UPDATE on Mr. Obama 2-3-09
From Ron Elving, NPR's Senior Supervising Editor of the Washington Desk:

"NPR has used Mister as the alternative term of respect on second (and subsequent) reference to the President of the United States for decades. I personally have been Washington editor for three presidents and we have done it consistently through this time. Just as consistent have been the letters, phone calls and emails from people who do not believe what I just said. They insist we always called the previous president 'President So and So' on every reference and that our alleged failure to do so with the current president indicates disrespect.

It is difficult to convince people their memories are faulty, and even transcripts sometimes do not convince them. One nice thing about the digital age is that people can actually go on line, call up actual audio from earlier this month, or last month, and hear us saying Mr. Bush, which we did every day."

I will also add that while NPR says Mr. Obama on the second reference, it is equally common for NPR to use 'the president' on second reference. ACS

Today's post includes answers to 3 listener queries.

"During the early morning NPR newscast on January 26, 2009 and January 27, 2009, two of your reporters referred to our new President as 'Mr. Obama.' I was alarmed to hear your reporters refer to President Obama in that manner because in past years I did not hear any of your reporters refer to President Clinton and President Bush as 'Mr. Clinton' or 'Mr. Bush.' Frankly, I consider that your two reporters referring to our President as 'Mr. Obama' to be very disrespectful, whether or not they intended that reference to be disrespectful.

Respectfully yours,
Everette C. Rochon, Sr.
Col. U. S. Army, Ret.

Dear Col. Ronchon:
NPR is not being disrespectful to President Obama. They are following the NPR policy that dates back to President Gerald Ford. It's been NPR's practice --regardless of who is president -- to use "President" in the first reference within any story and "Mr." in subsequent references. That was true for Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter. For example, NPR referred to President Bush and then the next time, the reporter said Mr. Bush.

You may disagree with the practice, but it is evenly applied no matter who controls the White House.

My question involves the amount of public funding, if any, for the public radio station in Rexburg Idaho run by BYU-Idaho. The reason is, it is the first public station I have heard that is at least 40% filled with religious items. In this case Mormon religious programming. Seems to me that if public funding is involved, then is that right? Thanks Lynn Houdyshell

Dear Ms. Houdyshell:
I found an answer to your concerns about KBYI in Rexburg, Idaho, and in the process I learned more about public radio, so thank you for your inquiry.

KBYI is a non-NPR member station in Rexburg, Idaho, licensed to Brigham Young University.

It might help to understand the relationship between NPR, public radio stations and the government. There are 800 or so public radio stations in the U.S. Many, but certainly not all, broadcast NPR programming. But to air it, they must pay for it.

NPR sells its programming to KBYI, even though it is not a member station, because it was determined that KBYI's overall programming is devoted to "programming of good quality for a general audience which serves demonstrated community needs," according to NPR's guidelines.

So NPR sells its programming to KBYI. But NPR itself does not provide public funding to KBYI or any other public radio station.

Public radio stations may apply for public funding from the government through the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. Stations use CPB funding, as well as the money they raise themselves from listeners and corporate underwriters, to buy NPR programming. But they are not required to use it for that purpose. Many use the federal funds for station operations or to produce their own programming, among other things.

If you have concerns about public funding going to KBYI, I would encourage you to contact the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Another listener called last month incensed about NPR's special correspondent Susan Stamberg's story on the winter solstice from Paris. Stamberg's story actually focused on how Paris celebrates the summer solstice on June 21, the first day of summer and longest day of the year. NPR ran her pre-recorded piece on the day of the winter solstice.

"Why am I paying for Susan Stamberg Paris' vacation when NPR is announcing layoffs?" asked a woman from Massachusetts over the phone.

Turns out, NPR did not finance Stamberg's Paris trip.

Here's what Stamberg told me via email: "I was in Paris in June on vacation -- paid for transportation myself -- and brought along my tape recorder just in case...I ALWAYS do this on vacation...I love to work, and on vacation, find it opens doors and experiences which I love sharing with listeners."

As part of NPR's in-depth inaugural coverage, the network broadcast the two-hour free, "We are One" concert at the Lincoln Memorial Jan. 18.

But what wasn't included -- angering some listeners -- was the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson's invocation before the concert started. Robinson is the first openly gay Episcopal bishop. Many thought he was invited as a counter to Pastor Rick Warren, who actively opposes homosexuality and was asked to give the opening prayer at Tuesday's inauguration.

"It is absolutely outrageous that NPR's live coverage of Sunday's concert failed to air Gene Robinson's invocation for the event and chose instead to play clips from some of Obama's favorite songs," wrote Micki McElya. Her email reflected others' concerns.

Here's what happened, according to Anya Grundmann, executive producer NPR Music:

"Last Thursday (Jan. 15), NPR Music finalized a last-minute agreement with the Presidential Inaugural Committee allowing us to simulcast the inaugural concert as presented live on HBO. Because the official start time--2:30--would have been a difficult time for stations to join the program, we decided to offer the show to stations starting at 2:00."

Robinson was slated to speak at 2:25 p.m. But NPR had no producers or engineers at the Lincoln Memorial so it was dependent on HBO as the only source of audio. NPR filled the time with music until its official audio feed began at 2:30.

That's NPR's side. But what about HBO? Both companies got hit with complaints. HBO blamed the Presidential Inaugural Committee "due to a miscommunication," said an HBO press release.

The inaugural committee still hasn't offered much of an explanation. "We had always intended and planned for Rt. Rev Robinson's invocation to be included in the televised portion," Josh Earnest, spokesman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee said in a statement. "We regret the error in executing this plan but are gratified that hundreds of thousands of people who gathered on the mall heard his eloquent prayer for our nation that was a fitting start to our event."

Robinson appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation the next day and said he had no idea at the time he was speaking that his words weren't being broadcast.

HBO made amends by promising to include Robinson's prayer in future rebroadcasts of the event.

For a full-accounting of what happened that day, read Aaron Barnhart's thorough piece, updates and all. Barnhart is the TV critic for the Kansas City Star.

Some other listeners expressed "outrage" that they couldn't listen to the concert on NPR at a later time. NPR did not archive the concert because it wasn't NPR's to archive. The rights were for a live one-time broadcast, and simultaneous live streaming from public radio websites.

All in all, it was unfortunate that Robinson's words weren't aired. It just opened HBO, NPR and the Presidential Inaugural Committee to all kinds of conspiracy charges.

END

A woman calls to complain that NPR's coverage of the Gaza conflict is biased toward Palestinians.

The caller explains the complicated Arab-Israeli history and why Israel was justified in bombing Gaza. "Do you really understand the history?" the caller asks.

The NPR representative does understand. "How old are you?" the caller asks. "Where did you go to college? How well do you understand?"

It becomes personal. But covering the news isn't personal. It's about gathering the facts and reporting what is happening fairly and in context without bias.

There is virtually no other story that NPR covers that stimulates more complaints, more concern, more frustration or more emotion than the Israeli-Arab conflict. Not only are some listeners quick to claim that NPR is sympathetic to one side or the other but many demand that a complete history of the conflict be included in each story.

Since the beginning of the Israeli incursion into Gaza late last month, more than 200 people have emailed or called, some suggesting that NPR is National Palestinian Radio. About half that say NPR is a mouthpiece for Israel. Several are the result of an orchestrated campaign. In some cases, the offending story was on public radio but came from one of many other news producers that NPR has no editorial responsibility over.

The decades-long Arab-Israeli confrontation is a very complex story. Many listeners come to it with fully formed opinions and voice a deep personal attachment to one side or the other. They want NPR to take their side.

But NPR reporters do not have an agenda or take sides other than to report the facts on the ground, said Loren Jenkins, NPR's foreign editor. He added that NPR also tries to report the broader context of any conflict as well as the interests of other nations, beginning with the U.S.

"You strive to be balanced, saying the Israelis say this and people in Gaza say this," said Jenkins. "But because each side in a conflict puts their own spin on it, good reporting demands a certain amount of skepticism which is best expressed in believing what you can personally see and learn rather than what you are told.

"We talk to officials as well as relief workers, doctors in hospitals and others who might be witnesses," continued Jenkins. "Most conflict reporting involves getting all the pieces --facts, data, eyewitness accounts -- and putting it together to get a full picture of what has occurred."

It's particularly difficult in this war to cover both sides and be certain of getting the full story since up until this weekend, Israel didn't let foreign journalists into Gaza.

In reporting any armed clash in the world, Jenkins said NPR tries to report the death toll as accurately as possible. In the Gaza story, over 1,000 are dead and thousands wounded. Thirteen Israelis have been killed. Such disparities are an important part of the story NPR is telling, especially with reportedly hundreds of civilian deaths.

NPR, with five reporters and a photographer covering the war and a Palestinian stringer in Gaza, has devoted hours of airtime to the conflict on shows, newscasts and on npr.org. I examined the 49 stories on the war that ran on Morning Edition, All Things Considered and the weekend editions between Jan. 3 and Jan. 10.

Could they do better? Yes. But overall, the coverage is strong, varied and constant; some might even say there's too much considering problems at home. But it's a critical story now because of upcoming elections in Israel, a new U.S. president and U.S national security interests.

During the week I studied, Morning Edition and ATC each ran at least three stories on the conflict every day. NPR's audience can judge the recent coverage for itself. Since May 2002, NPR has aggregated all Middle East stories on one web page. NPR also provides free transcripts -- something it does only on this story.

The biggest issue many critics have is that NPR is not explaining enough in each piece why Israel believed it had to attack Gaza and cripple Hamas' security force.

Elizabeth Hamblet emailed that Hamas has made destroying Israel its goal and that instead of spending money on schools and hospitals, Hamas is buying weapons and continues to fire rockets on Israel. "How do you ignore Hamas instigation?" wrote Hamblet. "Your biased coverage has been a severe disappointment."

But there are those who feel NPR hasn't shown how cruelly Israel has treated Palestinians living in cramped, slum-like conditions on a strip of land bordering Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. "The Palestinians are trapped," wrote M. Gregg Smith from Keizer, Ore. "In insane frustration, the Palestinians fight against Israeli oppression with rocks" and rockets.

It's true that Hamas has fired over 7,000 rockets at nearby Israeli towns since 2005 when Israel withdrew from Gaza. That is an unimaginable reign of terror to live under. But it's also true that Israel has blockaded Gaza not allowing food and medical supplies in. But it's also true that Hamas doesn't want Israel to exist. And on the history goes.

Even if NPR tried to include more history in each piece, whose history? For every set of facts one side has, the other has its own version. Many listeners who complain want NPR to explain their side's history as the more moral account.

Context is critical but there are certain time constraints that simply won't allow the kind of detail some listeners want in every four-minute piece.

"Listeners demand every story has a full history," said Jenkins. "In a story like the Middle East where there are thousands of years of history, there is rarely enough space to lay out that sort of complex history in a single piece or two of reportage. We try over time to build the historic picture that is the back story to our daily reports. We do strive for balance because it's not for us to judge who is right or who is wrong."

While some pieces work better than others, there is another factor that has not often been included in the stories. Next month, Israeli voters will elect a new prime minister among three candidates. What role, if any, does that play in the decision to attack Gaza? Which of the candidates might benefit by the show of force?

One thing NPR could do better is explain more fully who its sources are, especially if they have an agenda. For instance, one story quoted a person from the International Crisis Group. Who are they? Another expert was from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. What is their interest in this story?

The audience cannot always tell from the title where a group's leaning lies. NPR shouldn't assume listeners know that someone from the Palestinian Third Way Party is a moderate or what it means for an Israeli to be a "Dove."

NPR also could do a better job of promoting the range of its stories for listeners who may only hear one story. Many incensed listeners contacted me after hearing one story unaware of other related coverage that same day. On Dec. 30, for example, ATC ran six stories on the war throughout the two-hour show, devoting 23 minutes. But the stories did not run consecutively.

As an example, Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep did a good job of informing listeners of an upcoming interview with the Israeli ambassador while talking with a Palestinian lawmaker. "I'm sure if an Israeli spokesperson were here - and in fact, elsewhere in the program, we're speaking to the Israeli ambassador - if an Israeli were here they would say they're trying to crush Hamas," said Inskeep.

The conversation with the Israeli ambassador came 10 stories after this. A listener might not have caught both stories but at least Inskeep let listeners know they would later hear the other side.

Considering how the audience dips in and out of radio, it's likely that listeners do not know the full breadth of NPR's coverage. If NPR is going to devote substantial resources and time to this important story, it would go a long way if the network tried harder to inform listeners about what is being covered -- either by referring back or forward to war-related stories, as Inskeep did, and also pointing people to npr.org.

END

Continue reading "NPR's Arab-Israeli War Coverage " >

Upcoming Event
Title: Blagojevich: Has the Media Found Him Guilty?

Date: Monday January 12, 2009
Time: 1:00PM EST

Join me for a Live Chat on the Blagojevich coverage.

Is talking about selling a Senate seat a crime? Or just poor judgment?

What do you think of NPR and other news media coverage of Blagojevich?

Does he deserve to be treated fairly by the media?

Feel free to submit questions ahead of time in the comments section below. Or try us through the Contact Us feature on NPR.org. But we will stick to the topic of Blagojevich for 30 minutes. If there are other topics you'd like covered in a future live chat, please send them in.

Alicia C. Shepard
NPR Ombudsman

From the moment that U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald announced the arrest of Gov. Rod Blagojevich last month, the news media began reporting the story in a way that seemed to paint Blagojevich guilty. It was easy. The Illinois Democrat speaks in bleeps and exudes arrogance. And there are tapes with salacious snippets.

But is there a crime?

Is talking about selling a Senate seat a crime? Or just poor judgment?

What do you think of NPR and other news media coverage of Blagojevich?

Does he deserve to be treated fairly by the media?

Was Fitzgerald grandstanding when he said that Lincoln would be rolling over in his grave?

Join me for a live chat on the Blagojevich coverage on Monday, Jan. 12 @ 1 p.m. EST.

Feel free to submit questions ahead of time in the comments section below. Or try us through the Contact Us feature on NPR.org. But we will stick to the topic of Blagojevich for 30 minutes. If there are other topics you'd like covered in a future live chat, please send them in.

Alicia C. Shepard
NPR Ombudsman

An NPR listener could easily have been excused last month for wondering why Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich isn't already behind bars.

The Democratic governor was arrested Dec. 9 on federal corruption charges, including allegedly trying to profit from picking a replacement for President-elect Barack Obama's former Senate seat.

After the Chicago arrest, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald held a press conference where he selectively released salacious tidbits of wiretapped conversations between Blagojevich and associates. Fitzgerald said the governor's conduct "can only be described as a political corruption crime spree."

Fitzgerald described Blagojevich using other inflammatory language that some defense lawyers say raises questions about whether Fitzgerald overstepped rules that say a prosecutor should not discuss the merits of pending cases or air personal opinions.

Blagojevich coverage by NPR and other news outlets is an example of how the media often fail to restrain themselves when a voluble law enforcement official chooses to talk. In this case, there was an easily perceptible tone portraying the prosecutor as the good guy and the defendant as the dark villain -- while the journalists were astonished.

Granted, Blagojevich is not someone who engenders compassion. His foul language, crass approach and arrogance toward the media and political system make him an easy target. Add to that, sensational charges filed by a high-profile, popular prosecutor who convicted former vice presidential aide Scooter Libby of perjury and obstructing the FBI in the Valerie Plame case.

"Blagojevich is hardly a sympathetic character but that doesn't mean we should be intentionally unfair," said Bob Steele, journalism values scholar at the Poynter Institute. "But it is harder to be fair when you have somebody who has behaved as he has. I find it very challenging for journalists to be able to achieve that level of fairness where many cards are faced down and the person accused is taking a hell or high water approach."

Even so, in reporting sensational charges, journalists should try to avoid painting the defendant as obviously guilty. It's exactly in this kind of situation that the news media needs to examine its own assumptions about someone's guilt and ask critical questions: "Are we being fair? Are we asking tough enough questions? Are we doing everything possible to get the side of the person charged?"

I examined the first three days of NPR's coverage because it set the tone and established the story in the public's mind. Since then the coverage has shifted toward being fairer to both sides.

When NPR's David Schaper first described the charges on Dec. 9, Morning Edition host Renee Montagne's initial reaction was: "Well, isn't it sort of startling, especially from the outside, at sort of the boldness of it?" (One minute 20 seconds later she said, "Well, of course, it's just alleged."). However, throwing in the word alleged does not excuse the media from being fair, noted Steele.

Later that day, Talk of the Nation host Neal Conan said to his guest: "And that Rod Blagojevich ran on the promise that he would stop the play-for-pay corruption culture in Illinois and in Chicago, and you can look at these charges and then figure out what he did was double down on play for pay."

That night on All Things Considered, host Robert Siegel talked with a Chicago columnist. "First, I know that Chicago journalists are accustomed to corruption stories, but many of the remarks attributed to the governor and evidently recorded are just breathtaking in their cynicism and their corruption," Siegel said. "If I followed Chicago politics the way you do, would I be less astonished by all of these?"

There are other examples in tone and story choice. But my goal isn't to single out specific NPR journalists. It's to point out that journalists have a responsibility to be fair to Blagojevich, to be skeptical and to better explain how the criminal justice system works. A prosecutor usually has the advantage with resources in leveling charges. A criminal complaint is usually authored to make the defendant look guilty.

"The news media are extraordinarily unsophisticated in legal matters," said Harvey Silverglate, of Boston who has spent 40 years as a criminal defense attorney. That charge could include NPR, as four on-air journalists covering the first-day story incorrectly referred to Fitzgerald's 76-page complaint as an indictment.

(It should be noted that an all-staff memo to correct the mistake was sent shortly after the news conference.) An indictment comes after a grand jury investigation, which has yet to happen. Monday, Fitzgerald requested more time before asking for an indictment.

Questions should have been raised promptly after Fitzgerald's announcement about the nature of the evidence and the investigation. Since all the wiretap transcripts are not public, NPR listeners have no way of knowing exactly what Fitzgerald does -- or doesn't -- have on Blagojevich.

"The prosecutor released snippets of these conversations," said Silverglate, who has no role in this case. "If you look closely at the papers released, it actually looks like Blagojevich was looking to give the seat to somebody who would do him the most good. Had Fitzgerald let the scenario play on, it's quite likely no crime would have been committed. The governor would have selected the person who would have done his career the most good, and that's not a crime. If it's a crime, virtually every politician in the country is guilty of it."

After Fitzgerald's press conference, it was the media's job to shine a light on the prosecutor's actions as well as his target.

"Part of a story like this is holding the system accountable," said Steele, who also teaches journalism at DePauw University. "Fitzgerald said the charges would make Lincoln roll over in his grave. I'd use that quote [as a reporter] and get some independent experts. Is Fitzgerald operating properly with a case like this? The news media needs to be holding him accountable at the same time you are holding the governor accountable."

NPR's Ari Shapiro did a five-minute Fitzgerald profile on Dec. 10 on All Things Considered that quoted two people, both of whom praised Fitzgerald.

"The duty to fairness is among the most important responsibilities of good journalists, and NPR journalists honor it virtually every hour of every day on stories large and small," said Brian Duffy, NPR's managing editor. "That's the standard--no ifs, ands or buts. On a fast-breaking story like that involving the allegations against Governor Blagojevich--involving national politics, evidence of highly unseemly behavior, and some unusually strong accusatory language from a high-profile federal prosecutor--even the best journalists can, and sometimes do, resort to language that is not as carefully qualified as it could be."

There were 23 Blagojevich stories across NPR shows before Morning Edition on Dec. 11 asked key questions: Since Blagojevich never actually sold the Senate seat, is talking about a crime an actual crime? How strong a case does Fitzgerald have?

"You've got some ugly talk but where's the evidence of an actual solicitation of a bribe?" said William Jeffress, who represented Scooter Libby. "It's certainly not on the tapes. Obviously, what's on the tapes is ugly enough to ruin Blagojevich's reputation. But whether that's going to be enough to convict him of a crime remains to be seen."

Blagojevich was charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. For a conspiracy to be a prosecutable crime there has to be an overt act, according to former federal prosecutor Barry Coburn, who wrote about Fitzgerald in a New York Times op-ed.

It certainly is not unprecedented for the news media to convict someone before he or she has gone to trial. In one of the most famous cases, the Supreme Court in 1966 ruled that an Ohio doctor, Sam Shepard (no relation to me), had been convicted of murdering his wife because of the "carnival atmosphere" resulting from pretrial publicity.

More recently, such people as Richard Jewell, Wen Ho Lee, and Steven Hatfill were identified by law enforcement officials as likely suspects and then judged guilty in the court of public opinion. And in each case, law enforcement -- and by default the media -- were wrong.

Even if it turns out Blagojevich is guilty, that does not excuse NPR from reporting the story fairly and responsibly. And that means avoiding the temptation to convict him before he has had his day in court.
END

Continue reading " Blagojevich: Has the Media Found Him Guilty?" >