Last night at the Thomson Reuters building in Times Square, Jack Shafer of Slate.com moderated a panel for millennium journalism entitled “Audience and the Media: A Shaky Marriage.”
The speakers at the event each came from a mainstream news outlet, with differing ideas on how to keep credibility and objectivity in their field while maintaining their audiences’ interests.
Michael Oreskes, editor of The Associated Press, came out swinging. “We’re in an era of mistrust…[the mainstream media] have done a truly lousy job [explaining] why we mattered,” he said. “We got away with it for a long time until the Internet. Suddenly why we failed to explain who we were really mattered.”
Lisa Shepard, ombudsman of National Public Radio, shared a similar sentiment, “The public does depend on the media, and loves to kick us,” she said, explaining that news organizations have been “horrible at marketing themselves” as credible resources, even as they have become more transparent and willing to admit their mistakes.
“Lets be realistic,” Shepard told the crowd. “When you are putting out a 24-hour news product, you are going to have mistakes every day.”
But does admitting those mistakes and issuing corrections make a publication seem more credible, or less? Read on for more from last night’s panel.