- Freyberg: A recent Gallup poll showed that
just 24% of Americans trust in TV news.
What, in your mind, explains that mistrust?
- Kerger: Well, and I think if you also look
at other polls that have been done,
it's interesting because
the trust in Public Television is significantly higher.
I think part of what has contributed to mistrust in media
is what we observe
in a number of media organizations
that blur news and point of view.
And I think one of the principles for us
in the work that we do in our news coverage is,
we understand what's news,
we understand what's point of view.
I think both are important and relevant,
but you need to keep them separated
and label them as such.
And I think in this day and age,
people are interested in understanding the facts.
They're interested in understanding
the complexities around the world that we live in,
but they don't want to be told what to think.
And so, as we have looked
both at the legacy of what we've done over the years,
but, particularly, as we look now and look to the future,
we're doubling down to ensure that
our news is in fact focused on the stories of the day.
"NewsHour" is a place
where we do try to provide additional context.
The issues we're grappling with are quite complex.
But that we don't cross that line
and engage in some of the same behavior
that I think has caused some people
to really question the accuracy of what they're watching.
- Freyberg: So how do you counter mistrust
that is born of these proclamations of "fake news"?
- Kerger: Well, again, I think that,
you know, from our perspective
and what I've tried to talk to my colleagues about
as we look at the work moving forward, is that
we respect the boundaries between news and point of view.
We stay focused on the facts.
We're not the most sensationalist place
where people go.
In fact, our audiences have grown.
And as we've talked to people
over the course of these last months,
people are coming to places like the "NewsHour"
because they do feel that it provides them
with the information and the context that we're looking for.
We try not to devolve into, you know,
what I refer to as "food fights."
In that we really do stay focused on
the important stories of the day.
- Freyberg: In fact, you have said that
innate to PBS's core is to find common ground
on even the most divisive issues
and that your network has a relentless quest
for getting at the truth.
But in this era
where even demonstrable facts are fungible,
that they can be recast,
how has the work of getting at that truth changed?
- Kerger: Well, I would say from our perspective,
we've not changed the way that we're thinking
about the way that we're delivering news.
And I think that's tremendously important.
And also, as we look at everything
from "NewsHour" to "Frontline"
which is our investigative journalism series,
we are very much continuing to focus, moving forward,
on the stories and letting the chips fall where they may.
Now I do think that part of the answer of the questions
you're asking around the authenticity of stories
and accusations of fake news and so forth,
I think there is a significant need in this country
for media literacy.
And for people to understand,
beginning with the work that we do with kids,
to really understand in looking at any story,
how to figure out the accuracy of the sources.
So many people, if you talk to them,
young people, you talk to them,
"Where did you get the information?"
"I got it from my phone."
They don't always pay attention
to the source of that information.
And is it coming from a credible news source?
Or is it coming from, you know, someone's blog?
Or is it coming from a neighbor who's giving opinion?
So I think part of the answer to this whole question of
"What's true?" and "What is not true?"
is in the manner in which the reporting is done.
And the second piece is really to focus,
and I think this is a collective effort,
both for kids as well as adults,
on really understanding
where you're getting your information
and the accuracy of it.
- Freyberg: PBS, and public media in general,
often has the rap of being liberal, having a liberal bias.
What do you say to that?
- Kerger: Well, you know, people have leveled that
from time to time.
I will tell you that,
as we look at different polls,
we see that we are appealing
to people of all political stripes.
And so I think there are people that, I think,
because of the nature of some of the stories that we report on,
may question whether there is some bias.
I spend a lot of time listening to Public Radio.
I have nothing to do with Public Radio,
but I listen to it a great deal as a consumer.
I certainly spend a lot of time paying attention to
our news broadcasts.
And I don't see the bias in it.
But you know, look, we rely heavily also on viewer comment.
We just have hired a new ombudsman.
That's a job title
that one doesn't hear that much anymore.
We've have an ombudsman at PBS for a number of years.
He retired and we just hired Madhulika Sikka,
who, in fact, uses the title "Public Editor."
But her job is really to be that place where
if people are watching something that doesn't feel right.
Or they question either
the manner in which something is produced or the accuracy,
they have a person they can go to
who is a trained journalist
who can actually run down the story.
She's now-- She's been on the job for,
oh, I don't know, about five weeks.
She's already posted three stories
looking at three very different issues.
And I think part of what helps
in being able to operate in this day and age
is to operate with transparency
and that includes having someone like Madhulika in that role.
It's interesting.
Many news organizations
have gotten rid of people that are in that job.
When we started the search,
I wondered if we would have difficulty finding someone
because it's not as if there's a great pool
of ombudsman floating out there.
And people will say to you in other media organizations,
"Well, because of social media,
"we really don't feel that we need to have
and that that can do the fact checking."
And with all due respect, you know,
I think this is an area
where you need someone who is a trained journalist
who can actually run the story down
and can look objectively and say, "You know, look,
"you may not have intended to have
"any kind of bias in this story,
"but perhaps in the way that the story was told,
this is an issue or that's an issue."
I want to have that within our organization.
- Freyberg: Is that the most common criticism
that comes that comes into that person, that public editor,
that "some kind of bias"?
- Kerger: The largest response is always around news.
And I think that's just the nature of it.
And it comes around certain issues.
A lot of times we will get letters
around the coverage of the Middle East.
That is probably at the top of the list in terms of issues.
I think people, you know, and this goes back--
Now, I've been in this job through three administrations,
and question whether we're being too hard
or not hard enough on the president.
The fact is the president is in a very different role
and is going to be written about critically
whether it's a Republican president or Democratic president.
People will see that and respond to it.
I also think because of the fact
that so many media organizations
are reflecting opinion alongside of news,
people are gravitating to places
where they see their own opinions reflected back.
And so for an organization like ours,
that tries diligently every day
to reflect the news as it occurs,
I think you're going to see some pressure from those
who would like to see their own point of view.
- Freyberg: Alternately, what are the most common
praise-worthy comments that this public editor gets?
- Kerger: She has-- Again, she's new
so I've only seen a little bit of her mailbag
since she's started.
But people trust-- I think trust.
That's the, I think, the highest praise that we can get.
And the second is
a value of the depth of the work that we're doing.
That we're not engaged in soundbite journalism.
That we do try to look at the deeper issues
and to bring them forward.
- Freyberg: We need to leave it there.
Paula Kerger, thanks very much. - Kerger: Thank you.