LISTENER SOUND OFF June 12, 2008
“ If I have any objection, it is to saying what does "Hillary" want rather than "Sen. Clinton." Journalists should refer to the former presidential candidate using her honorific, and not by her first name. Doing so shows a lack of respect. -- Alicia C. Shepard”
LISTENER SOUND OFF: Occasionally the office will publish a "Sound Off," where the Ombudsman responds to listener inquiries. These letters often address important issues which many NPR listeners might be interested in. Included in this feature are the reactions and input from NPR staff involved in producing news.
Today's "Sound Off" features listener comments regarding NPR's coverage of Dennis Kucinich's proposal to impeach President Bush, correspondent location sign-offs and Senator Clinton's speech on June 3 .
* DENNIS KUCINICH
NPR continues to receive emails and phone calls after Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush on Monday. Tuesday morning, Eric Meagher and several others wondered if NPR was ignoring this event.
"Why is there no mention in the news this morning about Rep. Kucinich from Ohio presenting articles of impeachment in the house last night? Isn't it important enough?" inquired Meagher.
I asked NPR's Washington Editor Ron Elving about this.
ELVING RESPONDED: "Most days, no bill that is introduced is the subject of a news story. In fact, it's hard for me to recall the last time we did a story about a bill on the day it was introduced (although I'm sure we have). It simply does not mean anything unless the bill is going somewhere for serious proceedings.
"Most bills are introduced so that a member can say that she or he introduced a bill. Period. And this is a perfect example. The Democratic leadership has made it clear it would not spend time on impeachment, and they did so from the beginning of the term when there would have been time. Now there is no calendar space for this at committee level or floor level in the remaining weeks of this Congress, and Kucinich knows that."
As it happens, NPR Congressional Correspondent Debbie Elliott did do a 45-second spot for Wednesday morning's Newscast. She thought Kucinich's resolution merited a short mention but was not newsworthy enough for a longer piece on one of the news programs. Also, I should note, that there have been impeach Cheney resolutions all through the second term, none of which went anywhere.
Others inside NPR agreed that the topic was worth some airtime on June 11.
The Bryant Park Project gave it a few minutes. And his proposal was covered on Talk of the Nation and News & Notes.
NPR Politcal analyst Ken Rudin wrote about it in his online column:
Q: Why won't you say anything about Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) effort to impeach President Bush? - Susan Lawrence, St. Paul, Minn.
A: There's not much to say, at least not at the moment, other than the fact that Kucinich has introduced the bill and spent five hours on the House floor the other day spelling out his 35 articles of impeachment, charging President Bush with war crimes, endangering civil liberties and lying to the public. An earlier effort by Kucinich to impeach Vice President Cheney went nowhere, as Democrats for the most part hid from the attempt. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeated her position that impeachment was "off the table." If the Judiciary Committee, under chairman John Conyers (D-MI), plans to hold hearings on the bill, you will certainly hear more of Kucinich's effort.
NPR's Dan Schorr weighed in today, June 12.
I know listeners can't hear everything that appears on all NPR news programs, but it's fair to say Kucinich was not ignored.
* TELL US WHERE YOU ARE
UPDATE: June 30, 2008 The New York Times stopped running dates on its stories, but it still often includes the location.
L.W.Calhoun wants more information on where NPR correspondents are.
"Many of your listeners don't hear every story from beginning to end, yet we can hear enough to get the gist of the story except for the location," said Calhoun. "The problem is that the correspondents will sign-off with only their names, without telling us the location from where they are reporting. At the end of their stories, have your correspondents end the story by repeating their names, a brief subject-line, and the location. Example: "This is Mama Stamberg making cranberry relish in Mrs. Claus' kitchen at the North Pole."
I asked NPR V.P. for News Ellen Weiss about this. She said NPR used to do that but changed to the current system a few years ago in an effort to be more honest. Correspondents would be reporting somewhere outside the DC headquarters and then come back to produce the piece. Or it could be that a correspondent in Bangkok might be reporting a story from Myanmar, and it would be inaccurate to use a Myanmar dateline. "So we decided that we would only use a location when a reporter files from that location," said Weiss.
Additionally, the New York Times recently stopped running datelines on stories.
* WHAT DOES SEN. CLINTON WANT?
A female listener was incensed by Brian Naylor's June 4 piece which appeared after Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee. She objected to Naylor using "What does Hillary want?" even though the senator said that herself in the speech.
"But the Obama campaign is thought to be cool to the notion of Clinton as a running mate, leaving unanswered the question the candidate herself posed Tuesday night: "What does Hillary want?" wrote Naylor in an online article.
"Conveniently, while Mr. Obama's speech was posted on the page, Ms. Clinton's was not, so I found it elsewhere, listened to it, and read the transcript," she wrote. "You and I know that by floating the 'What does Hillary want' phrase in the manner executed by Mr. Naylor, it's the old, 'What do women want?' all over again. Even if Ms. Clinton does not know better, and she darn well should, it sure does look like Mr. Naylor, not only took advantage of this bit of idiocy, but exploited it in the most gender-based manner he could."
Brian Naylor responds: "The reader is ascribing motives to me that do not exist, and I think any fair-minded interpretation of what I wrote would find the story quite objective. She seems unhappy both that I quoted Clinton and that I didn't use enough of her quote. Well, that's what journalists do, we're not stenographers. And for the reader's charge that I 'exploited (Clinton's) comments in the most gender-based manner" that I could is Just. Flat. Wrong."
The Ombudsman responds: I read Naylor's piece and I don't find it to be sexist. On the "what does Hillary want?" matter, Sen. Clinton herself asked rhetorically in her speech about what she wants, adding yet more credibility to the use of the question.
If I have any objection, it is to saying what does "Hillary" want rather than "Sen. Clinton." While Clinton has sanctioned the use of "Hillary" for signs, slogans, etc., journalists should refer to the former presidential candidate using her honorific, and not by her first name.
Doing so shows a lack of respect. I don't buy that calling her Hillary helps to differentiate from her husband. Calling her Sen. Clinton accomplishes that. Frankly, I can't imagine journalists saying, "What does Barack want?" I can, however, imagine if Obama had stayed in the race as long as Clinton, pundits asking, 'What does Obama want?'"
-30-
12:34 AM ET | 06-12-2008 | permalink
