Four New England journalists will receive the Yankee Quill award this fall for their career contributions to the betterment of journalism in the six-state region. The founder of a newspaper that operated atop Mount Washington from 1831 to 1899 will be posthumously honored as well.
The 2018 honorees are David Randall Moats, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorialist and former editorial page editor of the Rutland (Vermont) Herald; Wayne Phaneuf, executive editor of the Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican; Ken Squier, sportscaster and former longtime owner of the Radio Vermont Group of four local radio stations; and Lou Ureneck, professor of journalism at Boston University and former editor of the Portland Press Herald and Maine Sunday Telegram.
In addition, the Academy of New England Journalists awarded its historic figure Yankee Quill to Henry Martyn Burt, the founder, publisher and editor of the 19th century newspaper Among the Clouds, published at the summit of Mount Washington. Burt was once jailed by a sheriff for criminal libel for accusing the proprietor of a popular mountain hotel of overcharging to remove the body of a young boy killed in the collapse of a snow arch. Burt also founded the Massachusetts-based New England Homestead, an important farm newspaper, and the Northampton Free Press, a champion of the anti-slavery movement.
The Yankee Quill is presented annually by the Academy of New England Journalists through the auspices of the New England Society of News Editors. It is considered the highest individual honor awarded by fellow journalists in the region. Selection for the award is not based on any single achievement but rather on the broad influence for good in serving the public welfare over the course of a career.
The Yankee Quill awards will be presented as part of the annual conferences of the New England Society of News Editors and the New England Newspaper and Press Association on the evening of Thursday, Oct. 11, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Natick, Mass.
This year’s honorees
Contact:
Bill Ketter, chairman, Academy of New England Journalists, (978) 946-2233 wketter@cnhi.com
George Geers, clerk, Academy of New England Journalists, (603) 785-4811 gnews@empire.net
The Academy of New England Journalists, founded by Sigma Delta Chi in 1960, honors
extraordinary newspaper men and women for their lifetime of achievement and distinction in
New England journalism. Please join us as we pay tribute to this year’s Yankee Quill Award
winners for their exceptional contributions to their communities and our industry.
Thursday, October 11, 2018 | Crowne Plaza Hotel | 1360 Worcester St., Natick, MA 01760
Registration is now closed. For more information please contact NENPA at 781.281.2053 or info@nenpa.com.
David Moats receives the Quill for his profound impact on journalism in Vermont and beyond with his thoughtful editorial writing and frequent public appearances on the value of a free press and the First Amendment to American liberty. His compassion as a journalist for the human rights of others earned him a Pulitzer Prize for his thoughtful and influential series of editorials commenting on the divisive issues arising from civil unions for same-sex couples.
Wayne Phaneuf is presented the Quill for his passionate commitment to journalism and community. From reporter to editor, from historian to historical writer, his broad experiences are demonstrative of someone who has taken his personal growth and experiences as a journalist to guide at least two generations of new journalists into careers of serving their readers. As a historian, he works steadfastly to ensure today’s readers are able to put the news events of their lives in perspective of the past.
Lou Ureneck is honored for his work in journalism as a teacher, mentor, writer and editor whose professional career ranges from cub reporter at the Providence Journal to executive editor at the Portland Press Herald. He is now a professor at Boston University’s College of Communication and author of two memoirs and an acclaimed non-fiction history book about the final violent episode of the 20th century’s first genocide.
Ken Squier receives the Yankee Quill for his strong commitment to sportscasting and community journalism that has made an impact on the local, regional and national level. He is credited with being the first person in getting flag-to-flag coverage of auto racing on television when CBS aired the Daytona 500 in 1979. Auto racing took off as both a national spectator and active sport following that national telecast, and it created countless jobs within the journalism world.
Henry Martyn Burt (posthumously) During his tenure as publisher and editor of the mountain-top newspaper Among the Clouds, Henry Martyn Burt (1831-1899) was struck by lightning, arrested and jailed for libel, developed a way to beat his competitors by “sliding” his newspaper down a mountain railroad track to readers, but most important, Henry Burt’s mission was to share his enthusiasm of, and draw people to, the White Mountains of New Hampshire.
evin Slimp is director of the Institute of Newspaper Technology. Email questions to him at kevin@kevinslimp.com.
I really didn’t expect to do much traveling this summer but plans don’t always work out as expected and that certainly has been the case for me. The truth is I really love working with newspapers and when I get a call from a paper within a few hours asking for help it’s hard for me to say “no.”
Thus was the case when I left my lonely writer’s nook and made the 70-mile drive to Cleveland, Tennessee five days ago.
The assignment was simple: The daily newspaper in Cleveland was upgrading all their hardware, software and editorial systems for shiny new, albeit unfamiliar, toys.
My two-day charge turned into a three-day mission when I was asked to return on Monday to help oversee the first day producing a paper with the new system. Fortunately, I wasn’t on my own. Don Foy, technology specialist at Walls Newspapers, was on hand to make sure the paper went out as close to deadline as possible.
In two of my previous columns, I’ve mentioned other newspapers I’ve visited recently, and I can’t help but notice a trend. Every paper I’ve visited over the past few months seems to be doing well.
How do you train the staff of a daily paper and still get the paper out on time? You divide them into groups. One group is in class while the other group is getting the paper out.
It’s not because of me. They were all doing well before I came along. Some of these papers were weeklies, some dailies, and a couple of others were somewhere in-between.
I took a few extra days to write this column because I wanted to finish the job in Cleveland and share some observations I’ve gleaned during my recent newspaper visits.
The $64,000 question is this: Why are some papers successful, while others seem destined to eventual failure? Why are some papers profitable, with healthy readership and growing ad revenue, while others seem to base their future revenue on reduced expenses and personnel reductions?
I’ve made the decision to focus on the positive today. The following are some of the common practices I’ve noticed during my recent visits to successful newspaper operations:
1. Successful newspapers have publishers who are engaged. Someone asked me last week what a newspaper publisher does. My an-swer was simple, “Anything from nothing to everything.”Two months ago, I received a message from a young, new publisher. Her question, “What does a publisher actually do?” made me chuckle. I jokingly answered, “Work on your golf game.”True enough, I’ve seen more than my share of publishers who seem to spend more time away from their newspapers than on-site. Not lately, though. In my recent trips, I’ve found publishers who are engaged with their staffs, working side-by-side with their writers, editors, ad reps and production staffs to improve every aspect of their newspapers.
2. Successful newspapers have staffs that are happy. In every paper I’ve visited over the past few months, it was obvious the staffs loved their work. In Cleveland, I listened as staff members cheerfully explained how much they appreciate working at the newspaper. Some had worked at other papers who weren’t as appreciative of their efforts. It’s been my experience that happy workers are harder workers. Let’s face it, I put in long hours because I love what I do. You may do the same, or you may do as little as possible because you hate your job. Successful newspapers have staffs who are happy.
3. Successful newspapers plan for growth. None of the papers I’ve visited this year have been cutting staff, reducing print cycles or moaning about impending death. They expect to be healthy because they are used to being healthy, and plan accordingly.
4. Successful newspapers don’t believe all the hype. When I visit dying papers (whether they realize they are dying or not), there always seems to be a lot of talk about what others are saying about the eventual death of newspapers. They’ve read it all, from metro CEOs to digital experts, concerning the death of print.
The first issue of the newspaper comes off the press, just thirty minutes after the usual deadline.
Maybe successful papers are just too ignorant to know better, but they don’t believe they are dying and they act as if they are going to be around for a long time.
As a young college student, I remember studying a popular theory in sociology called “the looking glass-self theory.” Basically, the theory states that people become what they think they will become. Therefore, happiness and success are largely based on the perceptions we have about ourselves.
I was recently “cornered” at a newspaper convention by a group of managers from a national newspaper group. Their basic premise was, “You have no idea what you’re talking about. Print is dead. Newspapers are dying.”
As I walked away from the group, I was convinced their papers will achieve just what they are predicting, and from what I see, that is the case.
Successful newspapers believe they are, and will continue to be, successful. They don’t believe all the hype.
I know that some will read this column and say, “What an idiot. He’s dreaming.”That’s their prerogative. I’ve been hearing that for at least 10 years.
Kevin Slimp with Ralph Baldwin, publisher of the Cleveland Daily Banner.
But I’ll leave you with this. I’ve visited a lot of newspapers, probably thousands, over 25 years. And it only takes a few minutes after entering a newspaper office to get a good idea of what the future holds for that paper.
I’m sincerely thankful these papers asked me to visit them this summer. This writer’s nook can get a little lonely sometimes.
While readers browse, publishers earn digital ad revenue.
Burnsville, MN — Tecnavia announced the Tecnavia Ad Network (TAN), a new service exclusively for Tecnavia clients. Developed with leading digital advertising exchanges, TAN provides publishers with select digital ads for placement in their Tecnavia print replica eEditions and 2-in-One Total Media Apps. TAN is an opportunity for publishers to generate ad revenue without adding additional ad sales or marketing resources by simply taking advantage of ad impressions already available.
“TAN supplies curated, quality national and regional display advertisements to run in the various digital ad positions available in Tecnavia’s eEdition and Total Media Apps,” said Diane Amato, VP of Sales at Tecnavia. “Publishers may combine locally sold ads with TAN ads for flexibility and maximize impressions. Tecnavia’s network targets higherlevel news reader demographics to maintain an excellent reader experience. Rates paid to publishers from TAN are more than competitive, and benefit from the scale of Tecnavia’s client base of some 2000 publications. It’s
something our clients can simply plug in and start generating revenue using a network that would be difficult for them to develop on their own,” said Amato.
“eEdition and App ad impressions represent a significant revenue opportunity that is often overlooked. Analytics from our clients show that daily eEdition sessions run from 15-20 minutes or longer depending on publication page counts. Apps with live news, multi-media and push notifications encourage return visits to read story updates. Even just browsing, readers generate a considerable number of pageviews and, with it, many potential ad impressions from one or multiple ad locations. The Tecnavia ad network lets clients passively earn revenue from these valuable
ad impressions,” said Amato.
TAN is running now at pilot publications to help establish best practices and business models in a real-world environment. General availability for Tecnavia clients is expected in late Q3/2018.
About Tecnavia
Tecnavia has over 20 years’ experience in e-publishing and was a pioneer in the concept of digital print editions. Today, Tecnavia manages over 2,000 titles and processes over 8 million pages per year. Services now include Total Media Apps for live news, eEditions, website meters, digital archives, eTearsheets and the new Tecnavia Ad Network. We aim to continue offering high-performance, innovative and cost-effective solutions relying on hard work, bright ideas, and continuous research and development.
Contact:
Diane Amato, VP Sales
Tecnavia Press Inc.
13965 W. Preserve Blvd., Burnsville, MN 55337
330-646-1889 • damato@tecnavia.com
On Monday, July 16, an early morning fire destroyed the building that houses The Vermont Standard newspaper, in Woodstock, VT.
In addition to the Standard offices, the historic building also contained two additional businesses and two apartments. Fortunately everyone was able to get out of the building safely and there weren’t any injuries.
The oldest weekly newspaper in Vermont has seen its share of struggles. The 160+-year-old Standard lost its previous home to flooding from Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. According to newspaper owner and publisher Phil Camp, the newspaper has overcome both floods and fires – and has never missed printing an issue. This latest fire will be no exception.
Although some of the Standard’s offices were totally destroyed, firefighters were
Photo by Eric Francis
able to retrieve computers from the newsroom, along with a fire safe that contained important back up files for the newspaper.
Camp says the paper will absolutely be coming out this week. If you know Phil, you know this is true.
Temporary offices have already been set up at the Norman Williams Public Library in Woodstock, and the staff is hard at work on this week’s issue.
Photo by Eric Francis
Please keep our friends at The Vermont Standard in your thoughts and prayers. If you’d like to reach out to them please send them emails until their phones are working. Their email addresses can be found on their website www.thevermontstandard.com.
John Foust has conducted training programs for thousands of newspaper advertising professionals. Many ad departments are using his training videos to save time and get quick results from in-house training. E-mail for information: john@johnfoust.com
I was talking to Greg, a veteran sales manager “Our sales team knows the importance of asking questions and gathering the right information,” he said. “But the key is to write it down accurately and keep it organized. When sales people review their notes later, they need to be able to move as quickly as possible to the next step in the process, whether that’s a proposal or the first ad in a new campaign.
“To deal with the challenge, I put together a simple format for note-taking,” he explained. “It has evolved over time, and I’m sure it comes from a combination of ideas I’ve seen in training programs and books over the years. Our team likes this approach, because it saves time and gives them a track to follow.”
Greg’s format can be used by anyone who takes notes in a meeting where several topics are covered. Although a sales person goes through a progression of questions, a conversation sometimes veers into other areas, and an important point can get lost in a sea of notes. “Simply use a legal pad and divide it into four sections,” he said. “Draw a line from top to bottom and another line from left to right. Label each quadrant with the titles you want – and you’re all set. On the next page, you can continue the same four categories or use four new ones.
Here’s a look at Greg’s favorite quadrants:
Put audience information in the top left quadrant. “This is for notes about the advertiser’s target audience,” Greg said. “Their demographics, their interests, their age ranges, and especially their buying motives. What about the similarities and differences between their existing customers and the customers they want to attract?”
Put information about products and services in the upper right quadrant. “This tightens their focus,” Greg explained. “Don’t let the advertiser get away with puffed up generalities like ‘fantastic’ or ‘incredible.’ Dig for specific features and benefits. When you review the notes, you’ll see some connections between audience motivators and product benefits.”
Write history notes in the bottom left quadrant. According to Greg, this is the place for the advertiser’s previous marketing experiences. What worked? What didn’t work? What media vehicles were used? What kind of budget did they allocate? In their opinion, what could they have done differently to generate better results?”
Put notes on ad plans in the bottom right quadrant. This is the spot to write ideas for new ads. Do some special tactics come to mind? What about testimonials? Or tie-ins between print and digital promotions?
“The system works like a charm,” Greg said. “If the advertiser mentions a product fact while history is being discussed, there’s no problem. Just put that product note in the proper section. We use this format in other meetings, too. For example, in creative strategy conversations, we may label the sections Offer, Headline, Illustration, and Schedule.”
It’s all about writing it down the right way. Worth a try, isn’t it?
(c) Copyright 2018 by John Foust. All rights reserved.
Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.
We hate false information on social media even more than “hate speech” or personal attacks, says the 2018 State of the First Amendment survey released Thursday by the First Amendment Center of the Freedom Forum Institute.
The same survey also found that a majority of us want the social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to do the false news takedown, not some government authority or official truth czar.
Overall, 83 percent of Americans agree that social media companies should remove false information, compared to 72 percent who agree such companies should remove “hate speech” and 68 percent who would have personal attacks taken down.
Those with a high school education or less were significantly more likely (87%) than those with a college education (77%) to agree that false information should be removed. There were no statistically significant differences among income groups.
The survey was conducted by Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company based in Arlington, Va., which speculates that those less educated may rely more heavily on social media as a source of news and therefore worry more than others about whether they are getting truthful information.
We strongly believe that social media companies should on their own initiative be monitoring and removing such objectionable content. But hold off on those free expression celebrations: When asked directly, respondents were about evenly split on whether to go a step further and empower the government to require those companies to “monitor and remove.”
In total, the survey sample included 1,009 adult respondents, with a margin of error of 3.7 percent — meaning it’s likely that if you asked another 1,009 adults the same questions, the results might go up or down by 3.7 percent.
When it comes to speech on campus, the survey showed that the public leans toward hearing from controversial speakers over cancelling invitations to speak — though support drops significantly when the speech is likely to cause violence.
Solid majorities favored going ahead with such speakers at colleges and universities even when the remarks were likely to offend some groups or individuals (55%).The nation was closely divided (51%-45%) on withdrawing an invitation if the speaker was likely to provoke “large-scale protests from students” or when the speech was supported by public funds (47%-46%). Small percentages in both cases declined to response or “didn’t know.”
Only when violence was likely to occur did 70 percent favor withdrawing an invitation to speak.
The survey found that the more we know about our First Amendment freedoms, the less likely we are to agree with placing limits on those freedoms.
But again, the warning buzzer sounds: As found consistently over the last 21 years of survey results, many of us know very little about those basic rights. According to this year’s survey, 40 percent of us cannot even name one First Amendment freedom. For the respondents who could, unprompted, name a First Amendment freedom, freedom of speech (56%) was the most commonly recalled, followed by religion (15%), press (13%), assembly (12%) and petition (2%). Two percent mistakenly guessed the right to vote, while the right to bear arms (9%) was the most common mistake.
Anything less than overwhelming support for freedom of religion and free expression brings cold comfort to those who see democracy’s base as resting on both. Even finding that about three-quarters of respondents (74%) see a role for the news media in holding government accountable, a slight uptick from last year’s 68 percent, means that around one in four of us does not see the news media as such a needed “watchdog.”
We can take heart that this year’s survey findings bend toward free expression and freedom for the press. But, we ought to be more than just concerned that a sizeable number of us seem willing to disavow those core freedoms for one reason or another — or can’t even be bothered to remember them.
When it comes to interviewing reporter candidates, many editors want to see examples of so-called enterprise reporting.
I just finished serving as a judge for several reporting and writing categories for the Washington Newspaper Publishing Association, and I can tell you that the winners across the board took an enterprising approach to their work.
So what is that mystical form of journalism that can make or break one’s future job or award prospects?
I’ve heard several definitions: A story that wouldn’t have been done if the reporter had never been born; a story where the reporter zigged while everyone else zagged; a story that everyone wondered about but that was never dug into.; a story that teaches the reader something.
The bottom line is that enterprise reporting is mainly about going beyond the obvious. Like most important things in journalism, curiosity, originality and hard work all play critical roles.
Here is a glance at some forms of enterprise that may spur you to try something new.
Investigations. This is the highest level work we can do. Uncovering wrongdoing, holding the powerful accountable for their actions, supporting the underdog, highlighting inequality, providing potential solutions – all noble efforts.
Explanatory reporting. These pieces break down complex topics into manageable bits that are then organized into a meaningful narrative to help readers make sense of the world around them. Typically, they answer questions like why, how much, what does it mean, who is affected, what are the unintentional outcomes, why does something matter and to whom?
Profiles. Somewhat of a lost art in newspapers, powerful profiles are now done mostly in magazines but shouldn’t be considered out of reach for any writer. Well-rounded profiles create a window into the world of the powerful, the powerless, the outlandish or even the mundane among us. Keep an eye out for “targeted profiles” in which a newsmaker pops up quickly and deserves a deeper look told concisely and with timeliness. Be sure to meet people where they live, get outsider views of the subject, and use stories within the story and strong details to bring a subject to life.
Survey story. These stories require talking to a wide range of people on a single topic, then synthesizing their reactions into a cohesive narrative.
Trend piece. Editors (and readers) love trend pieces. By examining a new or oozing topic from both a micro and macro perspective, the writer can develop a level of authority and provide context that will help readers understand what’s new, what’s hot, what’s no longer hot, what’s troublesome, what’s fascinating, and then tell them why that is true. Be sure to never overstate and remember the “To be sure…” paragraph that quickly indicates to the reader that there may be one or several other sides to the issue in order to provide a sense of balance, but which essentially informs them you’re only breaking off one piece at this time.
Case study. This is an offshoot of the trend piece in which the writer uses one example, examined in depth, to provide compelling evidence that the trend exists. These are great follow-ups to trend pieces or can be a segment within a trend piece that is evidentiary in nature. They can be about a person, an event, an industry – anything that shines a focus on an example that proves a thesis.
First-person. Rarely used, but often effective and entertaining. There’s nothing wrong with occasionally doing something, trying something, experiencing something yourself and writing about it from the “I” perspective. These can be both hard-hitting or fun.
Day-in-the-life. A derivative of the case study, this story form requires patience to be with someone or something for one entire day in order to bring readers into close proximity of what life is like over a 24-hour (or 8- or 12-hour period.) Can be highly personal and impactful.
Q and A. This technique allows a reader to share in the interaction between a proxy (the reporter) and a subject in a direct and meaningful way. Be sure to ask at least one or two “make-them-squirm” questions. This is best when done with someone highly provocative or outspoken or who has been thrust into the news either by their own volition or by events outside their control.
Tick-tock. This is a blow-by-blow version of one crazy day or event from the viewpoint of either one person or many people. This requires deep sourcing and interviewing but can lead to electric storytelling that hooks and holds readers. Great for looking back at breaking news events, tragedies or triumphs.
Narrative. A high-level form of storytelling, this in-depth feature format has the classic elements of fiction: a central character, plot, conflict, setting, theme, expository writing, rising action, resolution, epilogue.
All of these enterprise categories require more forethought, more hustle and more work than typical daily coverage, but the work is more invigorating and readers will thank you.
At the Supreme Court, a day of infamy for religious freedom By Charles C. Haynes
June 26, 2018 will be long remembered as a day of infamy for religious freedom in America. On that date, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s order restricting entry into the United States for nationals of seven countries, five of which have majority Muslim populations.
The 5-4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii is nothing less than a proclamation that hostility toward Islam and discrimination against Muslims is now the official policy of the United States of America.
If this sounds too harsh, consider that earlier this term this same Court invalidated a ruling of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because of perceived hostility by two commissioners toward the Christian faith of a Colorado baker (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).
Just weeks later, the Court tells us that overwhelming evidence of government hostility toward Muslims and Islam should be ignored in the name of protecting “national security” and upholding presidential powers. In other words, hostility by the government towards Christians is a violation of the First Amendment, but hostility by the government towards Muslims is not.
Granted, the Trump administration did everything possible to make Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 palatable to the justices by cleaning up some of the more egregious flaws of the first two versions that were soundly rejected by lower courts. But the core purpose of the ban was never “national security,” but rather a ham-handed, transparent effort by Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
If Trump was really focused on national security, his administration would have addressed any “inadequacies and risks” in the vetting system long before now. Instead, the administration has continued to push for a ban – any ban – so the president could declare victory. It matters not to Trump and his advisors that the current Muslim ban adversely affects millions of people, including countless families and individuals, many of whom are American citizens.
“National security” is the fig leaf Trump has used to implement his anti-Muslim policy. Everyone with ears to hear the president’s anti-Muslim rhetoric knows that this is true. In an administration filled with people who have a history of animus toward Islam – starting with National Security Advisor John Bolton – this is not surprising. What is astounding is that five Supreme Court justices have decided to ignore the overwhelming evidence of Trump’s intention to discriminate against Islam and Muslims.
Let’s be very clear: under the First Amendment, the President of the United States may not favor one religion over another. As Justice Sotomayor explains in the opening lines of her blistering dissent: “The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle.”
What remains of religious freedom in America – especially for religious minorities – if the government supported by the Supreme Court can “sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security,” to quote Justice Sotomayor?
Surely this is the Dred Scott decision of First Amendment law. And like that decision, we can only hope that Trump v. Hawaii will one day be overturned and discarded on the dustbin of history where it so justly belongs.
Charles C. Haynes is founding director of the Religious Freedom Center. Contact him via email at chaynes@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @cchaynes3.
The Academy of New England Journalists, founded by Sigma Delta Chi in 1960, honors
Henry Martyn Burt (posthumously) During his tenure as publisher and editor of the mountain-top newspaper Among the Clouds, Henry Martyn Burt (1831-1899) was struck by lightning, arrested and jailed for libel, developed a way to beat his competitors by “sliding” his newspaper down a mountain railroad track to readers, but most important, Henry Burt’s mission was to share his enthusiasm of, and draw people to, the White Mountains of New Hampshire.
We Hate “False News” Even More Than We “Hate” On Social Media
We hate false information on social media even more than “hate speech” or personal attacks, says the 2018 State of the First Amendment survey released Thursday by the First Amendment Center of the Freedom Forum Institute.
The same survey also found that a majority of us want the social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to do the false news takedown, not some government authority or official truth czar.
Overall, 83 percent of Americans agree that social media companies should remove false information, compared to 72 percent who agree such companies should remove “hate speech” and 68 percent who would have personal attacks taken down.
Those with a high school education or less were significantly more likely (87%) than those with a college education (77%) to agree that false information should be removed. There were no statistically significant differences among income groups.
The survey was conducted by Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company based in Arlington, Va., which speculates that those less educated may rely more heavily on social media as a source of news and therefore worry more than others about whether they are getting truthful information.
We strongly believe that social media companies should on their own initiative be monitoring and removing such objectionable content. But hold off on those free expression celebrations: When asked directly, respondents were about evenly split on whether to go a step further and empower the government to require those companies to “monitor and remove.”
In total, the survey sample included 1,009 adult respondents, with a margin of error of 3.7 percent — meaning it’s likely that if you asked another 1,009 adults the same questions, the results might go up or down by 3.7 percent.
When it comes to speech on campus, the survey showed that the public leans toward hearing from controversial speakers over cancelling invitations to speak — though support drops significantly when the speech is likely to cause violence.
Solid majorities favored going ahead with such speakers at colleges and universities even when the remarks were likely to offend some groups or individuals (55%).The nation was closely divided (51%-45%) on withdrawing an invitation if the speaker was likely to provoke “large-scale protests from students” or when the speech was supported by public funds (47%-46%). Small percentages in both cases declined to response or “didn’t know.”
Only when violence was likely to occur did 70 percent favor withdrawing an invitation to speak.
The survey found that the more we know about our First Amendment freedoms, the less likely we are to agree with placing limits on those freedoms.
But again, the warning buzzer sounds: As found consistently over the last 21 years of survey results, many of us know very little about those basic rights. According to this year’s survey, 40 percent of us cannot even name one First Amendment freedom. For the respondents who could, unprompted, name a First Amendment freedom, freedom of speech (56%) was the most commonly recalled, followed by religion (15%), press (13%), assembly (12%) and petition (2%). Two percent mistakenly guessed the right to vote, while the right to bear arms (9%) was the most common mistake.
Anything less than overwhelming support for freedom of religion and free expression brings cold comfort to those who see democracy’s base as resting on both. Even finding that about three-quarters of respondents (74%) see a role for the news media in holding government accountable, a slight uptick from last year’s 68 percent, means that around one in four of us does not see the news media as such a needed “watchdog.”
We can take heart that this year’s survey findings bend toward free expression and freedom for the press. But, we ought to be more than just concerned that a sizeable number of us seem willing to disavow those core freedoms for one reason or another — or can’t even be bothered to remember them.