Within seconds after President Clinton made his 1995 State of the Union address -- one that aides had promised would be brief and direct, yet ran one hour and 20 minutes -- the gathered political pundits started whining. It was too long. It said too much about everything and, therefore, didn't say anything. It was too wordy. It just didn't work for Clinton.
    

Did the two groups listen to the same speech? Curiously, yes. But with today's journalistic practices, the two were bound to come to opposing conclusions. And that leads to just one of the problems with today's news media.

The news media doesn't seem to be reporting the news anymore. Instead, it reports the score. The most important part of the story -- at least to Washington reporters -- is who won the debate and who lost. Instead of taking the time to research the issue, and how it might affect the average American, the media is taking the easy way out. Determining the winners and losers also allows reporters to give their opinions and brand themselves experts.

There is some evidence that the public and corporate America is getting tired of some reporting practices. Lately, the TV news media has been on the losing side of several lawsuits -- or settling out of court and making on-air apologies for fear of the damages plaintiffs could be awarded by juries. And it's not libel that has defendants taking the media to court. Recent cases had attacked the methods used by TV and, in some cases, print reporters. The most notable of these cases involved Food Lion supermarkets, which was accused by the ABC News magazine "PrimeTime Live" of selling dangerously tainted meat. "PrimeTime Live" sent producers with faked resumes to get jobs at Food Lion. Once inside, the producers used concealed cameras to document their exposes. A jury awarded Food Lion $5.5 million in punitive damages because of the way the information was gathered. The question of whether the broadcast told the truth never came up.

It is possible to look at public opinion polls and conclude that journalism is no worse thought of than many other occupations. But that is probably not good enough for a profession that often claims superiority in truth-telling and ethical standards and condemns the standards of others. And the public belief that journalists exercise high standards has been dwindling through the 1990s; the goodwill and respect are being used up. Recent court verdicts and news council decisions are not calling for more timidity on the part of the press; instead they are calling for far more generous and fair-minded journalism. They are a message that investigative journalism should not oversell itself, cut legal corners or indulge in overkill. Such investigative journalism can still be strong while gradually helping — or so one can hope — to restore public confidence in the media.