NPR journalists face ethical challenges everyday. Please join me in watching a video discussion on whether NPR journalists should march in gay pride parades.

Special thanks to my intern, Anna Tauzin, for her work on our first video. There will be more. I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue and hope we can have a productive discussion.

After the New York Times successfully orchestrated a news blackout during the kidnapping of a Times reporter, questions arose about how the media would respond if the Pentagon asked reporters to keep a similar story quiet.

An answer came in July when the tables were turned and the Taliban kidnapped an American soldier based in eastern Afghanistan. Would the news media report the soldier's kidnapping while attempts to rescue him were still under way?

Some background first. The Taliban captured Times reporter David Rohde, an assistant, and a driver outside of Kabul on Nov. 10, 2008. Times editors concluded that Rohde had a better chance of surviving if the kidnapping were kept quiet. Some 40 news media outlets, including NPR, went along with the news blackout. The pair escaped on June 19 leaving behind their Afghani driver (who did not try to escape).

This incident angered some NPR listeners, as it appeared that NPR's loyalty was toward an individual journalist and not its audience.

"I listen to NPR because it has been my perception that your reporting is unbiased and represents quality, truthful, objective journalism," wrote David Barr, of Bremerton, WA. "Discovering that you took part in the media black out of David Rohdes' kidnapping has made me question those perceptions."

He said he understands the concern for Rohde's life.

"It is that I find this decision by your management to be morally reprehensible," continued Barr. "As journalists your primary obligation is to the public, to your listeners, to the dissemination of information. How can a listener truly trust your programming if he has to question whether or not he is being given the truth? When will NPR hide information from me next? Did Mr. Rohdes receive special treatment just because he was a journalist?"

NPR's senior vice president for news, Ellen Weiss, said that the Times never made a formal request asking NPR to keep Rohde's capture quiet.

"That said, correspondents in Kabul all knew of the kidnapping and the fact delicate negotiations were being conducted to free Rohde and were urged by his colleagues not to write about it for fear it could sabotage negotiations," said Weiss.

She added that "while being brutally honest and dogged about the news, we also understand that there are unintended consequences, whether to a journalist or to a soldier - and we are willing to consider those moral issues along with the news value. And risking a human life is one of those moral issues we take and consider very seriously. I would hope that valuing life over the story is not morally reprehensible to anyone in our audience."

So what did the media do when an American soldier went missing on June 30?

Stars and Stripes, the military's newspaper, knew about the disappearance but kept quiet, according to Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman. The Pentagon purposely made no announcement but then felt the media forced its hand.

"I got a call (from a public information officer in Afghanistan) about 3 a.m. on July 2 that another news organization -- a European organization -- had learned of this and indicated to the public affairs' person that this news organization had the story and we're going to go with it," said Whitman. He wouldn't name the European outfit.

Inside the Pentagon, Whitman said they'd been talking about the kidnapping for days.

"We said we were not going to actively announce he was missing while we were trying to recover him," said Whitman. "This determination was made that it was in our best interests if we didn't acknowledge this for as long as we could. In the first few critical early days, it would be to our advantage to not publicly announce this while trying to locate him."

But after the call from the European news organization, the Pentagon confirmed the disappearance on July 2. NPR's Jackie Northam filed a newspot from Afghanistan, and a web piece was posted the same day. The soldier's name was not released. (On July 19, after the Taliban released of a video of Pfc. Bowe R. Bergdahl, the Pentagon confirmed his identity.)

When Whitman later tried to detangle what happened, he couldn't find a clear answer. "I am not entirely convinced that at the lowest level, our man on the ground really made a case to the reporter on the ground about the implications and asked them not to publish the information. I think the young lad in the field felt when the information was brought to him, there was no negotiation."

Whitman thinks if there had been a more experienced Pentagon media representative in the field, there would have been more dialogue.

"We wouldn't have announced [the kidnapping] if we didn't feel the story was breaking on us," said Whitman.

There are several reasons to keep a kidnapping quiet, especially early on. The kidnapper doesn't know what you know, or what actions are being taken. The more attention the news media brings to a kidnapping only serves to heighten the value of the captured person to the kidnappers.

Weiss said NPR would consider any Pentagon request and decide how to respond on a case-by-case basis.

"In the past, we have been asked to hold off on reporting about certain things," she said. "For example, when President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq, our reporter was on Air Force One. But we did not reveal news about the trip until the president arrived. In covering wars, reporters in the field have always been asked to refrain from reporting about certain maneuvers or events for fear it would endanger troops."

The Rohde and Bergdahl cases present a challenge for news organizations. It's understandable that the Times editors would put its loyalty toward an employee over the audience -- but it's not a good precedent. Saving a life is commendable but the news media can't have a double standard and protect their own but not the kidnapped soldier, or contractor or executive working in foreign setting.

After Bergdahl's name was released, I went back to Whitman. It seemed the news media had behaved well in this case

"Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as you are in this case," said Whitman. "True, some did hold off on reporting the name until we announced it. That said, I'm less confident that they would have held that position for very long. Given the very competitive nature of your business, it would only take one outlet to report it and I imagine the rest would be compelled to follow."

Whitman probably is correct. Once an important story is out -- regardless of how or why it was first reported -- the rest of the news media tends to treat it as news that must be reported. That is the essential role of the news media, after all.

Continue reading "Double Standard?" >

If you've visited the site today, you've noticed NPR.org's re-design. But since the re-launch last night there have been a few technical bugs, including the disappearance of old comments posted on blogs.

Everything is back to normal on the Ombudsman's column, but visitors may experience glitches as NPR works to solve minor problems throughout the site.

According to this note from NPR's digital media team, the re-design will make it "easier to combine listening and reading, to follow breaking news, to comment on our work and share it, and easier to find programming from your NPR station. Later this summer, we also plan to enhance our support for a variety of popular mobile platforms. Our goal is to make sure that anyone with a mobile device can enjoy NPR and our stations."

If you continue having problems, go to the Contact Us page.

--Chantal de la Rionda
Office of the Ombudsman

Laurie Handshu of Nashville wrote asking if everyone in NPR's news department was on vacation this week.

"Your Tom Watson interview aired Tuesday. The British Open event finished Sunday.

Daniel Shorr remembered Walter Cronkite on Tuesday. Mr. Cronkite died Friday of last week. I would have been most interested in his remembrance, but I just kept thinking, this was not a big surprise here Dan....

Your moon race story airing this morning would have been more timely earlier this week or leading up to the moon landing anniversary last week. Why the recent delay of timely broadcast?"

Fair enough questions. So I went in search of answers.

Watson, as many know, is the 59-year-old U.S. golfer, who lost in a playoff in the final round of the British Open Golf championship by one stroke on Sunday. It would have been his 6th Open win.

NPR tried to speak with Watson right away, but he wasn't even doing interviews Monday.

"We thought that since [All Things Considered host] Robert Siegel's conversation with him would have a different focus from most of the interviews Watson did in the immediate aftermath of defeat, it was still worth doing," said Chris Turpin, ATC executive producer.

NPR did interview Watson's caddie on Monday "and that was definitely a unique ATC take," said Turpin.

As for Walter Cronkite, NPR did at least five stories on him including airing an obituary
on Friday, July 17, shortly after his death was made public. The next day, Weekend Edition Saturday host Scott Simon did an essay on Cronkite.

Was Schorr's 3-minute piece too much or too late? I don't think so considering Cronkite's impact on journalism, the nation and history.

"We also had an appreciation from the producer who worked on Cronkite's stories for ATC Monday night," said Turpin. "Dan specifically requested an opportunity to write about Cronkite, who he worked with for over 20 years. So we moved up his regular commentary day from Wednesday to Tuesday."

NPR began covering the 40th anniversary of the Moon Walk on July 17 -- three days before it happened. They've done enough stories that they aggregated them. Sometimes listeners hear only one story and think that's all the coverage. Sometimes it is; sometimes not. The best way to see what's been covered is to do a search on npr.org.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls it Burma. But when her words are reported on NPR, the network refers to the country in Southeast Asia as Myanmar.

A listener doesn't like it.

"In clips included as part of every NPR newscast I have heard today, our Secretary of State refers to Burma as Burma," Tom Benghauser of Denver wrote on July 21. "Why can't NPR do the same? Why do you insist on using Myanmar, the name given to Burma by the military thugs who continue to terrorize a wonderful people?"

Today npr.org, carries an Associated Press story on Clinton's visit to Bangkok. During a press conference, Clinton used the name Burma, but AP the story refers to Myanmar:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration is concerned by the possibility that North Korea, with a history of illicit sales of missiles and nuclear technology, is developing military ties to Myanmar.

She did not refer explicitly to a nuclear connection but made clear that the matter is disconcerting.

"We know there are also growing concerns about military cooperation between North Korea and Burma which we take very seriously," she said when asked about it at a news conference in the Thai capital. Myanmar, also known as Burma, is run by a military regime.

"It would be destabilizing for the region, it would pose a direct threat to Burma's neighbors," she said, adding that as a treaty ally of Thailand, the United States takes the matter seriously."

The same name switch occured in Michele Keleman's Clinton story on All Things Considered July 21.

What accounts for the difference? NPR's foreign editor, Loren Jenkins, said NPR has decided to call the country how the current government refers to itself.

"The government of what was once known as Burma changed the name as many countries in what was once the colonial Third world have done," said Jenkins via an email. "It is their right to do so and not to accept that is to take a political position which NPR does not.

"When what was once called The Congo changed its name to Zaire decades ago under the late President/dictator Mobutu, we didn't keep calling the Congo (After Mobutu's death, the new government reverted to calling it The Democratic Republic of Congo which is what we do today). India too has chosen to change the colonial names of many of its cities (Bombay is today Mumbai) and we recognize that. So why not call what was once Burma by the name its rulers -- and the UN, by the way -- call it."

NPR has had this policy since April 2004 when the Foreign Desk decided that the term Myanmar was enough in current usage to go with it. Before that, NPR used, "Burma, also known as Myanmar."

The State Department refers to the country as Burma to register its disapproval of the current regime, which changed the name in 1989. The department has called for the release of the 2,100 political prisoners in Burma including the most famous prisoner, Aung San Suu Kyi.

The opposite is true for the U.N., which uses Myanmar.

"We use Myanmar in deference to the wishes of their government," said U.N. spokesperson, Farhan Haq. "We go by the name the accredited government gives. We are an organization made up of member states and we listen to the member states."

Interestingly, The Washington Post and The New York Times take different approaches.

"In the most recent stories featuring either name, it looks like The New York Times says Myanmar and then qualifies it with Burma," said Mary Glendinning, an NPR librarian. "The Washington Post calls it Burma but goes on later to include Myanmar."

As everyone knows former CBS newsman Walter Cronkite died on Friday. He really was a legend who could change the course of history through his news judgment. Here's yet one more example that I learned while reporting my book, Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate

Most of the media credit for the revelations that led to President Nixon's resignation in 1974 falls to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post. But it was CBS's Walter Cronkite who made Watergate a national story in fall 1972.

Nixon campaign operatives broke into the Democratic headquarters inside the Watergate building on June 17, 1972. The Washington Post and others jumped on the story initially but it still didn't have much traction four months later. A Gallup poll in October 1972 showed that 48 percent of the country did not recognize the word Watergate.

But that all changed after Cronkite decided it was a story.

One reason other reporters didn't pick up the story was that it was complicated. It was difficult to follow a Woodward-Bernstein story because the reporters often relied on anonymous sources. And there were few documents to show viewers and few people to interview on camera -- with the exception of White House officials happily going on camera to disparage the young Post reporters.

But Cronkite sensed there was something more to the story than a third-rate burglary. He pleaded with the Post to share their documents as tangible proof.

"For the first time in a long time in major American journalism there were not documents," former Post managing editor Howard Simons said in an interview at the University of Texas in Austin, where the Woodward-Bernstein papers are held. "This was just gumshoeing, classic journalism. CBS wanted to photograph the documents for its stories. But there were none. What we decided was, we wouldn't tell CBS we didn't have documents. We'd let them think we had documents."

CBS went ahead with the story anyway. The ground-breaking, two-part special ran on Oct. 27 and 31, 1972. These two stories were a turning point for the saga that would grip the nation for most of the next two years.

Cronkite's first piece ran for nearly 15 minutes in a 22-minute broadcast -- the unprecedented equivalent of a newspaper turning two-thirds of its front page over to one story.

The second story was truncated to 9 minutes after the Nixon White House pressured CBS brass, claiming the first story wasn't fair -- especially in light of the November presidential election when Nixon was running against George McGovern.

Cronkite brought the story to a national audience -- even without documents. But having watched all 24 minutes in 2006, I can safely say that CBS would never run that story today. Frankly, it was far too complicated -- and even boring. It was difficult to figure out what Cronkite was talking about.

But it didn't matter. America's most trusted newsman said Watergate was a story the nation should be interested it -- and therefore it was.

Update: Scott Horsley reports on single payer health care for the July 24th broadcast of All Things Considered.

The dilemma is a classic for all news organizations covering government or elections.

The news media doesn't cover a proposal or political candidate because the media doesn't think either has a chance of success. But without news coverage, how will either get enough attention to make a difference?

In this case, it's the single-payer approach to the current national debate over paying for health care.

More than 300 listeners have complained that NPR is ignoring the single-payer movement in covering Congress's overhaul of health care. NPR says it's just being practical.

A single-payer medical system would be similar to a broadened Medicare, with doctors, hospitals and health-care facilities run privately but the government paying the bills with taxpayer money.

Supporters consider it the best solution to a crumbling health care system. Often they cite polls indicating broad public support. For example, an April 2009 CBS/New York Times poll said 57 percent of respondents were "willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance."

"The majority of Americans want single payer," wrote Selma Goldberg of Crofton, MD. "It is the health care of choice for almost all other industrialized nations. There is no question it is superior in every way to alternatives. Why are you opting to exclude coverage of this system? I am unhappy with the way you cover the news, bowing as you do to commercial interests."

But here's the reality. NPR says it is not avoiding coverage because it is beholden to the health insurers or big Pharma -- as claimed by an "NPR Watch" piece for Counterpunch, a political newsletter.

"Revenue in the pharmaceutical category represents only 3 percent of total underwriting revenue," said John King, operations manager for NPR Sponsorship.

The decision not to devote a lot of attention to single-payer, I'm told, is based on pragmatism.

"This issue is not getting a lot of attention from NPR because it's simply not on the table in Congress," said Julie Rovner, NPR's lead reporter covering the health care overhaul. "I think the reason that single-payer is not on the table is because it's too big a change."

There are two major bills in the House and Senate to provide health care to all Americans. H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has 85 co-sponsors and endorsements from 550 labor organizations, according to the Thomas database for the Library of Congress. Senate bill S. 703 introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has no co-sponsors. The California state legislature twice passed a single-payer bill. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

NPR's most recent story solely on single-payer was Dec. 24, 2008 on All Things Considered. It explored the political prospects (not good) for a single-payer system. Last summer, NPR did a series that explored national health plans (each with similarities to a single-payer system) in France, Germany, Great Britain, The Netherlands and Switzerland.

Since late February, the single-payer approach has been mentioned or discussed in broader health care stories at least 25 times. All NPR healthcare stories are aggregated here. On July 8, Talk of the Nation, looked at the politics behind health care for 20 minutes and single-payer was discussed.

"NPR's coverage is not much different than other media in that it tends to dismiss the single-payer alternative as a marginal phenomenon and discount it as a legitimate solution to the health care crisis," said Mark Almberg, communications director for Physicians for a National Health Program, a 16,000-member group supporting the concept. "Such discounting excludes us from the political process."

Rovner said that 160 million Americans now get employer-provided health insurance. "There are enough people who are satisfied with what they have now and it would be too big a shock to do such a massive change," she said. "All the experts I talk to say this doesn't have a chance because it would mean getting rid of employer-provided insurance."

She pointed out that "most polls that offer a wide range of choices show that a good 30 percent of the public is for single-payer."

"The problem is it's not a majority," Rovner said. "I feel like I'm one of the few reporters that has recognized from the beginning that the single-payer supporters are an important element in this debate." Rovner is one of the most experienced and widely respected reporters covering health care policy in the U.S.

One reality for NPR is that there are dozens of aspects of the health care debate to cover.

"We are giving single-payer as much attention as it needs given the discussion in the nation's capital about overhauling health care," said Anne Gudenkauf, who heads the science desk. "We need to give them [the listeners] information about what's on the table. Not what's not."

Rovner did several news spots in May for newscasts when single-payer advocates, upset they weren't invited to testify, disrupted several health care hearings. Thirteen were arrested at one.

"We haven't done a stand-alone single payer story since last year, but as you'll note in the sheaf of stories I handed you," said Rovner, "I have gone out of my way to include the single-payer viewpoint in nearly a dozen stories I've done this year. I think that's far more than most of the mainstream media can claim."

Rovner's correct about including single-payer views. But I think NPR could have done a few stories directly on the single-payer concept -- especially because by Rovner's own statement, polls show 30 percent of the public supports it.

Shortly before posting this, Rovner stopped by to say that she intends to do a piece next week on single-payer and another long-shot health care proposal that are both noteworthy but won't pass because they would eliminate employer-provided health insurance. She said it's been on her list of stories to do for weeks.

Continue reading "Is NPR Ignoring the Single-Payer Health Care Proposal?" >

A listener asks why NPR isn't doing live broadcasts of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

It was offered to NPR's 800-plus member stations -- which is how most everyone hears NPR -- but there wasn't enough interest to warrant live coverage, said Ellen Weiss, NPR's senior vice president for news.

Earlier this summer, NPR offered full gavel-to-gavel anchored coverage to the member stations. Fewer than a dozen wanted it.

"Station interest in airing live coverage of hearings has steadily decreased over the years," said Marguerite Nutter, director of NPR Station Relations. "Our member stations are now choosing to offer coverage via audio and video streams on their websites or they will broadcast hearings on their HD (but not main) channel. These options weren't available to stations five or ten years ago."

There is a live video stream of the hearings on NPR's homepage. Look in the gray box on the top left of the page.

NPR is also producing two afternoon specials on Tuesday and Wednesday which incorporate some live and pre-recorded audio from the hearings, said Weiss. These specials are available to member stations. They are basically unbranded second hours of Talk of the Nation, so if you normally have two hours of TOTN, you are likely to hear this. There are 307 stations that carry TOTN.

NPR also has been providing an evening wrap-up of the hearings hosted by Linda Wertheimer. It can be heard on many member stations or at NPR.org.

All NPR stories on the Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation are gathered here.

In a perfect world, it would be better if NPR were anchoring live coverage but that kind of coverage is expensive for NPR and the stations, not to mention that it disrupts regular programming.

"While there are a lot of our listeners who do want to hear it, there are more people who want to listen to regularly scheduled programming," said Rob Gordon, general manager of WPLN in Nashville. "There's a disruption factor that you have to take into account. When it's really important, not that this isn't, but there are moments where it's easier to justify interrupting scheduled programming. This one was on the line."

I might add that I don't find the hearings to be good radio. It's far more helpful to listen to the evening wrap-up where NPR staff and others put what was said in context and provide a broader perspective.

In a world where there are fewer and fewer ombudsmen, good to see that ESPN has hired its third to replace Le Anne Schreiber, a former New York Times sports editor-turned-author. ACS

ESPN Hires an Ombudsman
Don Ohlmeyer, one of television's most successful and honored innovators as a producer and programmer in both sports and entertainment television, has been appointed as ESPN's third ombudsman.

Ohlmeyer will begin an 18-month term in August, offering independent examination, critique and analysis of ESPN.

"Few people on the planet could bring to the role of ESPN ombudsman more credentials, intelligence, a track record of success and the fearlessness to speak his mind than Don Ohlmeyer," John Walsh, ESPN executive vice president and executive editor, said in a statement. "He is a noted maverick in the industry with a vast understanding of media, and we look forward to his contributions."

Ohlmeyer will share his thoughts via a column on ESPN.com monthly. He succeeds Le Anne Schreiber, a former New York Times sports editor-turned-author whose term recently expired. George Solomon, former sports editor of the Washington Post for almost three decades, was ESPN's first ombudsman (2005-07).

Ohlmeyer has built one of the most distinguished careers in the history of television. He has served as an executive producer, producer, director and writer for entertainment and sports programming since 1967, culminating in his last network post as president, NBC West Coast prior to his retirement in 1999. Ohlmeyer twice worked at NBC; he first joined the network in 1977 as executive producer of sports. He returned as president in 1993, where he oversaw the activities of all the company's entertainment-related businesses, including NBC Entertainment, NBC Studios and NBC Enterprises.

Prior to his time at NBC, Ohlmeyer worked at ABC, where he had served as producer and director of three Olympic broadcasts, produced ABC's Monday Night Football, worked extensively on ABC's Wide World of Sports and developed The Superstars for television.

Over the next five years, he created the sports anthology series SportsWorld and served as executive producer of NBC coverage of the Super Bowl and the World Series as well as the prime-time series Games People Play and the made-for-television movie The Golden Moment: An Olympic Love Story. Ohlmeyer became well known for expanding the network's sports coverage and introducing innovative production techniques.

He installed Bryant Gumbel as the host of NBC's live NFL show, hired Bob Costas, Marv Albert, partnered Dick Enberg with Merlin Olsen in football and Enberg, Billy Packer and Al McGuire in what is widely regarded as the best basketball commentary team in history.

In his career, Ohlmeyer has been honored with 16 Emmys, including the Lifetime Achievement Award and two Peabody Awards, and has been inducted into the Sports Broadcasting Hall of Fame.

A graduate of Notre Dame, Ohlmeyer is also an adjunct professor of communications at Pepperdine, where he teaches directing and documentary filmmaking.
Updated: July 14, 2009, 2:28 PM ET

The Ombudsman's office gets deluged with emails, comments, phone calls, and the perception here -- among a staffer, an intern and me -- is that the majority of them are critical of NPR for being too "mainstream" or for being too conservative.

But that doesn't gibe with recent NPR-commissioned scientific polling on how its audience views the coverage. A June 30 report says that 50 percent of the total audience sees NPR's news coverage as balanced; while more than 40 percent see NPR as liberal and only 4 percent thought it had a conservative slant.

When NPR is lined up against PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, NPR is more likely than the commercial outlets to be perceived as "mostly fair" in its coverage, according to independent data from Roper. See Slide #3 below.

"Given the increasingly polarized nature of our political discourse, perceptions of media bias are inevitable these days," said Vince Lampone, NPR's research manager. "It's comforting that along with PBS, NPR is seen as at least somewhat more balanced than commercial news outlets in its news coverage."

Many of the people we hear from might disagree about how balanced or fair NPR is. In general, most listeners who contact us appear to fit into the liberal category, and many complain that NPR's reporting does not mirror their views. So I was expecting NPR's research to reflect that. But it didn't. Among those who self-identify as "very liberal," only 2 percent thought NPR was conservative.

It's important to point out that we are talking about two different audiences, though both are revealing. People who contact the Ombudsman are generally focused on a particular story or issue. People surveyed for this study in April and January were asked how they perceived NPR's overall news coverage.

Some aspects of NPR's listener survey research are predictable; some are surprising. It doesn't require polling to learn that there's a general public perception that NPR leans left -- whether it does or doesn't. Nor is it surprising that conservatives are more likely than moderates to believe that NPR has a political agenda.

But what is unexpected are findings among those who self-identify as "somewhat conservative" and "very conservative." In this group, the research shows a belief that NPR is slanted to the left and right. Among "very conservative" listeners, 57 percent thought NPR's news coverage was liberal but another 15 percent thought it was conservative. Take a look at slide #2.

Previous audience research has shown that NPR's listeners put themselves into three fairly neat categories: liberal, middle of the road, and conservative. That information describes the political outlook of the audience.

But NPR decided to do a year-long tracking study to determine how well the network is fulfilling its stated mission to "create a more informed public -- one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and culture."

"The research is hardly a defensive move on NPR's part -- on the contrary, we want to be aware of shifts in listener's perceptions over time," said Lampone. "Not just of perceived political bias, but of our overall success in achieving our public service mission."

The charts below provide more information on how the audience perceives NPR's news coverage: (At the bottom of each slide is who conducted the research, when and how many people were surveyed.)

While these findings may be reassuring to NPR, it shouldn't be a license to sit back. Perceptions of bias plague all news rooms and it's critical to credibility to work on improving the perception that NPR's coverage is balanced. The company will never get a "balanced" rating from 100 percent of its audience, but 50 percent is only half-way there.

I just met with six officials from China National Radio who mostly wanted to learn about NPR's Emergency Alert System. Mike Starling of NPR Labs joined us and explained that since 1952, the government has had 33 'primary entry points' for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to use if the White House wants to send out an emergency notice.

From NPR the emergency alert would then go to 800 member stations.

In 2002, NPR became the 34th 'primary entry point' because NPR has member stations in all state capitals. FEMA can contact NPR and then a message could go out to the 800 public radio stations NPR reaches.

China National Radio dwarfs NPR, reaching 100 million listeners in a week, Xiaohui Wang, CNR's deputy director general said through an interpreter. CNR is the only domestic radio that covers the whole country. The Chinese government pays for the transmission and for programming that reaches senior citizens, children and the disabled. But CNR has to raise money for all other programming.

CNR has no position like an ombudsman or a press council, but you can sign onto the website and comment on stories. "We have very, very critical listeners, especially among the younger people," said Wang. "We say they use Internet language violence. It's sometimes very aggressive language. They aren't criticizing the government. They are criticizing us."

NPR is famous for trying to find creative ways to tell stories and explain difficult concepts. My favorite may be when host Robert Siegel asked a farmer to actually put lipstick on a Virginia pig. But not all attempts work as well.

This week, April Fulton, an editor on the science desk, attempted to use an analogy of an airplane to explain what the Obama administration means when it talks about a "public plan" for health insurance.

Fulton suggested substituting the words "public airplane" for "public plan."

"President Obama wants all Americans to get to Healthyville," Fulton said in her piece for Morning Edition on July 7. "Right now, there are many ways to get there, including flying on big, fancy air carriers. They offer leg room and complimentary drinks. Maybe there's an in-seat TV and a hot towel if you can afford it. The trouble is, it's getting more expensive to travel, and some people can't afford to travel at all. So the president wants to create, say, Government Air, which will offer you a ride in a public airplane." (SOUNDBITE OF BEEPING AIRPLANE SOUND)

But unfortunately, while the attempt was laudable, the piece came across as one-sided, leading some listeners to conclude that NPR was editorializing in support of the Obama plan.

"I am done. I've had it. For years I have defended NPR from the complaints of my conservative friends," wrote Robert Daly of Hollywood, FL. "Listen to that report and ask yourself if you can distinguish between it and an Obama administration press release?"

Not only did the Ombudsman's office receive emails, but there are 125 comments to date below the story -- and most comments are critical.

This was a case where better execution and explanation were needed for what NPR was trying to do.

The goal was to explain in a simple analogy what the public plan involves, since the term is swirling around now without much explanation, said Anne Gudenkauf, NPR's senior science editor. "This was simply an explainer, describing what the administration's proposal for a public plan is," she said. "Like a glossary. Or a dictionary entry."

Gudenkauf said the science desk plans to run a series of pieces like Fulton's that will explain in simple, easy-to-grasp terms some of the arcane language involved in the health care debate. The airplane analogy is the first of several to come.

The main problem with Fulton's story was that it was not clear to listeners what the piece was attempting to do -- especially since it followed two fully-reported health care stories on Morning Edition. One discussed new rules surrounding stem cell research and the other was on Congress's self-imposed deadline to get a health care bill passed before the August recess.

Then came Fulton's airplane analogy, without much explanation of how it was different from the two previous news stories.

Fulton's piece said that if there's a public airline, then private airlines are likely to lower prices. She acknowledged that private airlines would protest and complain that if the government steps in, they'll be forced out of business.

"The president says not to worry," Fulton said in closing her piece. "Like good capitalists, the current carriers will start cutting their prices to attract customers back, because if demand is high for lower prices, the market will produce lower prices. And then perhaps the cost of health care stops skyrocketing into the stratosphere, which was President Obama's hope all along."

It's easy to see how some listeners might interpret that as an endorsement of the administration's proposal. Gudenkauf said it most definitely was not, but she acknowledged that the piece wasn't set up well. The introduction should have made it clear that this was a so-called "explainer" of a complex topic.

"I would have liked the intro to more strongly suggest what the piece was," said Gudenkauf, acknowledging that did not happen. "It was not a journalistic examination. It was not an analysis. It was an explanation. We needed to make it more clear that this is what the public plan means to the Obama administration."

Often, when NPR does explainer pieces, they are two-way chats between a reporter or expert and a show host. But this format was different, using an unfocused analogy. And because it was not clear what the piece was trying to convey, it came across as a reported piece that involved only the administration's side, without any representation of opposing views. Hence the criticism.

Gudenkauf said she has learned from this.

"I read every one of those comments and I care very much what people are saying," she said. "If we didn't do a perfect job this time, we'll try to do it better next time."

Continue reading " An Attempt to Explain 'Public Plan' that Didn't Fly" >

How much is too much coverage?

Michael Jackson died a week ago, and as of today, NPR-produced shows have aired about 265 minutes (or 4 hours and 41 minutes) on the pop icon -- not including the newscast coverage which initially was round-the-clock.

In addition, there were numerous blog postings, videos, photos, photo galleries, timelines, and even the transcript of the 911 call.

The West Coast bureau in Culver City is jokingly known as the Michael Jackson Bureau.

Some listeners say they'd like NPR to stop because they've had enough.

"While Michael Jackson's death is a major event in the pop music world, surely the wall- to-wall coverage can be delegated to Access Hollywood and the gossip magazines," wrote Carol Gendel of Rancho Bernardo, CA. "There is still a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, political uproar in Iran - in other words, real news to be reported."

Gendel is not alone. A study by the Pew Research Center indicates that 64 percent of the people polled said the coverage was "too much."

The Ombudsman's office decided to chart NPR's coverage since Jackson's death on June 25 in the late afternoon.

Here's a link to all Jackson stories.

NPR's Neda Ulaby and the arts desk got a full-blown Jackson obit on the air during the first taping of All Things Considered.

"He was unquestionably either the most popular entertainer in the world or one of the most and one of the most unusual public figures on the scene in decades," said Steve Drummond, NPR's national editor. "It was a straight-up monster news story. He's been around since the 1960's and millions of our listeners grew up with him and watched him fall apart in front of our eyes. It certainly doesn't mean we are not covering the Bernie Madoff sentencing or the developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

And if you think the coverage is over, you would be wrong. NPR's Avi Schneider wrote a piece today on all the outstanding questions.

"Frankly, we'll continue to cover it because it's a story with big unanswered questions involving the custody of his children and tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake," said Drummond.

Generally, when a major figure like Jackson dies, about a week is enough coverage. I, for one, am not interested in who gets custody of Jackson's kids.

Update: The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a report on July 8, 2009 documenting the coverage of Michael Jackson by the news media. Read the study or view the full report.

Continue reading "Too Much Michael Jackson? " >