideas were simple:

Convert readers from passive consumers of news to active participants in the campaign.
Focus on citizen-identified issues, not just the candidates' attention-grabbing gestures.

The media would become an agent of the public, surveying citizens to determine their agenda for the campaign and bringing that agenda to the candidates for response. The newspapers, on behalf of the public, would hold the candidates accountable.

The Boston Globe Signs On

The idea was familiar to Matt Storin, editor of the Boston Globe. Storin had long been troubled by the reluctance of political leadership to set a serious agenda for deliberation in campaigns. Furthermore, the fragmentation of the media, especially by cable television, prevented the media from filling that vacuum. His conclusion: "Only a newspaper could do the kind of agenda setting that goes hand-in-hand with this kind of leadership." He saw his newspaper - in alliance with other media and in concert with citizens - providing that agenda-setting leadership.

He had also thought about what had been done in Wichita and Charlotte. "If I thought about it long enough, I would have had us doing the same sort of thing."

He was in that frame of mind in November 1993 when three people came calling with a proposal. Edward Miller, an associate of The Poynter Institute for Media Studies in Florida, had helped the Charlotte Observer drastically change its campaign coverage in 1992. John Dinges, editorial director of National Public Radio, wanted to effect the same change at NPR by forming closer working alliances with selected local affiliates. Sam Fleming was news director of one of those target stations - WBUR-FM in Boston. The trio had a mission: Persuade the Globe to join with WBUR in a project to focus the campaign coverage in 1994 on issues and to involve citizens in every step. Miller was well into the sales pitch when Storin stopped him: "Ed, I believe in this. Now tell me how to get it done."

Within minutes "The People's Voice" was born.

For the next year, the Globe, WBUR-FM, and later WBZ-TV would maintain a makeshift alliance on behalf of the idea that citizens have a place in political campaigns. At best this alliance was informal; planning was on-again, off-again. Its successes were clearly mixed, their effect eventually obscured by the glare and noise of a traditional horse race.

That it happened at all was itself a triumph. What's more, the idea survived to be tried again. As one Globe editor said months later, "The project was an extra accelerant to the decision that we need to change the way we do things to become more relevant to the lives of readers." Despite its organizational shortcomings, "The People's Voice" did turn the journalists' attention to the lives of readers and not just the ambitions of the candidates.

Friends in the Newsroom

Initially, the idea found friends in the Globe newsroom. "One of the most heartening things about all of this," Storin said later, "is that the editors who were involved, who went to the first meeting with Ed Miller, have become total converts." Helping was Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, who spent some time in Boston, met with the city editors at an off-site meeting, and preached the gospel of civic journalism.

"That was so much better than my having to try to convince them from above," Storin said.

Some were more convinced than others. Walter Robinson, assistant managing editor for metro news, was intrigued by the challenge of finding a different way to cover campaigns without abandoning the past. His top deputy, city editor Teresa Hanafin, was excited about the potential to shift away from what she called "macho bang-bang" political coverage. Bruce Mohl, the new political editor who would have operational responsibilities for the project, was cautious but willing.

"Philosophically, I'm a real big fan of public journalism," Hanafin said. "I subscribe to its tenets that newspapers have a responsibility not just to dispense information [but] to help readers examine all elements of an issue." "The People's Voice," as proposed, fit her definition. "It's almost a campaign against bumper-sticker solutions, sound-bite solutions."

Mohl knew little about civic journalism and even less about the project that had just dropped in his lap. "I got the Charlotte thing (Miller's Poynter Paper on the 1992 Charlotte experiment) and read it a couple of times. After reading it, I couldn't tell if it was a success or not."

Even though he first thought the Charlotte approach wouldn't work in Boston, Mohl found valuable elements in the Observer's project, particularly the use of an initial issues poll to frame the coverage.

Enthusiasm, however, would not carry the project. Early intentions to assign extra manpower never materialized. Mohl, who had responsibility for the Globe's traditionally extensive political coverage, had to carry this extra load as well. Given the circumstances, he was to do a remarkable job, but the circumstances conspired against a complete success.

WBUR-FM and WBZ-TV Join In

Unlike Mohl, WBUR's Fleming had the better part of a year to prepare for "The People's Voice." In 1993 he had participated in NPR's planning for its Election Project with The Poynter Institute and was one of the first news directors to volunteer his station as a partner in one of five target cities -Boston, Dallas, San Francisco, Seattle, and Wichita.

Fleming knew the newspaper partnership was a vital component of the project but his staff worried about being overshadowed by the much larger Globe and a television partner. "There were some people who thought this was our baby and should be our baby."

Others, including assistant news director Bob Oakes, understood why that wouldn't work. "From my point of view, the whole point of this idea was to make some impact." Alone, WBUR stood little chance of accomplishing that goal.

Fleming also had to worry about competition when the Globe suggested WBZ-TV, its customary polling partner, as the best television partner. Fleming's concern: The NBC affiliate shared a newsroom with its sister radio station, a direct competitor of WBUR-FM. The partners agreed that WBZ-TV would be involved, but its radio arm would not.

WBZ-TV brought its own problems to the mix. News director Peter Brown liked the concept, but didn't see a role for television in every aspect of the project, especially the initial focus groups that "were great for newspapers and radio." He also expressed a concern that having a television camera in the room would make the focus group participants too self-conscious. Instead, Brown used the poll results to shoot interviews with people on the street. Also, Brown was unable to commit week-night prime time, the television equivalent of front-page space, to "The People's Voice." WBZ-TV produced hours of "The People's Voice" coverage, but aired nearly all of it on Sunday mornings, television's answer to the news analysis section, thus diminishing the chance to reach a wide audience.

Getting the Project Moving

Although some staffers at the Globe and WBUR-FM still had reservations about the project, forming the partnership was easier than getting it moving. At the beginning of 1994, the partners needed to agree on a timetable, construct an issues poll, and begin planning coordinated activities through the September primary.

Initially, there was no blueprint for working as a team. No individual had responsibility for scheduling meetings, juggling assignments, or handling logistics. Often, one partner waited for another to take the lead. Nevertheless, plans were made to:

Conduct the poll in mid-May,
Hold focus groups on the five major issues determined by the poll, and
Report the results - one issue each week - starting in early June.

The focus-group participants came from the pool of those surveyed. The partners also decided to solicit questions for the candidates from citizens; the resulting Q-and-A's would run in the Globe Monday through Friday each week. In addition, readers would be encouraged to phone in, fax, mail, or e-mail questions. Each of the partners agreed to mention the others every time a "People's Voice" segment or article appeared.

From the beginning, the partners agreed on the need to remain editorially independent. For example, they agreed to start their coverage of the poll results at the same time, but produce series of varying lengths. The Globe planned a five-week series on major issues, including 30 days of questions-and-answers for the candidates. WBZ-TV prepared four packaged reports with analysis of the poll and comments from citizens. WBUR-FM planned six weeks of coverage, including a week about confidence in government.

To shore up the newsroom commitment, the Globe hosted a delegation from the Pew Center for Civic Journalism in Washington, a major funder of the public radio portion of the project. Pew Center director Ed Fouhy and chairman Hodding Carter III discussed the value of the election project within the broader concept of civic journalism. "They gave the group a pep talk, and I think that worked," WBUR's Fleming said.

Still, doubts about the project persisted. "None of the reporters involved were eager to go out and listen to `People's Voice' people," Mohl said. "This was not a sought-after job, it was sort of the dregs of the political stuff, at least I think it was perceived that way."

Fleming faced some opposition at WBUR, but he had the support of Bob Oakes, his assistant news director; Managing Editor Eve Epstein, an import from the Associated Press with state house experience; and several other interested staffers. But even supporters worried about the drain the project could have on the newsroom's already overtaxed resources; about a dozen of the station's reporters, editors, and producers contributed to "The People's Voice" between May and November.

WBUR business correspondent Bruce Gellerman was the most vocal opponent. Describing himself as "positive but skeptical," Gellerman saw "The People's Voice" as "mostly sloganeering, the same old wine in a not very new bottle. We have good ways of covering elections and I don't see the need to change the whole model."

In the Globe's state house bureau, reporter Scott Lehigh was also skeptical. Lehigh admired the concept, but objected to the use of citizens as substitute experts; he feared the effect "The People's Voice" would have on his kind of coverage: "I had the distinct sense at one point in the campaign that a story about the candidates going at it often went inside the paper, but a story on what [the citizens] thought went on the front page. In my mind, sometimes the citizens' comments about the campaign became more important than the campaign itself."

That concern had been heard before. Critics of previous experiments in Wichita and Charlotte had claimed that project enthusiasm often prevented more traditional news coverage from getting appropriately prominent display. Lehigh's reservations were balanced by Don Aucoin, another state house reporter, who wrote three of the five issue takeouts. Aucoin, who calls himself the bureau's "Mr. Outside," says he enjoyed the chance to help citizens frame the debate. "In my mind, shut up and listen. That's what it was about."

Listening First with a Poll

The partners' first chance to listen was in late May when pollster Jerry Chervinsky and KRC Research surveyed 400 participants about current issues in Massachusetts. The 97-question survey had two goals, both vital to the success of the project: Gauge the issues of most importance to the voters, and create a pool of citizens willing to participate in focus groups. The results would guide the first six weeks of coverage.

Designing the poll proved to be the first test of the partnership. WBUR-FM wanted to spend more and take a larger sampling for its only election poll, but the budgets of the Globe and WBZ-TV had to cover their subsequent horse-race polls as well. What's more, Fleming and his staff wanted to find a pollster less tied to horse-race polling, but WBUR's partners preferred to use the same firm for all their surveys. The three finally agreed to a sampling of 400 that would cost each partner about $7,500. WBUR's portion was subsidized by funds from Pew's grant to NPR.

Fleming and Epstein at WBUR-FM and Mohl at the Globe spent several weeks writing poll questions and, with additional input from Brown at WBZ-TV, paring them down from a list of 200-plus to the final 97 questions. Participants were asked to rank certain issues, explain their views, and offer potential solutions.

The final question asked whether the respondent would be willing to continue to participate in the project; about a quarter of those polled said yes. As the planners quickly realized, that didn't provide an instant pool of 100 potential panelists. Many of the respondents were too similar demographically. Others indicated interest, but said no when contacted again. Mohl discovered that even those who accepted invitations to participate could not always be counted on to show up.

Success in the First Focus Group

Poll in hand, the partners took the data to the first focus group - 11 people at WBZ-TV - for citizen reaction. Crime, the lead issue cited in the poll, was the topic. (The focus groups were held on Monday nights, leaving the reporters and producers enough time to prepare the following week's reports.)

Moderated by Charles Kenney, a former Globe political writer hired to lead all the focus groups, the lively discussion lasted nearly two hours. The Globe's front-page report ran June 12 and filled two inside pages, the most space devoted at one time to "The People's Voice" during the entire campaign. The package included:

A description of "The People's Voice" project.
A small box explaining how to register to vote.
A pair of sidebars about the increase in juvenile crime and the "lost generation," a term that came up repeatedly during the session. The crime sidebar included the only comments from an "expert," a local professor of sociology and criminology; more expert comments were published in a follow-up the next day.
Matching issues boxes containing the voters' views and the candidates' views on crime. The boxes occupied most of the right-hand side of the two-page spread, sending a clear message that the Globe was taking the voters seriously.

Two other items became part of "The People's Voice" routine:

A "Learn More" box listing titles and times for the corresponding week-long WBUR series and the times for "The People's Voice" reports on WBZ-TV that day.
A "How to Get Involved" box urging readers to "Make sure `The People's Voice' is heard. Call, write, or message us electronically with your comments, your questions, and your suggestions." The Globe's phone number, address, and a special e-mail address-voice@Globe.com-followed. In a nice techno-twist, the Globe's computer experts linked the e-mail to the newspaper's Atex computer system where Mohl could access messages easily.

State house reporter Aucoin covered three of the five focus groups: crime, welfare, and education. Mohl went outside the political staff for the other two, tapping medical reporter Richard A. Knox for health and economics writer Charles Stein for jobs and the economy.

The Second Focus Group Sputters

Energized by the success of the first focus group, the partners were ill-prepared for the poor attendance at the next session. "Fourteen were lined up for the focus group on welfare, jobs, and the economy; only six showed up," Mohl recalled. "That was a disaster. Six was not a representative group."

The tight production schedule meant they couldn't afford to postpone the session. Instead, they split the topics, moving ahead with the discussion on welfare, but saving jobs and the economy for another session. Coordinating the focus groups consumed a lot of Mohl's time. Getting people to actually show up once they agreed to attend posed another problem.

"We talked about should we pay them money to come, give them some incentive to come. That was sort of offensive, because we wanted to make it just regular people who were interested in the electoral process," he said. Then there were those who volunteered.

"I got a lot of calls from people who wanted to participate but were clearly nut bags. That became an issue. Do we just put anyone into the paper even if they are fixated? There's a guy who lives in the same town I do who always called, all the time he wanted to get involved, but all he cared about was water and sewer rates. He would ask Kennedy about water and sewer rates," Mohl said. That man didn't make the list.

The informal screening process didn't always work, though. One would-be participant who came to the studio was asked to leave when the organizers realized she was a candidate for local office. Eventually, the partners were able to draw from the pool of people responding to the "get involved" boxes and messages on WBUR.

Coordinating the 30 week-day questions-and-answers boxes posed similar logistical problems. Mohl and researcher Maureen Goggin had to find questions appropriate to that week's topic, collect responses from the four gubernatorial and three senatorial candidates, and then - in what became the series' most popular feature - return to the questioner for his or her reaction to the candidates.

In keeping with the opening-day declaration, candidates were asked to stick to issues and solutions in an effort to "de-emphasize the sniping and empty rhetoric characteristic of most campaigns." Mitt Romney, one of three Republicans seeking the right to challenge Ted Kennedy, missed the point on the very first round.

Democrat Jeffrey Work, a focus group member from Jamaica Plain, wanted three to five specific ways candidates would spend $100 on the crime problem. Five candidates offered a thoughtful response, but only three actually answered the question. Gov. William F. Weld's campaign manager referred to his candidate in the third person and added a partisan touch the others avoided.

Romney not only failed to answer the question adequately, he failed the first test by sniping at Kennedy: "If your question means what would I do personally with $100 to fight crime, first I'd spend it fast before Ted Kennedy could tax it to fund some bureaucracy in Washington."

Spoken at a campaign rally or even in a debate, that response might have been applauded. "The People's Voice" scored a small victory when Work described Weld's answers as "the quintessential politician's response," noted favorably the thoughtful replies of other Republicans and Democrats, and dismissed Romney with "what a jerk." That was a red-letter moment for city editor Hanafin. "That's honesty. That's coming right from that guy's heart."

The candidates may have brushed off the Globe but they got the message from Work, the citizen. After several days of speaking through his manager, Weld eventually started to answer questions himself - another sign "The People's Voice" was working.

WBUR-FM Conducts More Interviews

At WBUR, Fleming's staff followed the Globe's Sunday package with a number of segments. Instead of relying solely on the focus groups, executive producer David Wright wanted WBUR to go into the community and conduct more interviews. This approach increased the journalists' participation and avoided a sterile series of reports.

In addition, WBUR held regular in-studio roundtables with three or four citizens. The roundtables began as a chance to discuss the candidates' responses to the issues raised in the poll. As the campaign progressed, Fleming used the format to talk about the campaign itself and to critique campaign ads. The station also added a Friday segment on Morning Edition for listeners' responses.

Politician-turned-talk-show-host Christopher Lydon added another facet to WBUR's coverage, first by hosting call-in shows with themes matching the issue of the week, and then by continuing to invite participation in campaign discussions.

Eve Epstein thought the cumulative effort was effective. "It's our job to try and understand what the public is thinking and it's a truly impossible task. Particularly in this year, a process that listens to people in thoughtful discussion is really valuable."

Overall, the partners were pleased with the first phase of the project. But the project's timing may have hurt it. "When we started our series of stories nobody else was doing anything and we could set the agenda. The down side is nobody was paying attention," Fleming said, keenly aware the series coincided with summer vacations. When it ended, the Massachusetts primary was still two months away.

Mohl agreed. "My idea the first five weeks was to sort of set an agenda, here's what the people want to talk about in this campaign, here's what their concerns are, here's what the issues should be in the campaign, according to them. After that, I think the whole project became how can we use people to fit in our election coverage in some way?"

Citizen Involvement

The partners found more ways to raise the profile of the voters and call attention to their concerns during the campaign: citizen critiques of political ads, citizen-candidate panels held in the weeks leading to the September 13 primary, and citizen involvement in the general election debates.

Two five-member panels were chosen from the focus group participants for the four panels that would be taped and later televised. One panel met with Gov. Weld and the Democratic candidates for governor; the other questioned Sen. Kennedy and the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate.

A few days before the first taping, each panel met at WBZ-TV for a prep session with Peter Brown. He walked them through the process, told them what to expect, and gave them advice on how to ask questions while avoiding suggestions about what to ask.

"By and large, these were pretty successful. They weren't afraid to talk," said Mohl, who appreciated the extra edge Brown provided.

WBZ-TV's veteran political reporter John Henning and WBUR-FM's Bob Oakes moderated the sessions. The bulk of the time was spent in questions and answers. Then the candidates would leave the room while the panelists analyzed their performance. For the most part, the challengers were willing participants and the incumbents had to be pressured to participate. Gov. Weld was the first candidate before the panel. Initially resistant, the governor told the Globe after the session he enjoyed the give-and-take. The Kennedy session may have been the most telling. His testy and defensive performance sent the message that his campaign could be in trouble.

"The Kennedy appearance at Channel 4 was a case of a candidate not understanding the dynamic," said Globe editor Robinson. "If that had happened in prime time. . .," he wondered without finishing the thought. For former politician Lydon, that session was one of "The People's Voice's" most significant contributions. "It was one of the first clear distress signals from the mother ship Kennedy," he said.

Citizens as Celebrities

The use of focus-group participants - many of them question-and-answer contributors during the Globe series - as panelists triggered a new round of newsroom anxiety from staffers concerned about the overuse of certain individuals. The appearance of some of these same people as participants in the gubernatorial and senatorial debates turned up the heat. Criticism came from supporters and doubters.

Globe researcher Goggin called it "one of the things that didn't work. Some of these people became professional, they started acting like political consultants. They think they're James Carville and Mary Matalin, not like regular folks."

State house reporter Lehigh worried about the creation of citizens with a capital "C." Sally Jacobs, a reporter recruited to cover some of the panels, even wrote a story about other civic journalism projects. "I talked to maybe a dozen newspapers and stations. I can recall (only) one that used citizens more than once." Jacobs argued that the Globe created "super citizens."

WBUR's Gellerman agreed: "These people became the story." Mohl disagreed, arguing that the re-use of certain people was spread out over five or six months and was barely noticeable outside the newsroom.

The debates were another story. Held in prime-time, they accorded "The People's Voice" its highest profile during the general election. All but one of the three debates used citizens; the first, moderated by veteran network correspondent Ken Bode, used a mixture of journalists' questions and Lincoln-Douglas sparring. Both gubernatorial debates were produced by Brown and WBZ-TV; the Senate debates were hosted by a hasty coalition of the Globe and The Boston Herald as the papers worked together to pressure Kennedy to participate. WBUR was not involved in planning the Senate debates.

Citizen involvement worked best in the gubernatorial debates, but those were overshadowed by the sizzle of the first Kennedy-Romney debate and the fizzle of the second. The first debate produced electricity and drew national attention. The second featured a compromise panel of "The People's Voice" and Herald participants. The only memorable moment was a personal attack on Kennedy, a hard question about drugs and alcohol from George Riethof, the same Republican who asked a similar question during the earlier Kennedy citizens panel. After the debate, the Globe received calls and letters criticizing the paper for selecting Riethof as a participant.

Detractors blamed the difference between the two debates on the town hall format of the second one and criticized the questions for being ill-focused, too long, and too distracting. Brown, who knew the format could be successful, attributed the problems to a lack of panel preparation. "They weren't prepared. They need to be taught some aspects of television," he said. "Most of the reporters thought that debate was worthless. The voters thought it was just fine," said the Globe's Robinson, who believed dull questions were the only real problem.

After each debate, the Globe called citizen panelists at home and ran response boxes the next day. The coverage of the second Kennedy-Romney debate included a box with reaction from the panelists.

Post-Primary Letdown

"The People's Voice" fell to a whisper after the primary, a victim, in part, of a hot Senate race and the traditional cycle of horse-race coverage. "The horse race inevitably took over. You can't neglect it," said reporter Aucoin.

City editor Hanafin was also frustrated. "For some reason, after the primary I felt as though we really dropped the ball on public journalism. We reverted to the traditional way of covering campaigns - more horse races than issues."

The real culprit may have been poor planning. According to WBUR's Fleming, "We really didn't know what we were going to do after the primary." He thought a stronger initial commitment and better coordination among the partners might have averted the project's losing steam at the end. "A lot of things just happened haphazardly. It takes foresight and a constant use of resources. Looking back on it myself, I now have a clearer idea of what my commitment should have been."

His colleague Oakes felt the same way. "I think one of the things I would have tried to do was create a road map for where we were going from start to finish."

For the Globe's Mohl, it was a combination of the pressures of supervising the general election coverage and the lack of a post-primary game plan. Hanafin was a bit more wistful. "What we did do was very good and it was a big change for the Globe. Maybe this does have to be done in stages; maybe I shouldn't expect to make this quantum leap. I just thought there was a little more potential than was realized."

Lessons Learned

"The People's Voice" was an experiment. Like most experiments, it had hits, misses, and lessons. Among the lessons:

Planning is important. In Boston the partners devised a way to get something started in June, but they needed a more thorough plan to anticipate the pressures of a closely contested race in November.
Staffing requirements are always underestimated. At the Globe, the project was an add-on to the traditional coverage. As a result, it simply overwhelmed those responsible. A special projects editor or a coordinator would have helped, especially in the methodical but tough work of recruiting and selecting citizens to get involved.
Attitudes cannot be changed overnight. Some of the participants were converts to the idea that citizens could be valuable resources in covering campaigns; others saw the idea as old wine in new bottles.
Media alliances can be powerful tools on behalf of the public conversation on issues. To function well, however, they need to be based on a deep commitment and driven by thorough planning and organization.
Involving citizens can improve journalism. They offer depth and perspectives that can enrich the reporting and editing.

In Boston's post-mortem, editors acknowledged flaws in the execution while holding firm to the idea that civic journalism projects can improve not only the coverage of political campaigns, but other community stories as well. And the Globe is planning a similar effort for the 1996 presidential race.

"This project taught us that not only do we not always have the right answers - we don't always have the right questions," said Robinson.

"The greatest value of the project," Robinson concluded, "is that it gave added momentum to the Globe in its desire to change the way we cover news generally, that is, become more relevant to the lives of readers."

The Globe, he explained, is now in the process of creating a new beat system more responsive to local issues and more closely tuned to the community voices discussing solutions. The election project provided the impetus to this restructuring by demonstrating "there are important ripples well beyond the civic journalism pool."

Back to Civic Communication Index