Ch. 2's "You paid for it" under fire.

MacNeill, Wendy ; St. John, Burton, III

CRITIQUE

On January 4, 1994, KTVI's Mandy Murphey concluded a "You Paid For It" report concerning my employer's investment in a new Postal Service logo. My name and work number flashed up on the screen. "If you think spending $6.5 million on a new logo is a waste, give Burt St. John a call ..." Murphey said.

I was astonished--KTVI gave no indication they would use my work number in their story (in fact, they wouldn't tell us what their motivation was to do this story). But the bigger surprise was KTVI's disregard for the facts. One day before the story aired, KTVI's Nancy Tully and I discussed the fact that, despite some reports, the Postal Service is not in the midst of spending $6.5 million for a new logo.

Their report led viewers to believe the exact opposite.

Such is the challenge for a public relations practitioner when dealing with this '90's form of investigative journalism. Since "You Paid For It" generates its story leads from anonymous tipsters, it suffers from an "investigative assumption." This kind of assumption is an outgrowth of the "infotainment" movement in modern media--a tabloid trend where an accusation is just as newsworthy as any verifiable wrongdoing. Simply put, the assumption is "if muck is alleged, we're going to find it and rake it out." Where these kind of programs suffer is their blind spot to facts that contravene any existence of muck.

In the Postal Service's case, the new postal logo was publicly unveiled in October 1993. It cost $100,000 to design, and will be put in place primarily on a replace as depleted basis. The Postal Service estimates--and here's where that figure comes in--this replenishing of material will take approximately seven years nationwide and cost $6.5 million. Bottomline, the logo itself barely cost six figures.

I explained this information clearly to Tully. She said that's interesting, but KTVI wants to do a story on the logo costs, and will probably want to ask some questions about rates. Our office sent them background materials on the logo and we set up an interview.

Mandy Murphey arrived at our offices the next day. Before beginning the interview, we discussed how the logo was selected, the costs involved and how the Postal Service anticipated rolling out the logo (all information we had previously provided as background). Murphey said she understood the logo doesn't relate to Postal Services rates, but she would ask some questions on rates anyway. When Murphey got to her rate questions, she asked repeatedly what would be the new rate for a First-Class stamp. I explained that we don't know yet and she eventually dropped that line of questioning. It was obvious, however, that she was looking for a good sound bite concerning future stamp price increases. She clearly revealed KTVI's investigative assumption that there was a connection between rates and logo costs.

KTVI revealed this assumption at the start of the logo story. "The Post Office calls it a logo change and improvement, and it hands you the bill," Don Marsh said, introducing the segment. Murphey, in her story, accurately described the logo change as the viewer saw shots of the postal workroom floor. However, halfway through the report, Murphey stood next to a stack of mail, picked up a letter and said, "[The Postal Service] is preparing to charge you more for stamps. Postal officials won't say exactly how much more, but a 29-cent-stamp could be as high as 34 cents." Then, almost as an afterthought, KTVI cut to the workroom floor and Murphey added, "Officials argue it's the first stamp increase in four years and has nothing to do with the logo change." KTVI's emphasis on the rates sent a clear messge to the viewer--the Postal Service is raising your rates, partly because of the logo.

Finally, KTVI mistakenly insinuated that viewers were already paying for the logo. When KTVI flashed my name and work number, Murphey invited phone calls about the alleged $6.5 million investment by reminding tersely, "... After all, you paid for it."

And there lies the problem with this kind of investigative reporting--not letting the facts kill a good story. Murphey and Tully were well aware that, in fact, customers have not paid for the new logo and that the estimated logo costs aren't associated with an increase in Postal Service rates. Despite all this, KTVI incited hundreds of their viewers to call our office--viewers who did, indeed, mistakenly believe they were paying for a new logo.

So, is this kind of reporting really a service to the viewer? Our experience is it won't be if the media isn't willing to let facts, instead of assumptions, direct the story. Particularly, KTVI approached this subject with two inaccurate assumptions: 1) the new logo was costing customers an immediate and additional $6.5 million; and 2) these costs would drive up Postal Service rates. They used these assumptions in shaping the story, while only giving a one-sentence synopsis to a contrary fact. Furthermore, they reinforced their mistaken assumptions by saying--at the beginning and end of the report--that viewers "paid for it."

In sum, their investigation misinformed viewers. This case reveals how the media easily slips into one of the worst aspects of tabloid reporting--letting the hype obscure the substance. In this instance, KTVI would have better served its audience by airing a report that reflected a careful consideration of both accusations and facts.

REBUTTAL

Mr. St. John's reply to our "You Paid For It" story on the new postal logo vividly demonstrates two common themes we find when working with government bureaucrats on these stories. 1) That their employers (the taxpayers) have no right to call them directly to ask questions about how they are doing their jobs; and 2) that money spent by government agencies is somehow "magic money" that comes from some mysterious place instead of directly from the pockets of the taxpayers.

On the first point we stand firmly behind our right to give the public phone numbers of the officials they employ. Bureaucrats find this the most disturbing part of our "You Paid For It" reports because they've always been able to hide behind those general numbers in the government pages of the phone book: the numbers that rarely lead you to the person you want. What would happen if the person who pays your salary couldn't get through to you because you didn't want him to have your phone number? We are giving the viewer the opportunity to ask questions directly to the workers in charge of the department. In fact, an employee of Mr. St. John gave Mandy Murphey his number when she asked who viewers should call if they had questions or concerns.

Secondly, I'm simply baffled by Mr. St. John's statement that his postal customers aren't paying the expenses of the new logo. Does he believe taxpayers and postal customers are different people? How many taxpayers do you know who aren't postal customers? If his contention is that taxpayers did not pay for those expenses I would like to know who did. Did the postal service get an anonymous donation from a benevolent billionaire who just couldn't stand the old logo any longer? Where did this "magic money" come from?

Furthermore, Mr. St. John does not have his facts straight about how we investigate our "You Paid For It" reports. The story ideas come from a variety of sources, including viewer tips. Mr. St. John implies that we take these tips and turn them into stories without verifying the information. He couldn't be more wrong. I would estimate that for every 50 tips we are lucky to air one story. In all, we have 5 staff members investigating and verifying information. By the time we decide to air a "You Paid For It" report it is clearly more than an "investigative assumption" as Mr. St. John calls it.

He also declares that "You Paid For It" investigations suffer from a "blindspot to facts." Mandy Murphey's story gives viewers all the facts that Mr. St. John himself declares relevant. We explained how the logo change idea came to be. We explained that the logo design itself cost $100,000. We explained that the Postal Service would eventually spend $6.5 million over seven years as they replace items that wear out. If Mr. St. John has a problem with our $6.5 million figure then why did he answer Mandy Murphey's question in this way on tape in the report that aired:

Burton St. John: "Customers have told us they like this logo design and we've heard them and we're trying to give them what they've said is appropriate."

Mandy Murphey: "Did they know it was going to cost six and a half million dollars to change it?"

Burton St. John: "I'm not aware what was talked about during the surveys."

It seems this would have been the perfect opportunity to argue about the $6.5 million figure. Mr. St. John did not say it would cost any less.

Changing a logo design, even on items that need to be replaced, always costs more than just the design of the logo. No matter how you crunch the numbers one thing is for sure--keeping the old logo is cheaper. At a time when again we are being asked to pay more for postage we ask the viewers to decide if they believe this is a wise use of their money in tight times. Could they have lived with the old logo to help keep expenses down? Even though Mr. St. John tries to make it all seem very complicated (something the taxpayers who pay his salary cannot truly understand), it's really just that simple. So take the phone calls, Mr. St. John. It might be eye-opening to talk to your bosses directly.

RESPONSE

On the point of not wanting to respond to the customer:

Ms. MacNeill labors under another mistaken assumption when she states that we believe our customers have no right to call us "directly to ask questions" about how we are doing our jobs. In fact, the Postal Service actively seeks out customer feedback on our performance through a number of avenues. We have a quarterly independently administered Customer Satisfaction Index. We also pursue feedback from hundreds of autonomous Postal Customer Councils and Customer Advisory Councils across the country. Our national Consumer Advocate oversees Consumer Affairs Managers in key cities. Finally, we're developing even more ways to gather customer feedback--we hope to unveil a new independently run Business Customer Satisfaction Index soon. In sum, we welcome customer feedback.

The real issue is not whether customers can reach us, but that KTVI had their story written before they rolled their cameras. That was reflected in their report.

On the point of thinking that the money we receive is "magic money":

The Postal Service knows where its funds come from--we receive our moneys directly from ratepayers, not taxpayers. We're very aware of how customers want value for their money, especially when they have the option of turning to several other delivery sources (e.g., electronic mail, faxes, private shippers, etc.). We understand the correlation between giving customers the service they want and receiving their postal dollars. Truly, there's no "magic money" involved in that equation.

Here, Ms. MacNeill continues to hold on to the assumption that ratepayers are already in the process of paying for the logo. "Where did this 'magic money' come from?" Answer: it hasn't come from anywhere, because we're primarily replacing the logo on a replace as depleted basis. Truly, KTVI holds fast to the assumption that customers' current postal costs are attributable to the new logo--after all, they wish to maintain, "You paid for it." In this assessment, they err.

Summation response: In sum, I agree with Ms. MacNeill that the media should be asking questions about the kind of business decisions a public service like the Postal Service is making. However, KTVI's January 4th report on the postal logo was greatly flavored by assumptions that the Postal Service was in the midst of a spending spree on a new postal logo. Nothing is further from the truth.

20 YEARS AGO IN SJR

* Congressman William L. Clay charges public broadcasting station KETC--Channel 9 with "refusing to employ blacks and other minorities in positions of responsibility," adding "apparently the end results of public broadcasting and fascist organizations are very similar."

* Relations between the St. Louis Newspaper Guild and Pulitzer Publishing Co. "cool" after Pulitzer officials argue against the Guild's appeal to the Cost of Living Council over a pay increase. The Council ruled that Guild employees were entitled to the increase.

* William Woo is named assistant editor of the editorial page at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, succeeding George Hall, who retired.