Current is preparing to do a reader survey in spring 2008. Here's a summary of results from our last survey. Adapted from a letter from the editor published in Current, Sept. 11, 1995
You gave Current a B+. That's a tempting way to digest the results from our 1995 survey.
Indeed, most of you checked the boxes that came second on a four-point or five-point scale, and you gave us many more A's than C's or D's.
This interpretation gives the Current staff an adequate dose of positive reinforcement while leaving enough headroom for higher aspirations.
But the real meaning of the results is more complex, recognizing that the newspaper isn't graded on a single scale with a B-plus, but on different scales for each of the 6,000 readers.
We're glad to report that the paper did well on most of your scales.
Usefulness. When we asked you to rate Current's usefulness in your work, 28.9 percent of you gave us a "1" ("extremely useful") on a five-point scale, 51.2 percent gave us a "2," and 16.3 percent a "3." Only 2.7 percent awarded a "4" and nobody hit us with a "5."
On the scale of 1 to 5, the chart below shows how readers rated the newspaper on the question, "How useful is Current to you in your work?"
Nearly a third (27.9 percent) said the paper's usefulness has increased in
the past year, and more than two-thirds (69.1 percent) said it held steady.
Overall satisfaction. More than two-thirds of you (68.4 percent) rated your overall satisfaction with Current "good" and most of the rest (26.2 percent) said "excellent." (This is consistent with a more substantial vote of confidence that came in the mail earlier this summer: a 92.4 percent renewal rate by station subscribers. Individual subscribers also renewed at a relatively high rate, 73.7 percent.)
Timeliness, thoroughness, accuracy, fairness. About 60 percent of you gave us a "good" on these criteria and 22 to 28 percent gave us an "excellent." Five to 12 percent rated us "fair" and fewer than 1 percent "poor" by their standards.
Though 87 percent gave Current "good" or "excellent" on accuracy and fairness, sizeable minorities had a beef with our coverage.
Fairness, in particular. Fairness, as pubcasters know, is one of the toughest tests in media. This is where readers pull out very different scales for judging journalism. What's fair to one reader is biased to another.
Based on handwritten comments in the four spaces we provided on the survey form, independent producers were the most often dissatisfied.
"Make it more objective, less a house organ, less propaganda for public broadcasting," urged an independent TV producer. "It has the flavor of a self-congratulatory company newsletter."
"A great service newspaper," wrote a radio indie. "Has improved over the years, but would prefer it to be less subservient to mainstream public institutions."
Independent producers generally wanted more controversial and investigative reporting on the system that frustrates (and supports) them. So did some station people.
Other readers advised against controversy-mongering. The head of a joint licensee asked for "a more helpful 'pro' attitude rather than straight reporting and 'neutral' to 'negative' attitude."
Another reader wanted: "Sometimes less emphasis on 'making news' vs. 'reporting news.' "
It's instructive to hear the echoing vastness between some of our readers and others.
Subject matter. One of the strongest messages from the survey is that you want to read more about "what works" at other stations. Nearly half of you want more coverage of station news.
Another strong message is that many radio people want more coverage of their field in Current. Seventy percent want more radio coverage and a quarter want less about TV. Television people are relatively satisified about the balance of content, though several did write in: "Less radio."
Many readers--more than 40 percent in each case--want more program critiques, more news material on federal and system issues, more writing about audience research and fundraising. "More articles by David Giovannoni and other programming gurus," suggested a radio programmer. (Not everybody agreed. One radio indie urged: "Take away David Giovannoni's typewriter.")
Your reading habits. Many of you are long-time readers: half have been reading for seven years or more.
Seventy percent of you say that you usually read three-quarters or more of the paper. Another 23.6 percent read about half of it and 6 percent read less.
And most of you read every issue. Seventy-one percent say you "always" read Current, 24.9 percent say you "often" read it and only 3.7 percent say "sometimes."
Other trade publications have readers among you, but not as many. Current is read "always" or "often" by 93 percent, compared to 34 percent for Public Broadcasting Report, 44 percent for Broadcasting & Cable and 26 percent for Electronic Media.
As in the past, your favorite Current feature beyond the front page is the People column (80 percent read it always or often). We're especially glad to see that nearly 60 percent give the same regular attention to Current Thinking, the guest commentaries section in the back.
Your demographics. On average, you have a long-term investment in public broadcasting. Sixty percent have worked in the field 11 years or more!
Three-quarters of you work at stations--41 percent at TV stations or state networks and 23 percent at radio stations or networks. Although we neglected to give you the "joint licensee" option, 11 percent wrote it in.
The largest other groups are about 5 percent each: independent producers and national organizations.
| Readers rate Current | Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor |
| Overall satisfaction | 26.2 | 68.4 | 4.3 | 0 |
| Timeliness of news/info | 35.2 | 58.5 | 4.7 | 0.7 |
| Thoroughness of articles | 27.9 | 65.1 | 5.6 | 0.3 |
| Accuracy of articles | 21.9 | 65.4 | 10.3 | 0.3 |
| Fair treatment of topics | 23.3 | 63.5 | 12 | 0.3 |
| Percentages add to nearly 100 percent across the table. Missing 1 or 2 points were respondents who did not answer those questions. Current Reader Survey, May 1995. | ||||
"Even more exposure to controversial topics with various opinions represented."
"Keep up the great work"
"A gossip column would be fun."
"More articles on station management issues, budget, strategic planning, what failed or succeeded."
"More probing journalism about the PBS Program Department. They operate in far too much secrecy."
"[We] developed action plan based on information supplied by Current article."
"It's the stuff that's not in the official PBS & NPR pieces that I need to read."
"You have the liberal bias of the industry as a whole."
"Congratulations on your usefulness, effectiveness and independence."
"Publishing deadlines sometimes mean the news is old when I get it."
"More crucial than ever since budget cutbacks stopped much travel to conferences."
"I wish you had more on the content of programming rather than the politics of public television generally."
"It's a wonderful publication."
"I might read Current more if there was less other things to read."
"Hire two reporters like Jackie Conciatore."
"Be less myopic. Be more relevant to big picture."
