FMC Fast Chat with USA Today Washington Editor Caren Bohan

This episode of FMZ Fast Chat takes us inside the Beltway and features USA Today Washington editor and deputy bureau chief, Karen Bohan. Full disclosure, this chat was part of the Fair Media Council's annual event, The News Conference: Real and Powerful, which brings the best in news engaging in open dialogue with the public to build mutual understanding. Find out more at fairmediacouncil.org.

FMC Fast Chat takes you inside the news so you can be in the know in 30 minutes. Hosted by Fair Media Council CEO and Executive Director Jaci Clement, Fast Chat features notables in news, media, and business.

When the pandemic first happened, um, you know, obviously it's a huge challenge to cover an immense story with such huge implications for people's health and also for their personal finances. You know, and that in and of itself has been a challenge. But in terms of the virtual newsroom concept, it's actually been very eye-opening to realize that we can cover a presidential election of our Washington bureau when we are not all in the same room. And it took a leap of faith, but it actually worked really, really well. We have some editors and some reporters who are not directly based in Washington who are core parts of our team, including an editor based in Des Moines and a reporter based in Louisville. So it's been an interesting experiment, but it's one that we have learned a lot from.

So give us a little bit of insight into the inner workings of how much staff you actually have, because USA Today is one of those household brands that everyone thinks, wow, there must be a million people there. You know?

And we have a very, very big staff in terms of the way I think of USA Today is I think of not only the USA Today newsroom, but the Gannett newsroom. And that includes our properties all around the country. We have a presence in just about all 50 states. And some of our flagship papers include the Arizona Republic, the IndyStar, the Detroit Free Press. And so those journalists combined with us, we are 3,000 strong. And it's very exciting to cover U.S. politics alongside reporters who are based well outside the Beltway and have sources in places like Arizona, you know, local party officials and people who are really there and seeing this story unfold from the ground.

Okay, one of the reasons we're so excited to have you with us today is because we hear very little information about the inner workings of news gathering inside the Beltway. So let's talk a little bit about— oh, I guess let's start with the before and after of the inauguration and the mood and the atmosphere of covering politics at this time in history.

So, as I think a lot of people know, um, there has been a very contentious relationship between the Trump administration and reporters. Um, and I think a lot of, a lot of people, and not completely unjustified in viewing it this way, see it as a symbiotic relationship in the sense that, um, Donald Trump, since the day that he rode down the escalator, he draws people into the news coverage of him. He drives clicks on news websites. He pushes the envelope in what he says. He surprises people with policy pronouncements on Twitter and firings of cabinet secretaries on Twitter.

Mm-hmm.

Yet he also has called the media the enemy of the people. So that has presented interesting challenges for us in terms of how we cover him. And I just want to preface what I'm saying about the contentious relationship by saying that a contentious relationship goes with the territory if we are doing our jobs right as journalists. We are here to be watchdogs. We're not advocates for any administration, for the Trump administration, the Biden administration, any other administration. And I, I can certainly tell you that I've been yelled at and cursed at by press secretaries in the Obama administration, you know, over things that I've written or things that I've said publicly. remember getting just an angry tirade from the Deputy Press Secretary in the Obama administration when I dared, as incoming president of the White House Correspondents Association, to say that I actually didn't agree with them that they were the most transparent administration in history. All of that said, there has been a much more cordial relationship with other administrations, not just the Obama administration. I think it has less to do with, with party— nothing to do with party, in fact— and more to do with the tone set from above. I would actually say that the tone with the Bush administration was extremely cordial. Behind the scenes. There were tense moments at briefings, and there were times when President Bush got very angry at questions we asked. And there were testy moments with, with the press secretaries of both the Bush and Obama administrations. What is different, I think, in the Trump administration, or what was different, Is, um, I think there is a basic sense of respect among most press secretaries for the job that we're doing, even if they don't often like what we write or what we say on air. And I think that is a fundamental difference with the Trump administration. Um, you know, a lot of times the goal is to discredit what we're reporting, frankly, and counter it. And, you know, we are thick-skinned, and we can handle that. But it does make for some challenges.

Well, tell me, can you draw us a picture? How adversarial did it get at its worst?

I think what people saw on TV was about as adversarial As it can get, in the sense of when you have the President of the United States very directly and on camera insulting a woman of color who is doing her job, it's hard to top that in terms of vitriol behind the scenes. And there was, I assure you, plenty of vitriol behind the scenes.

But already there are questions surfacing saying, is the news media going soft on Biden just because he's not Trump?

That's a great question. And it's definitely something that a lot of people ask us. And, you know, I can assure you that our mission is to be a watchdog for any administration, including the Biden administration. There are differences between the last administration and other administrations that I've covered. I think if you look at independent fact-checkers who have cataloged the number of untruths spoken at the White House podium by President Trump and, and some of his press secretaries, you'll see a difference, a vast difference in those numbers between The Trump administration and other administrations. But that doesn't mean that the Biden administration or any other administration isn't going to spin and emphasize, you know, the positive or, you know, not present all of the context that we would think relevant when, you know, discussing their goals or, or how they have performed in terms of handling a given issue. And it just requires— it requires vigilance, and it requires, you know, making sure that we always remember that we're there to serve our audience, and we can't do that if we're trying to ingratiate ourselves with our sources.

Okay. How would you describe what's been put in place so far by the Biden administration in terms of working with the news media and in terms of general transparency?

So I think one of the really positive things that has happened for the press corps is the reemergence of the daily press briefings. They have committed to doing them 5 days a week, and Jen Psaki so far has kept that promise. And that is something that has been fundamental For the past several decades. The Clinton administration did them every day. They actually did, at one point, 2 briefings a day. Beginning of the Bush administration, they did 2 briefings, one on camera, one off. All throughout the Obama administration. And I think those briefings are incredibly important because the American people themselves can see how the press secretary is answering questions from the public and You know, if the briefing is a full hour, as it usually should be, it's an opportunity to really drill down on the policies and really, you know, ask some hard questions.

Okay. There have been times at those press conferences in the past when people started to question, why is the media even covering these now? Because you would have— well, we were introduced to the concept of alternative facts. And things of that nature. So if you know what the person behind the podium is saying is a lie, or is false, what's your responsibility? Should you be putting that information out there in the public domain? Or are you then becoming part of the problem?

That is something that, that all of us in newsrooms around Washington have wrestled with.

Mm-hmm.

And I think one of the things that we and others did is there were times when we had livestreams of events and briefings and things like that, and other times where we decided we're gonna be selective about which events we livestream. And that is not to say that our audience isn't watching the events. the entire event. If people want to watch it, they can. We don't have to provide a platform to everything. And when we do, if there's an important speech and we have concerns about whether there may be— well, to give you a very concrete example, some of the speeches and public statements that President Trump made in the aftermath the election about allegations of a stolen election. If we knew a speech was coming up like that, we're going to— we are going to cover it. We're going to not choose not to cover it. It's news. It's the President of the United States. But we might do a live fact-check where, you know, we have a livestream of the speech, but also context in Kyren's about what the facts are about the Electoral College vote, about, you know, allegations of irregularities, whether they check out or not, um, other kinds of things like that.

Okay. And how long has that been in as a process for you, the separate fact-checking?

So it, it's really, um, episodic. Like, it's— we don't do it every time. It's very work-intensive. Um, so So we've kind of done it on a case-by-case basis. If there is a big policy speech or something like that and we feel like we need to bring that fact-check dimension to it, then it's worth taking the time to, you know, have our reporters with expertise in specific policy areas really dive in and prep material ahead of time that we can put out there so that people not only hear the words that are spoken, but also know the context.

Okay.

We actually have a question from one of our listeners right now, which is going back to when we were discussing the news coverage of the riot. So would news coverage have been the same had President Trump been reelected and there were riots against his inauguration?

100%. Yeah, there, there, there is no question at all. Violence of that level in the Capitol, you know, it's— it was a story that I think every American who had access to the video was watching that unfold. And it's a hugely important story to tell. And We would not have covered it any differently if there was— if President Trump was reelected, if it was a different administration.

Okay. We also have another question. How do you reconcile the need to ensure accuracy of information when so often today accuracy is in the eye of the beholder with the First Amendment? And this is in reference to Mike Lindell being banned from Twitter.

So I would say this. First of all, I can't speak for Twitter at all. What we do at Gannett is completely separate from that, and we don't have a say in their decision-making, nor do they have one in ours.

Mm-hmm.

However, in terms of facts being in the eye of the beholder, There, I think their opinions are in the eye of the beholder, but certain facts are not in the eye of the beholder, such as a good example of that is it is a fact that in some of the swing states that were challenged by President Trump, the tally that showed Biden won was in the tens of thousands. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Okay, so I, I think what you're touching on is an overall issue with one, education in general right now, but also education about news in particular. 'Cause what I see, you know, I look at studies that say 1 out of 2 college students today can't distinguish between fact and opinion. And if you can't do that, how do you navigate today's media landscape, which has basically no barrier to entry? So anyone can say they're a news outlet today. Anyone can put out their own opinion, make it look like it's USA Today. We see that a lot, sites that mimic other news sites. so that they come off as credible. How do we kind of, you know, get a handle on this issue so that we do know what's credible information, what's not, what voices we should be turning to? Because I'm sure from your seat, that must be a very big challenge right now.

It is. And I would say that it takes a leap of faith, because I think that we need to trust people to understand— we need to develop a relationship with our audience so that they understand that the information that we're giving them is accurate. And I have zero problem with somebody who has no journalistic training starting a blog or a website and being another voice out there. I welcome that. And I think that's great. And there are times when people starting with very few resources have built entire news organizations that now compete with us. And I think that's great. I do think that certain media organizations have built track records of accuracy, not only by the journalism that they produce every day, but also by owning up when we make a mistake. If we have an error in the newspaper, We should correct it the very next day, the first opportunity that we, we get. And that is how we sort of keep the faith with our audience. If they know that, you know, the truth is more important to us than sort of being first or being buzzy, then you develop that trust. And, you know, people are either going to trust you or they're not. And the only control that we have over that is to do our very best every day to deliver the news and, and, and make sure that we are as accurate and bulletproof in terms of how we report things as we possibly can be.

And how would you describe the process of how do you actually build trust? You know, we, we did see a lot during the past couple years of newspapers coming out with truth campaigns, you know, basically saying, trust us, we're telling you the truth. And, you know, the flip side of that is the person that you don't trust is usually the person who comes up and says, trust me on this, you know. You don't just say, trust me, you have to earn it before people actually feel you're credible. So how do you earn it?

Right. I mean, it's sort of, it goes to me, It makes me think in a way, like if you are having a heated political discussion with somebody and voices are raised, the person who makes the strongest point is not necessarily the person who yells the loudest or dismisses the points of other people. And I think sometimes we can feed into that mindset a little bit when For example, we, we assert that something is baseless or false, but we don't give the actual facts or statistics. For example, if, if a politician asserts that, you know, the COVID pandemic is, is getting better, that deaths are falling and things like that, it's not an—

Fact.

enough for us to just say this is a false claim. We've got to actually give the numbers. And I, I think I'm surprised sometimes by how infrequently that's done. I think people just, you know, they think there's a little bit of an arrogance there, and, and where it's, it's sort of a sense that, well, of course everybody knows this is untrue, so it's enough just to say it's false.

Okay, we spoke with presidential scholar Douglas Brinkley, and one of the things he pointed out is that, you know, we basically have 2 Americas right now of what people are believing. How much of that can we actually blame the news media for?

I think the news media deserves its share of blame for that. Um, and As I said, I think our highest mission is to make sure that we're giving people the truth. I may be an idealist in thinking that we can do that, but we can also reach people where they live. And I think that we, as a media, I mean, I think the topic, the phrase that you used to describe this session is, is very on point inside the Beltway. Because I think sometimes we as journalists or as news organizations forget that what we are reporting on has huge implications for people outside, far outside the Beltway. And we need to understand how to connect with that audience, with, with the wider audience that is, is not in the Beltway. And, you know, I think, I think for people to trust what they're hearing and what they're reading, I think they have to feel like what we're reporting on is relevant to their lives.

Okay. Do you think part of the problem, or maybe the whole problem, if, if you view this as a problem, is simply the, the news cycle itself, that it's just so fast? If we slowed it down, would the industry be a better place?

I don't think slowing it down is the answer. Like, I think the news cycle of being fast in a way is a good thing. Like, information is coming out more quickly. I used to work for Reuters, which famously used to send information by carrier pigeon. Do I want to go back to that time? No. Do I want to go back to the time when journalists sat on buses and no one saw their story until the next day. No, that's not good either. But just because the pace of events moves quickly and Twitter moves quickly doesn't mean that we can't be thoughtful and deliberative in how we cover it. We don't have to— we do not have to cover every event or every remark or every, every, um, you know, nickname or insult or Or, you know, anything— just because a politician utters it doesn't mean that it's a story. We can still be thoughtful, and we can slow ourselves down.

OK. So let me ask you this, because this trips up a lot of people. And the definition may change over time. It may even be that what you define it as today may be different tomorrow. But what do you consider news?

That's a great question and one that I learned very early as a 22-year-old reporter when I submitted a story to an editor and buried the news. The news is that which is new. It's not news for me to tell you that, that there is a White House press briefing today. You know, I need to tell you why you should care about it. And what is, what is actually new about that? And it sounds, it sounds a little basic, but I think sometimes we need to return to that because I think sometimes the news and, and reporters inside the Beltway get very fixated on the inside baseball and the sort of, you know, the parlor games and, and the process of politics. The news really is, you know, am I going to get my stimulus check? Where do things stand on, on that latest COVID relief package? What do the climate initiatives that are being unveiled today mean for me? It's, it's interesting maybe that there was a fight behind the scenes between the Chief of Staff and and some other aide about, you know, how they hashed it out. And, you know, it's not that that stuff isn't interesting, but I think we tend to get too focused on that and not focused enough on what does this actually mean for me and my family.

Is there anything that we, we didn't touch on that you would like people to know?

Well, one thing that I would like people to know about our news organization, which is that, you know, we talk about, you know, the process of politics and things like that. Our mission really is to try to break free of that bubble a little bit. And it is, it is something where, you know, one of the things that we didn't talk about That I think is really important is young people. We, we touched on this a little bit, but how do you engage young people in journalism and reading the news? And I think some of it goes to the young people do not read newspapers. They do not read USA Today. They may have our mobile app.

Okay.

But the stories that we are trying to tell to a younger audience, to an audience outside the Beltway, what we're trying to do sometimes has less to do with the content that we're giving people than how we're telling that story. And we have to keep up with the times on that, and it just increasingly if it's video, if it's multimedia, if it's graphics and visuals, I think that's where a lot of the innovation in journalism is heading. So it's less— I mean, we're not moving at all away from journalistic standards, but we're giving people that sense of immediacy by taking advantage of the tools that are available to us. through video and different types of social media where we can get our news out and get it noticed.

In particular, with younger people gravitating toward news, what we've seen recently is just basically a renewed interest across the board from the public about news. It's interesting to me that, as Serial as the relationship has been with Donald Trump, should we not also turn around and say Donald Trump actually got people to pay attention again?

What you said made me think of a discussion that I had with a class of college journalism students about a month before the election. And I was just amazed. at how much they knew about the polls, the players, all of the sort of detailed knowledge that they had of politics and the election and how excited they were about understanding more about it. And I think if we can keep up that momentum as journalists and maintain that engagement, I think it would be a very good thing.

Fair Media Council is a 501 nonprofit organization. Advocating for quality news and working to create a media-savvy society. For more information about the Fair Media Council and upcoming Fast Chat shows, check out fairmediacouncil.org. This podcast is a part of the C-Suite Radio Network. For more top business podcasts, visit c-suite-radio.com.