Yesterday, the Department of Public Policy at the Univ. of Connecticut released a national study on press freedom in the US, surveying both journalists and the general public. See, Washinton Times, Journalists, Public Know Little About Press Freedom.

Read the press release: Press Freedom in the U.S.: A National Survey of Journalists and the American Public [PDF].
Read the general population survey: Freedom of the Press Survey, General Population (2005) [PDF]
Read the journalist survey: Freedom of the Press Survey, Journalists (2005) [PDF]

I'm interested in the First Amendment, so I thought I would take a look. There are a number of interesting findings.

Only 14% of Americans - and 57% of Journalists - Can Name Freedom of the Press as a Right in the First Amendment

"Freedom of Speech" does much better. 66% of journalists and 58% of Americans can name it. The difference between "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech" is not particularly suprising to me. Current legal doctrine is that there is no actual distinction between the two, so why would people think of them as different things? It is surprising to me, however, that only 66% of journalists can name "Freedom of Speech" as part of the First Amendment.

How do Americans feel about Newspaper Censorship? What do Americans think about free expression rights for musicians?

There was an interesting comparison with a survey of high school students taken last year. With regard to newspapers, 75% of American adults were opposed to prior restraint, while only 51% of high school students agreed. With regard to musicians, 58% of American adults think musicians should be allowed to sing songs that are offensive to some, while 70% of high school students thought the musicians should be protected. Weird.

Bloggers and Journalists

The survey for the journalists had a number of questions regarding bloggers and there were some interesting responses. For example, when asked "Which of the following two statements comes closest to your opinion?" Journalists responded (note, these potential answers are a bit suspect):

• 13% - Bloggers are real journalists though they may not adhere to commonly held ethical standards
• 75% - Bloggers are not real journalists since they don't adhere to commonly held ethical standards
• 1% - Bloggers do adhere to journalism standards (VOL) [1%? Ouch]
• 9% - Don't Know
• 2% - Refused

The question was a bit suspect (some bloggers are journalists and adhere to press ethics, others do not), but geez.

The most striking response I saw, however, was with regard to whether weblogs should receive First Amendment protection. 10% of the journalists said, "no," and 5% responded with "don't know." Tough audience.

Blogs are getting read fairly frequently, however. When asked how often they read weblogs, journalists replied:

• 14% - Daily
• 13% - Several times a week
• 14% - Once a week
• 11% - Once every few weeks
• 32% - Rarely
• 16% - Never

Compare this to the general population survey in which only 7% of American adults said they used blogs.

Why do journalists read blogs?

• 36% - Work duties [heh]
• 35% - Personal reasons
• 19% - Both/work duties and personal reasons (vol)

Journalists and Anonymous Sources

Good timing on the survey for this one, given the recent scandal involving Newsweek (Newsweek's Take-Our-Word-For-It World).

"When a news story relies on an unnamed source, one should question the accuracy of that story":

• 39% - Strongly agree
• 35% - Mildly agree
• 12% - Mildly disagree
• 11% - Strongly disagree

Strangely, 23% don't agree that story's accuracy should be questioned. It would be interesting to learn a little more here. As for myself, I sometimes question and other times the confidential source seems SOP for particular types of stories, so I don't really question them too much.

"News stories that rely on unnamed sources should not be published in the first place":

• 5% - Strongly agree
• 9% - Mildly agree
• 32% - Mildly disagree
• 55% - Strongly disagree

Confidential sources are clearly here to stay. It'll be interesting to see if there is movement towards the "mildly disagree" opinion.

"Thinking about all the stories that you have authored in your career, approximately what percentage were based, at least in part, on confidential sources?":

• 42% - Less than 5%
• 51% - 5-25%
• 6% - More than 25%

Seems to be a reasonably common practice. The next question is the interesting one.

"Now think about the stories you've authored in your career that began with information from confidential sources. Approximately what percentage would have still been published if you had NOT been allowed to use the confidential source?":

• 23% - Less than 5%
• 17% - 5-25%
• 49% - More than 25%
• 11% - Don't Know/Refused

Hmmm ... seems that confidential sources are definitely being overused. But ...

"Of those stories that began with confidential sources, approximately what percentage were later reported using only IDENTIFIED sources?":

• 9% - Less than 5%
• 19% - 5-15%
• 60% - More than 25%
• 12% - Don't Know/Refused

There is clearly some effort to rein things in. But who is doing the reining in?

"Does your organization's policy currently require you to receive approval from a supervisor before granting confidentiality to a source?":

• 62% - Yes
• 30% - No
• 4% - We don't have a policy/my organization forbids confidential sources
• 4% - Don't Know/Refused

It will be very interesting to see whether or not these responses change a few years down the road.