Alleged Killer?
Jay Starkman has had it with NPR after listening to coverage of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who has been charged with killing 13 people at Ft. Hood on Nov.5.

"I can't take you any more! NPR is so PC, it insists on calling Hasan "alleged" and the name of his unnamed contact abroad is an "alleged" terrorist," wrote Starkman, of Atlanta, GA. "Wake-up! This was a TERRORIST act on U.S. soil, not unlike Timothy McVeigh." [McVeigh was behind the Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 in 1995.]

Another listener from Louisville, KY wrote: "Is there one shred, scintilla, mote, or nit-sized piece of evidence that Major Hasan did NOT shoot those people? If you have one, please share it. If you don't, please delete the word "allegedly" from your stories about him. If he is found not guilty because he was insane, that still does not mean he was not the killer, obviously."

I understand the frustration because, to listeners, it may seem clear that Hasan is responsible for murdering 13 men and women who have families. But in the United States, since our country's founding, a person is legally considered innocent until proven guilty.

Until Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty, for example, the press referred to him as the alleged mastermind of the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Right now, short of a confession or conviction in a court of law (rather than a court of public opinion), Hasan is still considered innocent.

Journalists use the word "allegedly" both to protect the suspect and honor one of the most important underlying premises of our nation's legal system. They also use the word to protect their news organizations.

There are plenty of cases where someone was accused of a crime and it seemed obvious that they did it, and then it turns out they didn't.

Slate has a good explainer on why journalists use allegedly.

Intelligent? Liberal?
This week NPR's audience research posted a "word cloud" online that indicated what terms come up most when listeners were asked to describe NPR and their local public radio stations. Informative, interesting and intelligent came up most. But so did liberal. Fair, objective, balanced and accurate weren't used as often. Take a look.

Annual Reports Updated Online
Some of you have been asking NPR to update its annual reports online. Citing the need for transparency in an organization that has the word "public" in its name, I have been making the same request for almost a year (until recently the latest report posted online was for 2005). And now the latest reports are online. What you will find are a list of sponsors and donors, shown by categories of how much they spent for fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Rahm Emanuel is a man whose name bedevils news organizations.

Of course, he is President Obama's two-fisted chief of staff. So, when he's quoted or mentioned on radio, TV, or print, reporters and anchors generally identify him on first reference as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

But for some reason -- most likely his unusual first name -- news organizations are conflicted on how to identify Emanuel on the second reference. Standard news editorial practice across the board is to give a person's full name on first reference and only the last name on second reference.

But not for Emanuel.

Oddly, several news organizations refer to him on a second reference as "Rahm Emanuel." NPR has just decided to make that a policy after correspondent Nina Totenberg referred to Emanuel three times by his first name only on-air.

Here's what Totenberg said on All Things Considered Nov. 13 in an interview with host Michele Norris about the announcement that White House counsel Gregory Craig was leaving the post. Totenberg first mentioned that Craig's status had been the subject of numerous White House leaks, which she attributed to Rahm Emmanuel (using his full name), then added:

"Was it Rahm not wanting to have another power center? Was it their personalities? Was it Rahm seeing the GITMO stuff as a distraction from the president's agenda? You know, these are very different animals. Rahm is someone who above all else, sees his job as winning. And Greg Craig has some very passionately held views on human rights and foreign policy and there was a conflict."

(Totenberg also never gave Emanuel's title so some listeners may have wondered who 'Rahm' was.)

When I asked her about this seemingly familiar reference to Emanuel, Totenberg said, "In Washington, and elsewhere, Rahm is known as Rahm , not because I know him, which I don't." (Though she says she has met him.)

The use of only Emanuel's first name concerned former reporter and editor, Bill Choyke, who used to cover the Supreme Court years ago with Totenberg.

"Just finished listening to Nina's story on the departure of Gregory Craig, and I was taken aback by her repeated reference to Rahm rather than the last name of the White House chief of staff," wrote Choyke. "Is this accepted referencing by NPR? I could not tell whether it was intended to portray the reporter as an insider or as a sign of disrespect to the chief of staff. Either way, it was not the way that I recall how impartial reporting should be done."

Choyke is right. NPR's senior vice president for news, Ellen Weiss, said it was a mistake -- and not NPR's style -- for Totenberg to refer to Emanuel only by his first name.

"While this is a breach of style rules," said Ron Elving, NPR's Washington editor in an email, "it's understandable that in an unscripted two-way conversation, any reporter would refer to 'Rahm' rather than Emanuel. I realize it sounds chummy and that's why it's not our style (exceptions made for a handful of entertainers and sports figures such as A-Rod or Kareem or Magic).

"But Nina, who is not social friends with Rahm Emanuel, is like anyone -- she uses the name that someone is recognized by," continued Elving. "And no one, absolutely no one, refers to Rahm Emanuel as Emanuel, or Mr. Emanuel, or Chief of Staff Emanuel. Therefore our style for him will have to be Rahm Emanuel, both names on first reference and second reference."

I checked around and with the help of NPR's librarian Janel White, we discovered that Emanuel may be the news business' exception to the rule on second references.

Here's the breakdown on how Emanuel is identified on other news outlets on the second reference:

CNN -- alternates between full name and Mr. Emanuel
Fox News -- full name
MSNBC -- alternates between full name and Mr. Emanuel
NBC -- alternates between full name and Mr. Emanuel
ABC -- Emanuel
CBS -- Emanuel
PBS -- full name
Washington Post -- Emanuel
New York Times -- Mr. Emanuel

If it were up to me, NPR would not have a special rule for Emanuel (he'd just be Emanuel) -- as it does for U.S. presidents.

Almost every day some astute listener's ears perk up when someone from NPR refers to the president on second reference as Mr. Obama. Many call and say that it's disrespectful to use "mister" and that NPR would never have said Mr. Bush on second reference for the previous president.

But in fact, NPR journalists did. It's been NPR's style since the mid 1970s to refer to the president of the United States as President X on the first reference and Mr. X or "the president" on the second reference.

Interested in hearing what Vivian Schiller, NPR's president and CEO has to say about Dan Schorr, pledge drives, the hard-to-follow public radio system, funding, iPhone apps and more?

Here's a link to an online conversation that Schiller did Tuesday with WashingtonPost.com.

One person asked Schiller about Dan Schorr, who at 93, still does a weekly commentary and appears on Saturday to talk about the week's news with Scott Simon on Weekend Edtion Saturday.

Derwood, Md.: Why do you keep Dan Schorr around? His analysis is reliably faulty, liberally-biased, and mean-spirited (yeah, I guess I'd feel the same way after what Nixon did to me). But still -- he really knocks down any credibility you have of being 'unbiased', especially since he is a part of the news wing, not entertainment.

This is a question I get from time to time from people asking when NPR will have a conservative commentator to balance what they see as liberal commentary from Schorr.

"The only way to answer is that Dan is a news analyst - not a commentator - and that he isn't representative of any one side of the debate," said Ellen Weiss, NPR's senior v.p. for news. "In other words, we don't expect him to naturally side with the left. But rather to take a position based on his reporting. In those cases where we are looking for a conversation or commentary that spans left to right, we bring together people who are happily identified with one side or the other."

As Ombudsman, one of my roles is to appear on local public radio stations, especially when listeners can call in with questions about NPR's journalism. Recently, I learned first-hand how easily it is to be misinterpreted.

I appeared on WAMU's The Kojo Nnamdi Show in Washington, DC on Oct. 20. Thirty minutes later I got this response:

"I was outraged by your comment today on the Kojo Nnamdi program that NPR should have more people like Glenn Beck who represent a certain point of view not heard on NPR," wrote Stefanie Weldon, of Silver Spring, MD. "The reason he isn't heard on NPR is because, like Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers and Creation Science proponents, NPR used to understand that not all points of view deserve airing. You apparently disagree and think racism, sexism and mendacity have a place at NPR. Until you convince me otherwise, not one penny of my money will go to pay your salary -- I guess that means not one penny of my money will go to NPR."

Usually I am the one examining those on air, and now I know how it feels to be on the other side of the mic, where it is perceived that I did something wrong.

First I want to explain that when listeners donate, the money goes to your public radio station -- and not directly to NPR. The donations are used in a variety of ways -- including but not solely --to pay for NPR content. So I hope that Weldon will continue to donate to WAMU.

After sending her an email, I went back and listened to the broadcast.

"When Glenn Beck is on NPR, I can be assured there will be a lot of emails," I said on WAMU. "I feel like, 'Hey you should hear what Glenn Beck has to say. Like it or not, he's influential.' "

That quote does not indicate that I think Beck should be on NPR every day, nor do I think that sexism, racism or lying have a place on NPR. But if Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Sarah Palin or any other prominent conservative firebrand is making headlines, NPR should report that as part of the news -- not to promote them but to include when putting news in context.

The same goes for prominent liberals such as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.

NPR media reporter David Folkenflik referenced Beck in an Oct. 14 report on All Things Considered on the Obama administration taking on Fox News. Folkenflik did not quote Beck. But he did explain a Beck-event that angered the White House:

"For example, Fox's Glenn Beck last month described Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor and head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as 'a man that believes that you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain.'

Sunstein's allies say his beliefs are a bit more nuanced than that. But Republicans were making related claims, and the next hour, Fox News aired a story by James Rosen in which the reporter told viewers: 'Rats could attack us in the sewer and court systems if all of Cass Sunstein's writings became law.'"

I've said it before, and I will reiterate it. NPR is a mainstream news outlet. Its duty is to inform the public of all that is going on -- and that means airing voices and stories that many listeners might not like or agree with.

If Beck or any other prominent commentator, from either the right or the left, is making news and seriously influencing the political process, then their actions should be reported on NPR. That doesn't mean I think someone like Beck should replace David Brooks as the conservative voice on Friday's news roundup.

But listeners deserve exposure to all sorts of voices discussing a wide range of perspectives on NPR -- not just those that are palatable to them.

Ironically, Beck is discussed more on NPR than heard from. The last time NPR listeners actually heard his voice was March 23, on All Things Considered.

The National Association of Black Journalists is questioning NPR's commitment to diversity after NPR let go one of only two African American males in newsroom management.

Greg Peppers, the executive producer for NPR's newscast unit -- which has the largest NPR audience -- left his position on Oct. 16 after joining NPR in the 1980s. That unit puts out 37 newscasts a day, seven days a week. News reports say Peppers was fired, but NPR's policy is not to release information on personnel matters.

The same week, NPR announced the retirement of Walt Swanston, an African-American woman, who has been NPR's director of diversity since 2003. While it looked conspiratorial, it wasn't. She is retiring for health reasons.

In reaction to Pepper's leaving, NABJ president Kathy Y. Times wrote that her organization "is saddened to learn that National Public Radio has fired one of its few remaining black managers."

According to NABJ's figures, of the 68 people on NPR's corporate team, only eight -- or 12 percent -- are people of color. Four African Americans. Two Hispanic Americans. One Iranian American. One of South Asian descent. (NPR says those figures are incorrect but acknowledges there is a problem.)

"It is NABJ's belief that actions speak much louder than your words," said the NABJ letter on Tuesday. "It is not enough to provide internships for young people or hire them into entry-level positions. Diversity must also be reflected among the managers who decide what news gets covered and who gets to cover it."

NPR's President and CEO Vivian Schiller reacted Thursday by publicly releasing NPR's staff composition for the first time. Of the 34 people NPR identifies as executive and upper management, only 4 -- or 11.8 percent -- are people of color, according to NPR figures.

"I couldn't agree more that NPR must increase the diversity of its staff -- particularly in management and editorial," wrote Schiller in response to NABJ's letter. "I am on the record with the media and our employees, stations and board in acknowledging that NPR must take a leadership position in diversity, just as we do in high-quality journalism and digital innovation." (NPR's Diversity Policy.)

Out of 754 employees, NPR has 506 management, editorial, production and on-air positions. Of these, 114 -- or 22.5 percent -- are staff who self-identify as people of color, according to Schiller's response. More than 22 percent of the 58 programming managers are people of color.

NABJ noted that the minority population in the U.S. is about 32 percent.

At NPR, 27.3 percent of the 754-person staff are people of color, according to Schiller's letter, which might seem to nearly mirror the U.S. population. But NPR's figures also show what most staffers at NPR already know -- the highest percentages of people of color are in clerical (64.2) and administrative (30.9). Here's the chart.

Out of 32 million people listening to public radio -- not just NPR -- on 800 stations, 12 percent are African Americans and 10 percent are Hispanics, according to Arbitron for spring 2009. [These are corrected figures as of 12:15 p.m. 10-30-2009]

For NPR's flagship programs -- Morning Edition and All Things Considered -- the listenership is lower. Five percent of the audience listening to those shows is African American and 4 percent of the audience is Hispanic, according to NPR-provided data (That compares with an audience share of 18 percent African American and 25 percent Hispanic for all of radio).

NPR needs to do better in diversifying its staff, especially in management. Another concern not addressed by NABJ or Schiller is that the only on-air African American male is Juan Williams, who is not a staff employee. Over a year ago, NPR's management put him on contract as a news analyst.

The lack of diversity within NPR's management was apparent to me when I first joined NPR in October 2007. Since then, there have been diversity meetings, committees, surveys, and they all conclude the same thing: NPR must focus on diversifying its staff, especially if NPR wants to better reflect the population and continue to expand its audience.

Schiller recently put together yet another new committee to explore how to better diversify the staff. She joined NPR only 10 months ago, and I hope she has more success.

A news product that doesn't accurately reflect the changing demographics -- including ethnicity, age, socioeconomics, gender, sexual identity and politics -- of the country loses its relevance.

Continue reading "NPR and Diversity-- NABJ Says NPR Must Do Better" >

Live radio is tricky. Some times reporters talking 'live' say things they instantly regret.

Just ask NPR political editor Ken Rudin, who appears on the Political Junkie segment every Wednesday on Talk of the Nation. He said something this week that resulted in a flood of instant criticism.

Rudin told listeners he thinks the Obama administration is unwise to take on Fox News. The administration has gone to war against the network calling it a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.

Rudin compared the administration's boycott with Fox to President Richard Nixon's enemies list. During the Watergate scandal, the Nixon administration compiled a list of enemies. Its official purpose was to "screw" Nixon's political enemies. Notably NPR's Dan Schorr was on it.

Here's what Rudin said:

"Well, it's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque. I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media; certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, 'Oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press.' And now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing."

Thursday, Rudin apologized, admitting he'd made a "boneheaded mistake."

"Comparing the tactics of the Nixon administration --which bugged and intimidated and harassed journalists -- to that of the Obama administration was foolish, facile, ridiculous and, ultimately embarrassing to me," wrote Rudin. "I should have known better and, in fact, I do know better. I was around during the Nixon years. I am fully cognizant of what they did and attempted to do."

As he noted in his apology, what the Obama administration is doing is a "far cry from illegal and unconstitutional activities."

While it was a dumb thing to say, I applaud Rudin for quickly apologizing. Journalists are going to make mistakes -- not intentionally but they will happen. Acknowledging them goes a long way to maintaining credibility.

NPR posted new guidelines Thursday to help its staff make use of the wide array of social media tools and still maintain NPR's credibility. Take a look at the guidelines and feel free to weigh in.

Why now?

"We've actually been working on this for a while," said Ellen Weiss, NPR's senior vice president for news. "But the truth is that through the Knight education, we have been training and encouraging our staff to use social media and this has raised all sorts of new questions. Many of these questions are addressed in our ethics code, many aren't. So I decided to pull together a small working group and develop some guidelines to help the staff."

These guidelines are mandatory for everyone in News, Programming, Digital Media, Communications, Legal divisions and officers of NPR, according to Vivian Schiller, NPR's CEO and president.

"And anyone using NPR-issued equipment or writing from their NPR email address (or providing that address for response) must also adhere to them," Schiller wrote in an email to staff. "But even if you fall outside those boundaries, you'd be smart to review the guidelines and follow them. NPR is first and foremost a news organization, which means staffers from Finance to Facilities represent the face of NPR's journalistic integrity."

Mark Stencel, managing editor for digital news, also wrote on Thursday about NPR's social media habits.

What do you think? I've already picked up grumblings among some staff -- who are not in news --who feel some parts of the guidelines are too restrictive and infringes on their right to a personal life outside of the office.

But I'm afraid I come down with Schiller on the need for NPR to at all costs protect the network's most valuable asset -- its credibility.

You might also want to read Michele McLellan of the Knight Digital Media Center's take on NPR's social media guidelines versus the Washington Post's. Here's something on the New York Times as well. This is clearly new territory and new organizations are tredding carefully.

NPR News Social Media Guidelines

Social networking sites, such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter have become an integral part of everyday life for millions of people around the world. As NPR grows to serve the audience well beyond the radio, social media is becoming an increasingly important aspect of our interaction and our transparency with our audience and with a variety of communities.

Properly used, social networking sites can also be very valuable newsgathering and reporting tools and can speed research and extend a reporter's contacts, and we encourage our journalists to take advantage of them.

The line between private and public activity has been blurred by these tools, which is why we are providing guidance now. Information from your Facebook page, your blog entries and your tweets -- even if you intend them to be personal messages to your friends or family -- can be easily circulated beyond your intended audience. This content, therefore, represents you and NPR to the outside world as much as a radio story or story for NPR.org does.

As in all of your reporting, the NPR Code of Ethics should guide you in your use of social media. You should read and be sure you understand the Code.

What follows are some basic but important guidelines to help you as you deal with the changing world of gathering and reporting news, and to provide additional guidance on specific issues. These guidelines apply to every member of the News Division.

First and foremost -- you should do nothing that could undermine your credibility with the public, damage NPR's standing as an impartial source of news or otherwise jeopardize NPR's reputation.

* Recognize that everything you write or receive on a social media site is public. Anyone with access to the web can get access to your activity on social media sites. And regardless of how careful you are in trying to keep them separate, in your online activity, your professional life and your personal life overlap.

* Use the highest level of privacy tools available to control access to your personal activity when appropriate, but don't let that make you complacent. It's just not that hard for someone to hack those tools and make public what you thought was private.

* You should conduct yourself in social media forums with an eye to how your behavior or comments might appear if we were called upon to defend them as a news organization. In other words, don't behave any differently online than you would in any other public setting.

* While we strongly encourage linking to NPR.org, you may not repost NPR copyrighted material to social networks without prior permission. For example, it is o.k. to link from your blog or Facebook profile to a story of yours on the NPR site, but you should not copy the full text or audio onto a personal site or Web page. You may accomplish this through the NPR API or widgets that NPR provides to the public under the same terms of use as apply to anyone else.

* Remember that the terms of service of a social media site apply to what you post and gather on that site. The terms might allow for material that you post to be used in a different way than you intended. Additionally, law enforcement officials may be able to obtain by subpoena anything you post or gather on a site without your consent -- or perhaps even your knowledge.

* Remember the same ethics rules as apply offline also apply to information gathered online.

* Journalism should be conducted in the open, regardless of the platform. Just as you would do if you were working offline, you should identify yourself as an NPR journalist when you are working online. If you are acting as an NPR journalist, you must not use a pseudonym or misrepresent who you are. If you are acting in a personal capacity, you may use a screen name if that is allowed by the relevant forum.

* You should always explain to anyone who provides you information online how you intend to use the information you are gathering.

* When possible, clarify and confirm any information you collect online by later interviewing your online sources by phone or in person.

* While widely disseminated and reported, material gathered online can be just as inaccurate or untrustworthy as some material collected or received in more traditional ways. As always, consider and verify the source.

* Content gathered online is subject to the same attribution rules as other content.

* You must not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online. This extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org.

* Your simple participation in some online groups could be seen to indicate that you endorse their views. Consider whether you can accomplish your purposes by just observing a group's activity, rather than becoming a member. If you do join, be clear that you've done so to seek information or story ideas. And if you "friend" or join a group representing one side of an issue, do so for a group representing the competing viewpoint, when reasonable to do so.

* Realize that social media communities have their own culture, etiquette and norms, and be respectful of them.

* If you are writing about meetings and gatherings at NPR -- always ask first if the forum is on or off the record before distributing information or content about it.

And a final caution -- when in doubt, consult with your editor. Social media is a very dynamic ecosystem so don't be surprised if we continue to revise or elaborate on our guidelines at a later date. In the mean time, we welcome your feedback.

Elizabeth Doherty thinks that Scott Simon, host of Weekend Edition Saturday, makes too much money.

Simon's $300,648 salary was included in a survey of Washington, DC-area salaries printed in the Washington Post on Sept.7. Doherty said she had considered re-starting her lapsed membership with her local station, WAMU, until she saw Simon's salary.

"I considered rejoining until the Washington Post article Labor Day weekend about local salaries," wrote Doherty, of Silver Spring, Md. "If NPR can afford to pay that kind of salary to on-air talent, then surely you can share some of your riches with local NPR affiliates. They don't need my $50. I wonder how much Mr. Simon donates to HIS local public radio station, which is also WAMU."

So I asked Simon. Does he give to WAMU?

"I don't mind saying--in fact, I'm proud of saying--that my wife and I belong to: WBEZ, WAMU, WNYC, KCRW, KPCC, and KCPW," said Simon. "I also, in the course of a year, usually join any local public station at which I make an appearance, and I make something like 20 a year (so soon I will re-join OPB, KPLW, GPB, etc.)

And as for his salary, here's what Simon has to say:

"I am grateful for the salary that I earn and feel that it is merited by the popularity of our program, the audience our show generates, the number of interviews, essays, and reported pieces that I do, and whatever value I have to NPR that may contribute to our relationship with the public," said Simon, who joined NPR in 1977.

"There are a few other people in public radio who earn more, both at weekly and daily programs," he continued. "Most everybody in commercial broadcasting earns a lot more. I try to be worthy of my salary each and every week, as well as the trust of the audience. I am grateful to each and every person who contributes to public radio and has helped make possible the really blessed professional life that I have been able to enjoy and, I hope, share with millions of listeners."

Readers might be interested in this piece in the Columbia Journalism Review that notes CBS anchor Katie Couric is paid the equivalent of what it costs to produce two NPR shows, Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

Adding this at 3:45 p.m, which was posted today: NPR CEO Vivian Schiller takes a pay cut:

MORE ON SIMON
Some listeners were disturbed by Simon's interview on Sept. 5 with novelist Lorrie Moore about her new book, "A Gate at the Stairs." In the interview, Moore read a section in her book where a character fantacizes about driving a steak knife through former Bush operative Karl Rove. After that she and Simon laughed.

Simon was laughing most directly at the absurdity of her punclhine, in a fictional story, but still he shouldn't have laughed. And he knows that. He apologized to listeners on Sept. 19. Here's a clip of the apology:

He also posted an apology under the comments section of the original interview.

Here's Simon's comment posted on Sept. 7:

"If I thought for a moment that Lorrie Moore was making a serious appeal to harm anyone, I would have made that the center of the interview. She was writing a passage satirizing overheard conversation in a small, smug, mostly liberal college town. The remark about Karl Rove--and the instantaneous admission that it was wrong--are part of that satire. I'm sure Ms. Moore has her own political convictions. But people should not infer what they think they are from an isolated satirical passage in a novel. In any case, I doubt they would include physically harming anybody in any case. The irony (hope I'm using the word correctly) here is that liberals should be touchier about this section than conservatives--it satirizes the kind of person who say they oppose war, but seem to countenance verbal violence."

From the transcript:
Ms. MOORE: Is this Sarah Vaughn on the stereo? Sure is. Man, listen to her scat. (Soundbite of music) And you say you don't believe in such a thing as black culture? I don't. Ever heard Julie Andrews scat? I don't believe in gay culture or white culture or female culture or any of that. It's just so dream world, baby. Ever heard Julie Andrews at all? Hey, you don't need blue eyes if you've got blue earrings.

I didn't know what they were talking about most of the time, but sometimes in recalling certain remarks, the context would clarify them. Certain phrases like a dusting of sand would float across my mind and heap to a sort of glass. I'd seen scat, and now here it was as an admirable thing.

Vaughn takes autumn leaves and turns it into "Finnegan's Wake." Is that your argument? Yeah, kind of an Irish one over beer. I'm drinking beer. When we were in France, the French customs officials looked at us in a bewildered way. But look, they said, as if they were pointing out something we'd failed to notice. You are white and your son is black; how can this be? As if it defied science or as if we had never regarded our own skin color before. And I had to say in English and in anger: This is what an American family looks like.

The rest of the world doesn't understand the ungovernable diversity of this country - diversity made even more extreme by capitalism and by Karl Rove. I was once in a restaurant and saw Karl Rove sitting across the room and for five minutes I thought: I could take this steak knife and walk over there and change history right now. And, well, as you can see, I chose to stay a free woman. Would anyone care for a timbale?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Continue reading "Scott Simon's Salary and Steak Knives" >

On Sept. 10, two now-infamous videos of ACORN employees giving a faux prostitute and pimp advice on tax breaks and home loans for a business involving underage El Salvadoran girls were posted at biggovernment.com.

The website, launched that day, was the brainchild of Andrew Breibart, a conservative who helped make the Drudge Report famous. Breibart advised the two posing conservative activists that the mainstream media would never believe their damning videos.

He was right.

The conservative-leaning Fox News broke the story that day, but the rest of mainstream media, including NPR, was slow to respond. There may be a good reason.

"Why has NPR totally ignored an important story about illegal activities with this organization, ACORN?" asked Marilu Orozco-Peterson, of Ft. Collins, CO on Sept. 16. "Maybe America should vote to stop funding for NPR if you have such a radical political agenda and don't relate important information that may embarrass a liberal president."

NPR hasn't ignored the videos story, which ultimately damaged ACORN, a community organizing group that's been around since the 1970s helping low-income people. Last week, Congress voted to deny federal funds for ACORN.

Four days after the videos appeared on Fox, NPR first mentioned the video story on its blog, The Two Way at 7:39 pm. The posting was extensive and gave the views of ACORN and its critics but, overall, seemed primarily to ask why conservatives are so focused on this one group.

On Sept. 15, NPR's Pam Fessler, who covers poverty and philanthropy, conducted a "two-way" interview about the ACORN videos on All Things Considered with host Melissa Block.

"This is very much a story of accumulation," Fessler told me. "The first two videotapes were of interest, but did not necessarily warrant a piece by us initially, considering all the other things going on in the world that we need to cover."

Fessler said the story took on more importance after the Census Bureau cut ACORN's funding on Sept. 11 and the Senate voted to cut housing funding on Sept. 14. "When that happened, we did in fact report on the issue," said Fessler.

The Two Way did two more postings on the story on Sept. 16. Talk of the Nation discussed ACORN that same day.

Fessler did a second report for Morning Edition on Sept. 17 -- a week after the videos appeared online -- about how ACORN was dealing with fallout from the videos.

"Hindsight is 20/20 and it's always better to be out in front of a story than behind it," said Steven Drummond, NPR national editor. "But the idea that we were intentionally late, that's ridiculous. No one likes to play catch up. At the end of the weekend, it was clear this was a story that moved beyond being an Internet prank to raise broader, serious concerns."

While the videos are certainly riveting, in the age of Internet hoaxes it was critical for NPR's credibility to verify that the videos were real.

"There are many, many aspects to this story -- large number of them political," noted Fessler, who joined NPR in 1993. "I think it's important that we not rush on air things that need to be checked out. Those videotapes could have been completely phony, and initially ACORN did charge that they were doctored."

Christopher Martin, a journalism professor at University of Northern Iowa, points out that the mainstream media needed initially to be wary of the videos.

The videos were posted on a conservative website (same would be true if videos were posted on a liberal website). Videographer James O'Keefe was not well-known at the time the videos emerged, nor were his motives in what amounted to a private sting operation against ACORN. Also, the videos were edited, so there was no way of knowing what, if anything had been excluded.

"Who knows what journalistic standards went into creating this?" said Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times on CNN.

Initially, for example, O'Keefe, 25, did not publicize that he and his actress partner, Hannah Giles, 20, were thrown out of ACORN's Philadelphia office, which also called the police. That said, O'Keefe did capture ACORN employees in Baltimore, Brooklyn and Washington, DC on camera trying to help the pair with their supposed plans to carry out illegal activities.

It was clear the videos were real before Fessler's first report aired the evening of Sept. 15.

But according to a research study released Wednesday on press coverage of ACORN, NPR and others in the mainstream media had reason to be cautious. The report outlines -- using empirical data compiled by academic researchers -- how successful the right has been in going after ACORN.

"What we found is there had been a concerted campaign for several years against ACORN by conservative media and some Republican politicians and it came to a head in October 2008 as a campaign issue," said Martin, the Iowa journalism professor who co-authored the study "Manipulating the Public Agenda: Why ACORN was in the News and What the News Got Wrong." Martin's co-author was Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College. Neither is connected to ACORN nor did they take outside funding.

The study notes the Republican National Committee in May 2009 launched a website, stopacorn.gop.com, targeting the group.

The study evaluated 647 stories about ACORN by 15 major news organizations, including NPR. The data portion of the study looked at stories from 2007-2008, but the analysis included ACORN news developments through August. More than half (55 percent) of the 647 stories included allegations of "voter fraud" by ACORN.

Martin said the media did a terrible job of fact-checking allegations against ACORN.

Most of the news media coverage about ACORN was one-sided and repeated conservative and Republican criticisms of the group, said the study, "without seeking to verify them or provide ACORN or its supporters with a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations."

A common mistake in the mainstream media, the study said, was to confuse voter registration fraud with voter fraud. Registration fraud involves collecting names of people who aren't eligible to vote. An example of voter fraud would be helping people vote more than once.

ACORN is being investigated for voter registration fraud, but there is no evidence of voter fraud, a far more serious charge.

"The mainstream media rarely acknowledged that those two things were different," said Martin. "They tended to use voter fraud when meaning voter registration fraud, so those issues were confused."

NPR did well in the study. "NPR spent a lot of time on the voter fraud story, sometimes providing important background on the story's history," said the study.

"We meant that NPR, more than any other news organization we studied, had a higher percentage of its stories covering the theme or narrative of ACORN's voter registration work," said Martin. "That is, not talking about it in terms of voter fraud allegations, but in terms of work ACORN does in assisting in the registration of voters."

The study's message is that journalists were too quick to buy conservative condemnations of ACORN without checking facts. News reports also rarely gave ACORN credit for its successes during the last four decades helping low-income people register to vote and get higher minimum wages and better housing. (Martin believes conservatives are anti-ACORN because the group helps low-income people and minorities who are not likely to vote Republican.)

The conservative media's campaign against ACORN, as documented by Martin, may well be one reason why the mainstream media was slow to pick up or trust biggovernment.com's story.

Even if Martin's study correctly documents an effort to discredit ACORN with the help of unquestioning journalists, that doesn't mean that the news media should automatically disregard claims made by interest groups with conservative (or any) agendas.

This issue should remind journalists that claims from any interest group should be checked out and then reported -- if proven to be credible. Obviously, not every group or claim deserves scrutiny, but the ACORN situation certainly meets the test of an issue of public importance.

ACORN may or may not deserve all the criticism heaped on it. But in this case, ACORN deserved intense -- not halting -- scrutiny from any reputable media organization. The same is true for the groups that have raised allegations against ACORN. Allegations need to be checked out -- not just repeated.

For all ACORN stories on NPR, click here.

Continue reading "The ACORN Videos: Did NPR Ignore Them?" >

When a Yale University lab technician was questioned in the death of a graduate student Wednesday morning, the specter of two men was very much on the minds of NPR editors.

One was Richard Jewell. The other was Dr. Steven J. Hatfill.

Jewell was a security guard who became the focus of an FBI investigation into the bombing at Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park in 1996 that killed one woman and injured 111.

Hatfill was a former government scientist whose name was leaked to the press in 2002 as someone connected to the anthrax mailings in 2001 that killed five people.

Neither man was ever arrested or charged with a crime.

But the media made their lives miserable after law enforcement sources anonymously named each man a "person of interest" in the high-profile cases.

So it's understandable that NPR editors were cautious when an Associated Press story was fed to NPR early on Sept. 16. The story said that Raymond Clark III was a "person of interest" in the death of Yale graduate student Annie Le. Clark, 24, an animal research technician, at that point had not been charged with a crime and had been released from New Haven police custody.

"Clark has been described as a person of interest, not a suspect, in Le's death," read an AP story posted on npr.org at 10:32 a.m. "New Haven Police Chief James Lewis said police were hoping to compare DNA taken from Clark's hair, fingernails and saliva to more than 150 pieces of evidence collected from the crime scene."

Randy Lilleston, a supervising editor for NPR digital, was the first editor to spot the AP story. The question became: should NPR use Clark's name even though news organizations commonly identify someone associated with a crime only if they are arrested or charged?

"The answer clearly was yes it was appropriate to identify him because the police chief had openly and publicly identified him," said Lilleston, "and because in my opinion it was very newsworthy." In the Hatfill and Jewell cases, information was leaked to the media by unnamed sources. By contrast, Clark's name was announced at a well-attended press conference with the police chief.

Mark Memmott, who blogs on NPR's The Two-Way, posted an item at 8:45 a.m. about Clark's release. After that, a discussion ensued among NPR editors about the appropriateness of using Clark's name.

"Richard Jewell was very much in my mind," said Stuart Seidel, deputy managing editor. Seidel sent an email to all news staff at 12:19 p.m. explaining that NPR would continue to use Clark's name, but anyone reporting on the story must mention that Clark had not been charged and was released after questioning.

Are those caveats enough? In this case, it's now a moot point. Clark was arrested for Le's murder Thursday.

Even so, the question remains whether the press should publicize the name of a "person of interest." In this case, the police chief's televised press conference was pretty close to an arrest and could hardly be ignored. But in general, I'd say not. The potential damage to someone's life is so great, as is the margin for error when police are under intense pressure to come up with suspects in high-profile cases. Jewell said the media went after him "like piranha on a bleeding cow."

Both Jewell and Hatfill won generous financial compensation for the pain and disruption they endured. But it's unlikely the money compensated for the loss of the lives they led before each became a "person of interest."

''There are parts of the old Richard that aren't there anymore,'' Jewell told The New York Times in 1997. ''Who's going to give me back my old life? Who's going to give me back the trust, the trust that I used to have in people?'' Jewell died in 2007 at 44.

But there's another twist to Clark's case that is likely to come up repeatedly. Because the AP is fed automatically to NPR's news website, Clark's name appeared on npr.org -- though not on the homepage-- before NPR editors even had a chance to talk about whether to use it. The AP autofeed appears under NPR's News section on the right under AP Latest Headlines.

However, before the Clark story got more prominent play on NPR's homepage or The Two-Way, editor Lilleston had both seen and approved it.

"The automated feed of AP copy is not especially prominent on NPR.org," said Mark Stencel, NPR's managing editor digital news. "That said, we, like many news organizations that use those feeds on their sites, are somewhat -- but not entirely -- at the mercy of AP's editorial decisions. Like many of those same news organizations, we signal our own editorial thinking with the prominence and emphasis we give those reports. There are times we will post wire stories only after NPR has independently confirmed the details."

Autofeeds certainly increase the possibility of something being published that NPR might not be prepared to publish.

Just ask the Cleveland Plain Dealer. It had decided to not run the controversial AP photo of a dying Marine. But the AP slide show wound up on the Plain Dealer's website as part of an automatic feed. Only hours later did someone from the paper realize the mistake.

The same thing happened for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Houston Chronicle, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Evansville (Ind.) Courier & Press.

The lesson to be learned here? If a news organization wants to have its own editorial standards, even in this era of Internet publishing, it will have to be eagle-eyed about everything posted on its website -- and will have to make sure that everyone on the staff understands what those standards are.

(In October 1996, I wrote about the media frenzy surrounding theJewell case for American Journalism Review.)

Republishing this because due to a technical glitch it was not sent out via email. I am in Monterrey and San Francisco visiting public radio stations KAZU and KQED respectively, and will return to the office on Wednesday and do a posting then.

On the Media looked at this issue this week and found that some Marines were not upset about the media running this photo.

SANTIAGO LYON, AP Director of Photography: Well, for me it's interesting that the Marines on the ground in Afghanistan, from the commanding general of that particular battalion down to the company commander, have told us that they really don't have a problem with what we did, that they understand that it's our job to photograph and capture reality and that we did our job. They really don't seem that concerned about it. And this is coming from the men on the ground actually fighting the war.

Take a listen.
ACS.

John and Sharon Bernard's only son, Joshua, 21, was wounded on Aug. 14 when a rocket-propelled grenade blew off one of his legs and severely injured the other during a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan.

"His comrades struggled with tourniquets and battlefield first aid while still under heavy enemy fire, but sadly, for this young, mortally wounded Marine, this attack would mean the end of his life a short time later," wrote Jim Bennett on his blog, the bloviating hammerhead.

Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson, who was embedded with Bernard's Marine unit, shot the scene from a respectful distance, as military guidelines require. Embedded photographers are only allowed to shoot from a distance and may not show the facial features of the person who has been killed or wounded.

Jacobson captured the gruesome death of Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard, a young man from New Portland, Maine, whose parents had home-schooled him and who taught Bible studies to fellow Marines in his Afghanistan unit. He loved literature, was an avid hiker, an Iraqi war veteran and hoped to become a U.S. marshall.

The picture conveys the loss to the Bernards, to their son's unit and to the rest of the United States as well as graphically depicting the cost of war beyond the lives and billions of dollars already spent. The question becomes what to do with this photograph. Should it be published?

We hear on the news of soldiers -- or civilians -- dying in Afghanistan or Iraq almost daily. Most of us have become inured. Those killed are statistics. But the photo of Bernard lying on the ground, covered in blood, shortly before dying reminds us that real people -- sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters -- are dying.

As a journalist, I say, publish the photo. As the mother of a 22-year-old, I would want the world to know what my son sacrificed for his country. But Joshua Bernard's parents don't share those sentiments.

They adamantly did not want the AP to distribute the photo to its newspaper, broadcast and online clients. They had the chance to make their feelings known because the AP, showing remarkable sensitivity, shared the photos with the family a few days after the Aug. 24 funeral.

Bennett, of the bloviating hammerhead was outraged at AP's decision and interviewed John Bernard, a career Marine.

Bernard said he handed the photos back to the AP reporter, adding: "Look, neither my wife nor daughter needs to see this. Nobody needs to see this. So if you're asking me for my permission, you don't have it. You need to go back and tell them that absolutely no one needs to see this. It doesn't honor him. It doesn't honor the Corps. It doesn't honor God. It doesn't honor this country, and it doesn't do them (AP), as a news agency, any service whatsoever."

Four days later, Bernard called AP again asking them to spare his family more pain. Last Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked AP to hold back the pictures.

After much discussion and thought, the AP decided to release the photos. Last Thursday, it sent them with an embargo so that editors across the nation would have time to reflect within their own newsrooms on whether to run the disturbing images. Read the AP's statement.

"I have very little use for the people who took the picture and even less for those who ran it," Bernard told Bennett. "They had plenty of time to reflect on it, and they did it anyway."

When NPR received the AP photos, four editors discussed whether to publish them on the website. They decided to run two on NPR's news blog, The Two-Way. In a posting on Sept. 4 at 5:26 p.m., Frank James wrote a short story.

The photos were put behind a screen warning viewers that if they clicked on it, they might find the images unsettling. The decision to look at the photos was then, up to the individual.

It's important to note that NPR did not blithely post the photos, but gave a lot of thought to the decision, and James explained the reasoning in his post. In such situations, it's critical that news organizations explain their decision-making. NPR also linked to the AP story about Bernard.

"After talking it over, I felt that the picture was a legitimate, albeit grim, image that was part of the overall story of the Afghan war we have tried to tell since the beginning and have done with considerable care and thoroughness," said NPR senior vice president for news, Ellen Weiss. "The embedding of journalists should reflect not just the story of military or policy successes but has to tell the stories of sacrifices and loss."

NPR also included in The Two-Way a discussion about the AP decision to send the photos out to news organizations.

"Often when discussing tough calls like this one, we try to see that no harm is done to the parties involved. Or that if harm does occur, we minimize it as best we can," said Keith Jenkins, who runs NPR's multimedia department. "I felt that AP tried to do that when they met with the family in advance of releasing the photo. We tried to do that by providing context through Frank James' blog post and by giving our viewers the ability to opt out of viewing the image, as well as to see other photos of Lance. Cpl. Bernard and his unit as they honored him in a memorial service."

In an ideal world, I'd advocate that NPR not go against the family's wishes, especially since they were so clear. I'd say to look for alternatives. With hundreds of soldiers dying, is this the only photo of dying soldier?

But the reality is that images of U.S soldiers killed in combat have not been widely disseminated because it's unusual for photographers to witness the deaths, and because of military restrictions. Only recently have journalists been allowed to photograph coffins as they are unloaded from military airplanes.

"Going back to the beginning of the Iraq War, we have seen very, very few of these photos," said Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher (a newspaper trade publication) and author of "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq."

Mitchell appeared Tuesday on a Talk of the Nation segment on this topic.

"And that's why whenever there is a photo of this type, it's very controversial because we've hardly ever seen them," Mitchell said. "And many people feel that the war has been sanitized and that no one could really accuse the news media -- whatever you think of this particular incident -- no one could possibly accuse the new media of showing so many of these images over the years. There have been very, very few exceptions in this. And so, (the media have) demonstrated incredible restraint. Some people feel too much restraint."

War is messy, painful, expensive and confusing. We need to be told regularly of the sacrifices made by the soldiers and civilians who are suffer in all wars. I'm sorry that the Bernards had to pay a price -- twice -- to remind the rest of us what is too easy to forget as we go about our lives tuning out the news of yet another military death.

It may be a small consolation, but many of us now know much more about Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard -- and the ultimate sacrifice he made on behalf of you and me.

Here is the AP narrated slide show that tells of Bernard's last day, including the controversial photo--with a warning.

John and Sharon Bernard's only son, Joshua, 21, was wounded on Aug. 14 when a rocket-propelled grenade blew off one of his legs and severely injured the other during a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan.

"His comrades struggled with tourniquets and battlefield first aid while still under heavy enemy fire, but sadly, for this young, mortally wounded Marine, this attack would mean the end of his life a short time later," wrote Jim Bennett on his blog, the bloviating hammerhead.

Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson, who was embedded with Bernard's Marine unit, shot the scene from a respectful distance, as military guidelines require. Embedded photographers are only allowed to shoot from a distance and may not show the facial features of the person who has been killed or wounded.

Jacobson captured the gruesome death of Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard, a young man from New Portland, Maine, whose parents had home-schooled him and who taught Bible studies to fellow Marines in his Afghanistan unit. He loved literature, was an avid hiker, an Iraqi war veteran and hoped to become a U.S. marshall.

The picture conveys the loss to the Bernards, to their son's unit and to the rest of the United States as well as graphically depicting the cost of war beyond the lives and billions of dollars already spent. The question becomes what to do with this photograph. Should it be published?

We hear on the news of soldiers -- or civilians -- dying in Afghanistan or Iraq almost daily. Most of us have become inured. Those killed are statistics. But the photo of Bernard lying on the ground, covered in blood, shortly before dying reminds us that real people -- sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters -- are dying.

As a journalist, I say, publish the photo. As the mother of a 22-year-old, I would want the world to know what my son sacrificed for his country. But Joshua Bernard's parents don't share those sentiments.

They adamantly did not want the AP to distribute the photo to its newspaper, broadcast and online clients. They had the chance to make their feelings known because the AP, showing remarkable sensitivity, shared the photos with the family a few days after the Aug. 24 funeral.

Bennett, of the bloviating hammerhead was outraged at AP's decision and interviewed John Bernard, a career Marine.

Bernard said he handed the photos back to the AP reporter, adding: "Look, neither my wife nor daughter needs to see this. Nobody needs to see this. So if you're asking me for my permission, you don't have it. You need to go back and tell them that absolutely no one needs to see this. It doesn't honor him. It doesn't honor the Corps. It doesn't honor God. It doesn't honor this country, and it doesn't do them (AP), as a news agency, any service whatsoever."

Four days later, Bernard called AP again asking them to spare his family more pain. Last Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked AP to hold back the pictures.

After much discussion and thought, the AP decided to release the photos. Last Thursday, it sent them with an embargo so that editors across the nation would have time to reflect within their own newsrooms on whether to run the disturbing images. Read the AP's statement.

"I have very little use for the people who took the picture and even less for those who ran it," Bernard told Bennett. "They had plenty of time to reflect on it, and they did it anyway."

When NPR received the AP photos, four editors discussed whether to publish them on the website. They decided to run two on NPR's news blog, The Two-Way. In a posting on Sept. 4 at 5:26 p.m., Frank James wrote a short story.

The photos were put behind a screen warning viewers that if they clicked on it, they might find the images unsettling. The decision to look at the photos was then, up to the individual.

It's important to note that NPR did not blithely post the photos, but gave a lot of thought to the decision, and James explained the reasoning in his post. In such situations, it's critical that news organizations explain their decision-making. NPR also linked to the AP story about Bernard.

"After talking it over, I felt that the picture was a legitimate, albeit grim, image that was part of the overall story of the Afghan war we have tried to tell since the beginning and have done with considerable care and thoroughness," said NPR senior vice president for news, Ellen Weiss. "The embedding of journalists should reflect not just the story of military or policy successes but has to tell the stories of sacrifices and loss."

NPR also included in The Two-Way a discussion about the AP decision to send the photos out to news organizations.

"Often when discussing tough calls like this one, we try to see that no harm is done to the parties involved. Or that if harm does occur, we minimize it as best we can," said Keith Jenkins, who runs NPR's multimedia department. "I felt that AP tried to do that when they met with the family in advance of releasing the photo. We tried to do that by providing context through Frank James' blog post and by giving our viewers the ability to opt out of viewing the image, as well as to see other photos of Lance. Cpl. Bernard and his unit as they honored him in a memorial service."

In an ideal world, I'd advocate that NPR not go against the family's wishes, especially since they were so clear. I'd say to look for alternatives. With hundreds of soldiers dying, is this the only photo of dying soldier?

But the reality is that images of U.S soldiers killed in combat have not been widely disseminated because it's unusual for photographers to witness the deaths, and because of military restrictions. Only recently have journalists been allowed to photograph coffins as they are unloaded from military airplanes.

"Going back to the beginning of the Iraq War, we have seen very, very few of these photos," said Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher (a newspaper trade publication) and author of "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq."

Mitchell appeared Tuesday on a Talk of the Nation segment on this topic.

"And that's why whenever there is a photo of this type, it's very controversial because we've hardly ever seen them," Mitchell said. "And many people feel that the war has been sanitized and that no one could really accuse the news media -- whatever you think of this particular incident -- no one could possibly accuse the new media of showing so many of these images over the years. There have been very, very few exceptions in this. And so, (the media have) demonstrated incredible restraint. Some people feel too much restraint."

War is messy, painful, expensive and confusing. We need to be told regularly of the sacrifices made by the soldiers and civilians who are suffer in all wars. I'm sorry that the Bernards had to pay a price -- twice -- to remind the rest of us what is too easy to forget as we go about our lives tuning out the news of yet another military death.

It may be a small consolation, but many of us now know much more about Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard -- and the ultimate sacrifice he made on behalf of you and me.

Here is the AP narrated slide show that tells of Bernard's last day, including the controversial photo--with a warning.

I wanted to respond to Eric Newton's post asking about the business decision to stop charging for transcripts. I thought I would share this blog posting. I have been on vacation, furlough, and am now out in San Diego visiting KPBS.

Eric Newton wrote this post about the transcripts on Aug. 21.
As much as we appreciate the journalism... wouldn't this business story be just a little more helpful with a few actual numbers? Such as... how many people used to use the pay service? ... at $3.95 each, how much did that bring in each year? ... how much did the translation cost NPR each year? ... how much, thus, was NPR losing each year (presuming in the absence of numbers that it was a losing proposition) ... given the debates between content being behind "pay walls" ... what is the lesson here? is it that few will pay for a transcript when the audio is free? Hard to derive meaning from a business story with no numbers... appreciate the public service of releasing the transcripts for free, simply want to know more facts.

NPR's response:
Why NPR.org Scrapped The Fees And Made Transcripts Free

By Bruce Melzer
Director, Digital Media Business Development
August 24, 2009
One of the biggest changes we made with the launch of the new NPR.org was offering free transcripts on the site. Ever since NPR started transcribing its radio programs in 1990, we have been selling transcripts to help defray the costs of producing them. In the old days, we used to mail out copies of the transcripts, a time-consuming and expensive process for all involved. In 2002 we added e-commerce to the transcript operation and were able to drop the prices and deliver the transcripts via email.

Why did we give up this revenue stream? First and foremost, the users expect to be able to come to our site and read the story they heard on the air. As rich as the radio stories are, reading is faster than listening, our users told us. Although we were writing Web versions of many radio stories, a number of stories still didn't have much text. Making transcripts free solved that.

A second reason is accessibility for deaf and hard-of-hearing users. Although NPR has always had a policy of providing free transcripts to these users, we eliminated the need for them to contact us for transcript copies.

There are solid business reasons for making transcripts free. Sales have been dropping over the years. As people search for, discover and share content, offering free transcripts will boost the traffic to NPR.org, traffic that can be monetized with sponsorship. Finally, search engines like text. Many of our stories could not be found by the search engines because they did not have enough text. Now it will be easier for the search engines -- and ultimately the users -- to find and enjoy NPR's stories.

(ACS: Eric asked about the costs and I was told that NPR does not release detailed budget lines to the public about individual product lines.)

POST LAST WEEK
Transcripts of favorite, missed or maddening stories on NPR used to cost $3.95 each, but now they are free on NPR.org.

Previously, NPR charged for transcripts because an outside contractor worked fast to prepare them to be available to the library within a few hours of a piece airing. It was a costly expense which NPR did for the benefit of classrooms and deaf audiences, or anyone who wrote to Listener Services and was willing to pay.

As of the new NPR.org site re-launch on July 27, over 20,000 visitors had gone online to get transcripts.

Now, all you have to do to get a story's text is visit www.NPR.org and click on the transcript link to the right of the audio button, located just below the story's title.

Quotes from these transcripts are for non-commercial use only, and may not be used in any other media without attribution to NPR.

Why now?

"Transcripts were once largely the province of librarians and other specialists whose job was to find archival content, often for professional purposes," said Kinsey Wilson, the Senior VP of NPR's Digital Media department. "As Web content becomes easier to share and distribute, and search and social media have become important drivers of audience engagement, archival content -- whether in the form of stories or transcripts -- has an entirely different value than it did in the past."

NPR took the new website launch as an opportunity to offer free transcripts, according to Laura Soto-Barra, NPR's Senior Librarian.

"We made a decision to go ahead even though NPR pays a considerable amount of money to produce transcripts on deadline," said Soto-Barra. "Transcripts are posted six hours after the shows air, except for Morning Edition's transcripts which are posted four hours after the show is broadcast. We have offered free audio for a long time and we felt that free transcripts were long overdue."

New software allows NPR's staff to receive daily metrics and supply data for "most popular transcripts yesterday", most popular transcripts for the last seven days" and "most popular transcript ever".

Keep in mind transcript coordinators do their best to catch and correct errors on the text. But since there is a quick turn-around time on transcripts, mistakes can occur. If you notice a spelling or typographical error, please email Transcripts@npr.org, where it can be corrected.
Soto-Barra said that NPR transcripts may contain minor or significant errors, ranging from the use of "ex-patriot" instead of "expatriate."

In another example, a transcriber mistakenly quoted filmmaker John Waters as saying of former Manson follower Leslie Van Houten: "She's a yuppie," when what he really said was, "She's not a yuppie."

Transcript coordinators "Dorothy Hickson and Laura Jeffrey do their best to find and correct errors but unfortunately, they cannot proofread every piece," said Soto-Barra. "Librarians and transcript coordinators appreciate when someone calls their attention to errors, particularly when they involve name spellings and use of (unintelligible)."

The emails and calls keep arriving. They want to correct NPR. The newly confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor will not be the first Hispanic Supreme Court judge.

That honor, they say, should go to Benjamin Cardozo who joined the court in 1932.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor at an East Room ceremony at the White House in Washington. May 26, 2009(Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press (c) 2009)

"Your show, and many others, keep referring to Sotomayor as the 'first Hispanic and the third woman' to serve on the Supreme Court," wrote Gedalia Snow Rowe of Washington, NC. "I believe Benjamin Cardozo was the first Hispanic to hold that honor."

Even before Sotomayor was nominated for the highest court on May 26, NPR began discussing whether Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic and concluded she was. Cardozo had some Portuguese ancestors but his family was Sephardic Jewish and he was regarded as a Jewish appointee in 1932, according to NPR Washington editor, Ron Elving. In fact, the term "Hispanic" wasn't even used in the 1930s.

Please listen to this 50-second piece that appeared on All Things Considered on May 26.

Talk of the Nation brought Andrew Kaufman on the air to deal with this question. Kaufman, a Harvard law professor, is author of a 1998 book, Cardozo, considered a definitive biography of the justice.

Here's what Kaufman had to say:

NEAL CONAN: Well, Justice Cardozo took his seat on the High Court in 1932. He was a descendant of Sephardic Jews who emigrated to the United States from England and Holland, but his biographer Andrew Kaufman told us it's complicated.

Mr. ANDREW KAUFMAN (Author, "Cardozo"): The family's legend is that the Cardozos came originally from Portugal. But there is no firm documentation about the particulars, although the name Cardozo is a fairly common name in Portugal and Brazil even today. Many Spanish and - would deny that Portuguese are Hispanic. Many Jews do not regard themselves as ethnically part of the European country they came from."

Kaufman continued, "Many Sephardic Jews, however, do regard themselves as ethnically Spanish and Portuguese. But so far as I know, whether one was Hispanic was not an issue for Cardozo in his day. I don't remember ever having run across the term in contemporary relevant writing.

For more information, check out what Factcheck.org has to say.

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?" >

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.

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.

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."

It happens every time there's a major shooting: the killer gets more attention than the victims.

The story of Wednesday's fatal killing at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC was no different on NPR. The 88-year-old man charged with the murder of museum security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns got the lion's share of air and web time at NPR.

A quick search of NPR's Website shows that the alleged gunman was mentioned 13 times and Johns 7 times within first two days.

Shortly after the shooting, Allison Keyes mentioned Johns by name in her story for the second feed of All Things Considered that airs from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. It had not been clear when her original story aired during ATC's first feed that Johns had died.

NPR's news blog, The Two Way, confirmed at 4:40 p.m. that the security guard had died. NPR did name Johns in subsequent newscasts throughout the night once his death was confirmed, said NPR managing editor David Sweeney.

But during on-air coverage the following day, June 11, there was no mention of Johns, a security guard who'd worked for the Holocaust Museum for six years. (See Washington Post profile.)

Dina Temple-Raston spoke with Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep for about 4 minutes about the alleged gunman's background and ties to white supremacy.

"I found it fiercely annoying listening to the reporting of the Holocaust Museum shooting this morning," wrote Joseph Gamble of Tampa, FL on Thursday. "Sure we learned plenty about the lunatic but where was the mention of the security guard who died heroically? His name deserved mention and a bit of coverage as he died in the line of service and undoubtedly saved lives with his sacrifice."

Tell Me More host Michel Martin did note Johns' murder in a blog post Thursday.

But why nothing on Morning Edition? "The focus of Dina's two-way on Morning Edition was the possible motive behind the shooting and the background of the alleged shooter," said Sweeney.

Sweeney noted that Wednesday's reporting included comments from the museum director about the vital role guards played in countering the attacker and in guiding museum visitors to safety.

"In hindsight, it probably would have been better to include the guard's name in the Morning Edition conversation about the attack," said Sweeney."When an attack such as this takes place, more attention is almost always given to the attacker than to victims. Sometimes the difference may appear disproportionate. I think the reason goes to a basic desire on the part of society, and by extension journalism and those who read and listen to the news, to try to understand why these incidents happen in our society.

"Sadly, in trying to understand the motivation behind these attacks there is usually much more to be learned by investigating and telling the story of the attacker than the victim."

Sweeney said NPR had no plans to do any follow-up stories on the guard.

I understand that any news organization is obligated to help its audience understand why such a shootings occur, but it still troubles me that the public always end up knowing more about the killer than those who tragically and randomly end up in their paths.

Update: Scott Simon, host of Weekend Edition Saturday, posted to his blog on Saturday about anti-semitism in America. Listen and read it here.

Some listeners last week were concerned that NPR had done 8 stories or segments on air about the murder of Dr. George Tiller, a well-known Kansas doctor who performed abortions, and none on the murder of Army Pvt. William Long, 23.

Update:The Project for Excellence in Journalism determined that last week, the story of Tiller's death was most popular on blogs and in social media.

Long was killed on June 1 -- the day after Tiller's death -- outside an Army recruiting center in Arkansas, allegedly by a Muslim convert. Another soldier was wounded.

"I am trying to find a news story on your site regarding the murder of private Long," wrote Marko Horb of Holbrook, NY last Friday. "But you do not seem to be reporting on the story. May I ask why?"

Horb is correct that none of NPR's news shows, such as Morning Edition or All Things Considered, had done a story on Long's death as of last Friday. But NPR did carry news spots about Long during newscasts that run throughout the day. Kelly McNeil of member station KUAR filed a spot on the shooting on June 1 and a follow-up spot the next day.

NPR also posted two Associated Press stories about Long's death on npr.org. and a note on NPR's news blog, The Two-Way, which didn't mention the name of the man who allegedly shot Long.

User Sean Carroll commented on the blog: "I find it odd how you missed reporting this: "Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas identified the suspect as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a 21-year-old African-American man who had changed his name from Carlos Leon Bledsoe after converting to Islam. I can't believe that people as 'Ethical' as NPR would ever knowingly 'Forget' to include facts in a story."

Frank James, who wrote the post, said not including his name was an oversight. He also noted that he did a post last Thursday on the alleged shooter, who was charged with the crime but has pleaded not guilty.

NPR Managing Editor David Sweeney defended last week's coverage decisions.

"The fact we gave more coverage to the killing of Tiller doesn't diminish the value of Long's life," said Sweeney. "But Tiller was a national figure given his practice and the attention he drew from abortion opponents. His killing has wider implications for the emotive debate on abortion on this country and we have covered those angles in reporting his death."

In one example, Morning Edition on June 5 carried a story exploring whether a 1994 law is sufficient to protect abortion providers.

In Private Long's case, NPR National Editor Steve Drummond added: "This story has grown into more of a national story as the news has come out this week and it became clear that federal authorities have been investigating this guy and that he may have had much broader plans for violence. We are pursuing some reporting out of the FBI that may result in a piece on Monday [June 8] with help from the member stations covering Long's funeral."

Drummond wrote that on June 5. All Things Considered on June 9 did two stories. One featured Long's funeral and another focused on the FBI's encounter with Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad in Yemen. Muhammad is accused of killing Long.

On Tuesday, however, Morning Edition and All Things Considered each carried one story centering on Tiller's death. And Talk of the Nation explored the topic of doctors deciding whether to perform abortions.

Continue reading "Whose Life is More Newsworthy?" >

I'm a big fan of blogs and of reading listener opinions. I plan on updating my own blog more frequently over the next few months.

But what I will never do, or never value is the sentiment that comes through this New York Times piece in Sunday's business section.

Everything in this piece reinforces why the public has a low opinion of journalists. Both TechCrunch and Gawker, two popular blogs, posted a rumor about Apple buying Twitter. The suspected rumor, wrote Damon Darlin in the NYT, was groundless when they wrote the items.

But they both reported it anyway.

The payoff? TechCrunch's post got 405 comments, an unusually large response, wrote Darlin. Gawker's post was viewed 22,000 times.

If it's all about getting eyeballs to your site, then rumors might be the way to go.

But what was most troubling to me was a comment by Michael Arrington, TechCrunch's founder and author of the post. TechCrunch has a small staff, so Arrington's philosophy is: "Getting it right is expensive. Getting it first is cheap."

Here's how I see it: Getting it first doesn't mean anything. Getting it right is what counts. All news organizations have is their credibility. Squander it at your own peril.

Arrington and other bloggers, writes Darlin, don't see anything wrong with rumor-mongering. They see it as involving their audience in the reporting process. Arrington's attitude is that his item about Twitter and Apple (not true) "didn't hurt anyone to write about it."

Yes, it did. It hurts all the reporters out there trying hard to gather facts, get sources on the record and publish accurate information. And it just reinforces the idea that journalists don't care about accuracy. The good ones do.

How do you, as members of NPR's community, feel about rumors being posted?

Update: One day after The New York Times published their story, Michael Arrington posted a follow-up on TechCrunch, stating Damon Darlin got a lot wrong.

Update: Shortly after Arrington posted his response to the Times, writer and new media guru Jeff Jarvis weighed in on the situation with a post to his own blog.

TARP watchdog Elizabeth Warren walked out of NPR's New York studio after an interview for a Planet Money podcast, and gave her assistant a puzzled look.

"She turned to me and asked: 'Is that what we were expecting to happen?" said Caleb Weaver, senior advisor on the congressional panel monitoring the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Warren, who couldn't be reached, chairs the panel created to monitor spending of the $700 billion bank bailout.

No one was expecting a fight. But that's what happened. And it should not have.

Planet Money correspondent Adam Davidson interviewed Warren on May 6. He later acknowledged that he was not well-prepared and was "very, very tired" from traveling on an NPR fundraising trip. But he knows that's no excuse for being rude to a guest.

"What Mr. Davidson chose to highlight, I think, reflects what I think he was looking for out of the interview, which as he stated, was to get her mad," said Weaver.

What was the fight about?

"I was saying TARP has one problem to solve: the emergency financial market crisis," Davidson explained when the May 8 interview aired. "Its job is not to look at 30 years of inequity to the American family. Much of the oversight deals with things [Warren] cares about rather than the short-term banking crisis we are facing right now which she was hired to oversee."

It becomes clear after listening to the hour-plus interview that Davidson and Warren, a Harvard law professor, agree on many things.

Yet when he and Planet Money's Alex Blumberg edited down the 74-minute interview into a 13-minute podcast segment, they kept only the pyrotechnics: Davidson and Warren raising their voices, Davidson badgering and interrupting Warren.

"Frankly, I didn't think I was coming across well, but it was the most dynamic tape," Davidson said later. "I liked the idea of revealing myself in a less than flattering light. Planet Money tries to be transparent and I liked the transparency of that. I could have easily cut the interview to make myself look better."

Davidson apologized to podcast listeners on May 11.

"The fight was over an incredibly nuanced issue," he told me. "I did an awful job of conveying what the issue was by losing my cool and failing to be precise. I opened myself up to people thinking I don't care about the middle class. Of course I do. The argument wasn't about that. But it sounded like it was because I used sloppy language."

Davidson's speaking over and interrupting Warren became a distraction. It's too bad because Planet Money listeners lost out on hearing from Warren, who besides being a well-known Harvard advocate for the middle class, is an important player in the current economic crisis by virtue of her new position.

"It was an unsuccessful interview from the start," said Ellen Weiss, senior v.p. for news. "What any good interview can and should do is give the person an opportunity to explain where they are coming from. Adam didn't do that."

Weiss added that speaking loudly doesn't make an interviewer more convincing. "You want your questions to be challenging but raising your voice with someone isn't respectful," she said. "What Adam showed was he wasn't open to listening to her."

Not surprisingly, my e-mail and voice mail boxes filled up with complaints. The Planet Money blog got 788 total comments, more than ever before, according to its web editor, Laura Conaway. The blogosphere lit up with criticism, especially Columbia Journalism Review.

Conaway noted that many comments, while expressing fury at Davidson, were also civil and instructive for Planet Money.

"We managed to show people something in such a way that they felt poked in the eye," said Conaway. "One of the things I learned from this is how incredibly helpful it can be to have a community of people who will respond to you so quickly and directly, and how helpful it can be to everyone involved in the show to listen to the feedback and incorporate it."

It's important for journalists to treat whomever they are interviewing with respect -- and to keep their opinions to themselves. Davidson did neither.

Instead, Davidson conveyed that he didn't think Warren was doing her job properly. He admits that his anger was misdirected. He said he was angry at congressional leaders, notably Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA), for not selecting people for the TARP commission with stronger backgrounds in financial matters.

"I think it's clearly a journalist's role to question and probe the issue," said Davidson. "It's not a journalist's role to have a firm position about who should be on the panel. I wish I hadn't expressed that so strongly."

Planet Money was launched last August. It's become NPR's most-listened to podcast and one of the network's top blogs. Davidson and the Planet Money team of seven do three podcasts a week, a daily blog and contribute to NPR radio shows. Davidson and Blumberg also do long-form documentaries in partnership with Chicago Public Radio's This American Life, where Blumberg is also a producer.

Planet Money is a relatively new venture for NPR, and the network is still experimenting with the format. "Planet Money has been an extraordinarily successful, popular project, with all it does," said Uri Berliner, deputy national editor who edits Planet Money. "If you look at the way it has built an audience that responds and is engaged, it is pretty much without precedent at NPR."

That said, Berliner recognizes the Warren interview did not meet NPR standards. "Adam entered the interview with a lot of ideas about Elizabeth Warren's role that were never really explained," said Berliner. "It was confrontational without being illuminating."

Planet Money's podcast does not have the same degree of radio production or intense editing and supervision as NPR's regular shows.

"A small core group creates some really excellent content under very tight deadline pressures," said Berliner. "There just hasn't been enough time in the day to make sure that every podcast interview is vetted by a DC editor who has significant other responsibilities." He added that supervisory responsibilities have not been spelled out for the blog and podcast.

At the very least, because the Warren interview was guaranteed to be explosive, it would have made sense if someone up the chain of command had at least read the script.

Davidson is a talented, energetic reporter who, as he says, comes from a culture of argument as sport. He and the Planet Money team have done some of the country's best, freshest journalism on the economy.

Many listeners said they were deeply disappointed in Davidson. Some threatened to never donate again to NPR. Others have demanded that Davidson be sanctioned or fired. It's not necessary. He is contrite. He knows how unprofessionally he behaved. And NPR supervisors probably will be watching his work more carefully in the future.

Planet Money is far too valuable a resource for explaining today's strange and hard-to-fathom financial information to let one botched interview derail it. But judging by the volume of criticism, it will take some time for Davidson to earn back the trust and respect initially (and deservedly) showered on him.

NPR regular freelancer Nathan Lee had signed off on his edited movie review of Outrage Thursday night, May 7. The next morning, he checked for the piece on NPR's movie page.

It wasn't there.

He figured the delay was due to a technical problem. But it still wasn't online at 5 p.m. He called his editor, Trey Graham, on NPR's digital arts desk.

"Trey let me know there was a great deal of internal debate at NPR on whether or not this review could be published," said Lee, a New Yorker who has written 20 movie reviews in the last year for NPR's website.

What ensued was a classic journalism debate between privacy and the public's right to know. NPR came down on the side of privacy; Lee squarely on the other side. Caught in the middle is society's ongoing -- though no longer complete -- unease with discussions of sexual orientation.

NPR commissioned Lee to review Outrage, an 86-minute documentary about closeted gay politicians who vote and campaign against such issues as same-sex marriage and gay adoption, and the mainstream media's complicity by not actively reporting on that. The movie's theme is that politicians who vote against such issues while secretly having gay sex deserve to be exposed.

The film gives politician's names -- even though several targeted continually deny they are gay. Lee's original review included those names.

NPR pulled three politicians' names from the review because running them would have violated a long-held NPR policy, said Ron Elving, Washington editor who was involved in the final decision.

NPR's policy is not to publish or air rumors, allegations or reports about private lives of anyone unless there is a compelling news reason to do so. "We edit material out of what might have been said on NPR to adhere to the policy all the time," said Elving. "So this wasn't unusual."

Lee knew nothing about this policy, and said he wouldn't have accepted the assignment if he had known there were going to be restrictions on his review. Lee is also a film critic for The New York Times and a contributing editor of Film Comment.

By Friday night, Lee had four choices: Run the review as edited, delete his name from NPR's version, kill the piece or rewrite it entirely. Whatever he choose, he would be paid in full, said Joe Matazzoni, a senior arts producer for NPR digital.

When the review was presented sans names, Lee insisted his byline be deleted. So the review ran unsigned and with a brief explanatory note at the end.

Lee was upset that he couldn't discuss what he believed to be an important part of the film's content. "If we ran it without a byline," he said, "I thought that would alert NPR viewers that NPR's position reinforces part of the critique of what this movie was about: which is the squeamishness of mainstream media to cover or investigate closeted politicians or those rumored to be gay."

For the record, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety and the Miami Herald did use names, but The Washington Post did not. Interestingly, some of Outrage's promotional material did not include the names NPR struck from Lee's review nor does the online trailer.

New York Times reviewer A.O. Scott said he gave careful consideration to how to handle the movie's allegations but decided it would be wrong to omit the names.

"None of my editors objected to this, since everything I wrote was strictly and narrowly factual," said Scott. "In my opinion it would have been unduly coy, in the manner of 'blind item' gossip, not to mention the names, though I understand the argument that to mention them is to further the rumors. But it is important for a critic to be able to discuss what a movie is about, and for that reason I'm inclined to be sympathetic to Nathan's view."

As it turned out, NPR did handle its online review in the manner of a blind gossip item. Rather than name a particular prominent politician, the edited version gave enough information for the cognoscenti to easily figure out who the review was talking about.

This is how the final edit handled one politician:

"For now, the various (and suspiciously convenient) girlfriends of one major-swing state governor are but one element of a persuasive case made about a man with aspirations to be the 2012 Republican presidential candidate. Evidence of that governor's homosexuality, Outrage claims, is widespread and well-sourced."

The claims about this governor may be widespread, but they are still not confirmed.

Elving said he was so focused on the decision to omit names that he didn't see the final review. "I don't think we should have written that," he said of the above quote. "Our policy is clear but we shouldn't get cute about playing guessing games."

NPR also was coy in posting a photograph of former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig (R) alongside the review without explaining any connection to it. Craig was arrested in 2007 on a charge of soliciting sex from an undercover male officer. He at first pleaded guilty, but later changed his plea to not guilty. Craig has consistently said he is not gay. If NPR is not going to name names, then his photo should not have accompanied the review.

There's one other "free speech" issue that arose in this flap. After the review was published, Lee posted a comment at 11:46 p.m. explaining why he didn't want his name attached. The comment included the deleted names. I believe he should have had that right to explain -- but not the right to circumvent the editing process.

Matazzoni took Lee's post down around midnight. "When an author and an editor go through a process, that's the end of it," said Matazzoni. "I reminded Lee we had an agreement and it made no sense to try to get the names back in by posting them on the web."

Matazzoni again offered Lee the option of killing the review, but Lee declined.

Lee then went public with his complaints about NPR's handling of his review. One of the first online posts at IndieWire on May 11 made it seem that NPR had stripped Lee's review of names and posted it without telling him. Not surprisingly, the blogosphere lit up with charges of censorship, particularly on gay blogs.

A day later, Lee corrected the misconception by posting a comment on IndieWire, but few bloggers or reporters checked out the accuracy of IndieWire's first post.

"It was interesting to see that the initial reporting was simply passed and pasted on the blogosphere without anyone checking with us," said Matazzoni.

This fiasco highlights how information ricochets around the Internet without people verifying the veracity.

It's also points out that NPR's policy isn't consistently applied. NPR acknowledged this in a letter which Dick Meyer, NPR's executive editor, sent to those who complained.

"Though we have a policy, we do not have a perfect history of enforcing it or meeting all our aspirations," wrote Meyer. "And there are judgment calls, subjective decisions. Some blogs for example, have cited a conversation that aired on the show 'News & Notes' in November 2008 about efforts to 'out' a prominent singer and actress. That conversation, while not malicious, nevertheless did not conform to our standards."

This issue is not going away. It is important for NPR to have standards but they also need to be reviewed from time to time. And freelancers need to know NPR's standards.

Count me as guilty of believing that someone's sex life should remain private until he or she wants it public or there's a compelling news reason to invade that privacy. A movie, even one that makes strong allegations, is not a compelling news reason.

That said, did NPR handle this well? No. But in the end, the real issue, one I would venture is the reason for much of the vitriol, lies not so much with NPR's policy but with the premise of the Outrage documentary: politicians living lies.

##
Please also see Andrea Seabrook's piece for All Things Considered on Congress' reaction to Outrage.

Listening to public radio station WFAE in Charlotte, N.C., Gerry McGreevy was dismayed when he heard an NPR story about banks, followed by an underwriting credit from Charlotte-based Bank of America.

He accused NPR of violating its own ethics code and damaging its credibility.

On March 30, All Things Considered ran a story "Under Scrutiny Banks Avoid Sports Deals." It discussed how the nation's largest banks also spend lavishly on sports marketing. But with the bailouts, they are considering walking away from potential moneymaking deals.

The NPR story primarily focused on Bank of America which spent an estimated $44 million to advertise during televised sporting events --more than any other bank last year, according to Nielsen research. In the piece, the bank defended the practice.

"For every dollar we spend on sports marketing, we get 10 dollars back in revenue and three dollars in earnings." said BofA CEO Ken Lewis. "This is not wasted money, it's money that drives business results."

This piece was followed by a WFAE funding credit promoting Bank of America. It is easy to understand why McGreevy thought this looked bad.

"Nowhere in the introduction, or elsewhere in the story did I hear the all important disclaimer that Bank of America (specifically mentioned in the piece) was a sponsor of NPR programming," wrote McGreevy. "The fact that you reported the story, and the facts presented therein are all okay with me, but the piece seemed more like a PR piece, aiming to alleviate public outrage for tax payer monies being spent on corporate sponsorships for non-essential, often lavish and elitist marketing/sporting events.

"The fact the NPR neglected to acknowledge that many of the subjects of the story were also benefactors, violates the very policy NPR touted as proof of its journalistic integrity. I am ashamed and angered by this neglect. Shame on you NPR."

I looked into this situation, and here is my response:

Dear Mr. McGreevy,
NPR did not in this case violate its code. What happened is you wandered into the complicated land of public radio. Let me explain.

Public radio -- both nationally and locally -- depends on corporate underwriting to help support its budget (in addition to listener support and federal grants.) WFAE solicits underwriting credits from local sponors, such as Bank of America, to support it. NPR -- completely separately from WFAE -- also solicits corporate underwriting to help fund its $160 million annual operating budget.

The 15-second Bank of America funding credit you heard was aired by WFAE. Bank of America is not an NPR underwriter.

So what happened is that an NPR-produced story bumped up against a locally produced funding credit slated to run on WFAE from March 23 to April 24. There's no way this was avoidable.

"We don't coordinate funding credits with NPR because I don't know what the program rundown for ATC is going to be," said P.K. Donson, who handles underwriting credits for WFAE. "So I can't coordinate my local credits with national programs. That would be really difficult."

I agree with you that it looks bad, and that perceptions can undermine credibility. But in this case, it was an unfortunate coincidence.

It is always awkward for any news organization when it comes to covering good news about itself.

NPR faced that situation last week when it announced on All Things Considered that its audience had grown to a record 21 million listeners per week -- a healthy 9 percent increase over the previous year.

Reporter Tovia Smith tempered the positive news with the bad. Increased listenership isn't translating into increased revenues.

"NPR says funding is down from most of its major sources, including corporate underwriters, foundations and the network's own investments," said Smith.

Then she added more bad news for the network. "NPR recently laid off 7 percent of its staff and cut two daily news shows," said Smith. "Now, with an $8 million budget gap still projected for this year, officials say more cuts are coming."

I heard from a few folks inside NPR who felt uncomfortable with the self-promotion, followed by bad news that some said sounded like an appeal for money -- especially during pledge week at some stations.

Smith also did a 52-second spot for NPR's newscast unit that produces news on the hour and half hour.

"I cannot imagine The Washington Post or The New York Times printing a story about their increased circulation," emailed a staffer, who asked that their name not be used. "The business about our $8 million shortfall--was that a veiled plea for donations?"

The Post and The Times last week both wrote stories about themselves. But it was all bad news. The Post just offered its fourth round of early retirement packages since 2003 -- the second this year. And The Times laid off 100 people and said most staff would have to take a temporary five percent salary cut.

The difference is that the papers both ran the stories on inside pages. When NPR does a story on All Things Considered, there is no sticking it inside. It's the equivalent of running the story on the front page.

Managing editor Brian Duffy, who assigned the story, said he was motivated by how much listeners care about NPR.

"We owe them a full and fair accounting of news good and bad about its fortunes," said Duffy in an email. "My thinking was that NPR does a very good job of being transparent about the bad news--layoffs, cutting shows. I felt it was appropriate to report on the good, as well, but insisted that it be couched in the context of [NPR CEO Vivian Schiller's] address to the staff last week about the continuing financial challenges we face."

Laura Bertran, who edited the piece, is well aware of the difficulty of the assignment.

"As a media editor, I find it a legitimate story that NPR and other non-profit media organizations are doing better in this environment than some of our for-profit brethren," said Bertran. "I understand someone might say it's self-congratulatory or poor us, but neither was our intent. Our motive in reporting on NPR is to serve the listeners."

The ATC piece was 2 minutes, 20 seconds. A longer piece could have explored the broader difficulties in the news industry and mentioned NPR as a part of it, instead of focusing solely on NPR.

In this case, airing both the ATC story and a 52-second news spot throughout the day was excessive coverage by NPR on news about itself.

Kelly McBride, an ethics expert with the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank, disagrees. She says the news media, in general, don't do a good enough job of telling the world its good news.

"We do a HORRIBLE job covering our successes," she wrote in an email. "Horrible. And there are consequences: 1.) The public thinks all we do is screw-up. 2.) Folks under-appreciate the role of good journalism. 3.) No one even recognizes good journalism when they see it. 4.) And we tend to under-estimate our own ability to change the world."

How do you think NPR should handle reporting news about NPR?

Continue reading "How Should NPR Cover Itself? " >

Some blogs on the news industry recently scooped up an NPR internal memo that said NPR was canceling all newspaper subscriptions. While not true, the memo engendered some lively commentary:

"As a long-time financial supporter of public radio who also happens to be a veteran print media journalist, I find your actions disgusting," emailed Margie Bauman. "You expect listeners - including those who earn a living as print media journalists - to send money to keep you afloat, but you want the results of all our hard work free of charge."

"NPR has a fine reporting tradition of its own, but there is no denying how much it relies on print journalism, as well," wrote Amber Paddock. "NPR, of all organizations, ought to know what this nation and its democracy would become without strong newspapers. Guess what my response will be during the next pledge drive?"

Even the Los Angeles Times weighed in criticizing NPR.

The bottom line, however, is that NPR is not stopping all newspaper subscriptions. It is unfortunate that a top manager's internal e-mail went public. But then in the age of the Internet, it is to be expected and all of us need to be constantly reminded that 'the mic is always on.' Anything said, written or broadcast is now up for grabs.

The e-mail that became public and prompted complaints came from Ellen McDonnell, who is in charge of morning programming. That e-mail began: "As of April 1 NPR is canceling all newspaper subscriptions." What she told me was she wanted to let those who work on Morning Edition make the case for keeping subscriptions.

NPR currently spends about $100,000 on newspaper subscriptions. But one can walk around the building and often see neglected stacks of papers, unopened.

The network is facing a budget shortfall and needs to cut $8 million, in addition to a major cutback made late last year. Paring down subscriptions won't cover that, but it will make a difference.

"We need to cut expenses and solicited ideas from staff that might mitigate additional staff reductions," Ellen Weiss, NPR's vice president for news, said in an email. "We asked for unit leaders to identify where the subscription was essential to the job. We cut our expenses on subscriptions by about 90 percent -- including some online subscriptions to publications such as the Wall Street Journal."

Now the company expects to spend about $7,000 on newspaper subscriptions, said deputy managing editor David Sweeney.

For the record, NPR will still get 7 subscriptions to the New York Times, 2 for the Washington Post and 7 for the Wall Street Journal plus 5 online accounts, said Sweeney.

"If we are paying out more than $100,000 on subscriptions, that's the cost of one position," said Sweeney. "It's a relatively easy reduction."

The cuts don't affect specialty journals and Congressional Quarterly. The foreign desk will get Le Monde, the International Herald Tribune and the Financial Times, and overseas bureaus will get local newspapers.

"It's not a blanket no newspapers are coming into the building," said Sweeney. "It's more being prudent about how many we are bringing in."

On Monday I appeared on a call-in show, Open Line with Fred Andrle on WOSU, the public radio station owned by Ohio State University in Columbus. A local listener, Robert Singleton, sent this email:

"Can guest explain why "Talk of the Nation" hosts seem compelled to interrupt conversation to insert a program i.d. It's often awkward, frequently rude, and always irritating."

Andrle's show is heard locally and doesn't have quite the same problem that the nationally distributed Talk of the Nation (TOTN) has: an absolutley unforgiving time clock.

TOTN is broadcast on 302 NPR member stations and begins each weekday from Monday to Thursday at 6 minutes and 30 seconds after the hour. The first segment runs until 19 minutes after the hour when host Neal Conan says without fail: "You are listening to Talk of the Nation from NPR News."

Then the show cuts to music -- no matter what.

"Because so many stations these days are operated by computer, all program content STOPS DEAD at that second, and there's a one-minute break," said Conan in an email.

This strict time clock isn't arbitrarily set. It comes from the member stations, who in reality are NPR's bosses.

During that one-minute break, the local station can identify itself and provide traffic, weather or promote events or programs.

"Our station normally does a 30-second promo of a show on our station and then a 30-second voice track of the weather or some upcoming event," said WOSU mid-day host Amy Juravich.

But Juravich isn't doing WOSU's local announcements at the breaks live.

"Our computer shuts off NPR and turns on the station computer that airs promos," said Juravich. "Some stations do have a live voice for that minute. Or they just play NPR's music."

Juravich noticed Monday that Conan's guest kept talking at one break and was automatically cut off. "Neal missed and went over the 2:19 break by one second," she said. "So our automation cut Neal off because he talked over and into the break. That happens sometimes. When a guest is long-winded, you can hear Neal trying to get them to finish or hold their thought."

TOTN comes back at exactly 20 minutes after the hour.

There are three so-called "hard posts" or "hard breaks" in one TOTN hour: 2:19, 2:39 and 2:59 if the show is heard on the East Coast. They are called 'hard' because they are going to happen no matter how frustrating it is for the listener -- and sometimes even for the host.

"There are inevitably moments when I have to interrupt a funny or heartbreaking story to go to the break," said Conan. "From time to time, I ask a caller, to hold that thought while we go to a break...but it's always awkward to do so. Most of the time, it's my fault, for taking a call too late in the segment, or not juggling things properly."

Take a look at TOTN's time clock.

Continue reading "Is Neal Conan Rude? " >

Today's Post includes 2 listener queries:

Tor Pinney of Green Cove Springs, FL writes:
"I used to listen to NPR for hours every day. Now I rarely turn it on, and when I do I pointedly shut off the hourly news headlines and avoid many of the current events programs I used to enjoy. I am not alone in this growing aversion to your programming. On the contrary, I find quite a few of my acquaintances are doing the same thing, and for the same reason. That is, because we're sick and tired of bad news. It's that simple. NPR has become so overwhelmingly negative that we just can't take it anymore.

I know, I know, you're "just reporting what's happening." I don't mean you should ignore these sad facts or gloss them over, but please, please balance them with equal time for good, happy, uplifting news. Those stories are all around you if you'll just look."

Dear Tor:
You raise a valid concern and one that editors at every news organization struggle with every day. Unfortunately, there's a lot of bad economic news right now. NPR isn't covering this any differently than, say, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times or the TV networks. I presented your concerns to NPR's business editor, Les Cook, and this is what he said:

"I don't think we are going out of our way to be negative. We did a story Wednesday about a car dealer in Wisconsin who is hiring 55 people. We are interested in those stories that are counter-intuitive. But this is the worst recession in decades. The Federal Reserve just revised its forecast. They now think unemployment will hit 9 percent by the end of the year. Their previous forecast had things getting better in the second half of the year. We are just trying to keep people informed about what's going on today and how serious this economic decline really is."

Cook did point to NPR's series: On the Road in Troubled Times. NPR's David Greene is spending the first 100 days of the Obama administration driving around the country telling the stories of how Americans are dealing with tough economic times. His pieces often show how resilient Americans are. Take a listen. Right now Greene's in Florida but he welcomes ideas on where to go next.

****

It's that special time of the year that tends to annoy some listeners: pledge drives.

A public librarian wrote in asking why all the public broadcasting stations hold pledge drives at the same time of the year. "Is it tied to payment of fees to continue as a member station in the following fiscal year?" asked Chris Brown.

First of all, membership campaigns are an essential part of supporting a station's budget. Research shows that it is the most cost-effective way of reaching first-time and potential donors.

But no, the timing of fund drives is not directly tied to the billing cycle for NPR program fees. Back when NPR began in 1971, pledge drives were scheduled on an individual station's need to replenish income.

Eventually, national coordinated fundraising weeks were established after a survey in the 1980s discovered that most, but not all, stations held their membership drives in April and their fall drives in October.

But they all don't fundraise on the same week. Milwaukee Public Radio does a mailing in the fall and asks listeners periodically to donate online but doesn't do a fall on-air pledge drive. They just finished their on-air winter drive.

"Stations in colder regions of the country sometimes prefer to fundraise in early November -- after the time change and before 'snowbirds' have gone south -- when listeners have begun to think about the holidays and year-end charitable giving," said Barbara Appleby, NPR's Director, New Revenue Strategies.

It's unlikely you will hear a pledge drive during religious holidays, Election Day, the Olympics and even the World Series.

His sister is a jerk, I thought when I heard on NPR about a Memphis man who wanted to go to the Inauguration but couldn't stay at his sister's house in Washington because she's no fan of Barack Obama.

"Everybody in my family is a Republican. I mean, absolutely everybody," Chuck Latimer told NPR. "When I travel there, I'm always able to stay with her. But this time she said no. She's really, really opposed to Obama being elected, and I'm not. Now, I've never been -- felt outcast from my family for my political beliefs. It really was political oppression."

The problem with "The Outcast" story was that we never heard from Latimer's sister, who while not named, was negatively portrayed in the piece. Latimer told NPR he might have to sleep in his car, or "if I fly, I'll just have to drink a lot of coffee, the most I can, or try to find a nook and cranny to sleep in."

As anyone in a family knows, there can be conflicting versions of the same event. Latimer's sister may have a different story, but listeners wouldn't know since NPR didn't call her.

This story highlights a shift in how NPR finds people for stories and raises some concerns about the consequences. It used to be that reporters hunted down and verified sources before they went on the air. But through email, blog postings and NPR's social media community, more and more people are now coming to NPR to share their tales.

That's how Weekend All Things Considered (WATC) found Latimer's story, which became part of a series -- "Inaugural Journeys" -- that appeared Jan. 17-18. The idea was to share poignant travel plans and thoughts about the historic event.

"We came up with it about six weeks before the Inauguration and talked with NPR's Social Media team about building the weekend around listeners' stories," said Rick Holter, WATC's supervising senior editor. "We did a 'call out' to listeners on air to share their stories and created a webpage for them to comment."

An editorial assistant was assigned to weed through the 100 or so submissions and find the most compelling stories.

"We didn't just want to have a host read the stories," said Holter. "We wanted them to be in the voices of the listeners. [The editorial assistant] probably talked to about 15 people to find out who had the best stories and were the best talkers."

They settled on six first-person stories.

The one story that worried Holter came from a San Francisco guitar teacher who had fallen in love with a Cuban woman. The guitarist said he intended bring her to the Inauguration on a K-1 fiancee visa and marry her.

"That's the one that raised my hackles because it sounded too good to be true," said Holter. "So we called his lawyer, immigration officials and his family to check it out."

Not only was it true, but guitarist Christopher Kilday took NPR by surprise when he and Yaremys Rodriquez Gonzales came into Studio 2A to tell guest host Rebecca Roberts their story.

Roberts: So, you're planning on getting married.
Kilday: Oh, you know what? That's one thing I need to take care of.
Yaremys, will you marry me?"

She agreed on the spot. According to NPR's archives, it was the network's first on-air marriage proposal.

But the story that wasn't checked was Chuck Latimer's.

"If we had been less focused on verifying 'The Wedding' story that appeared to be the most troubled," said Holter, "then we would have gone after that one a little more."

I was bothered by Latimer's story for two reasons: It seemed so unfair to his sister, and I wondered, understanding family dynamics, if it were true. So I called Latimer, who told me he delivers pizza in Memphis.

He said he ended up spending the night at his sister's. "She did finally relent and let me stay," he said. "I think there was family pressure."

I asked if he would give me his sister's name and phone number. Absolutely not, he said.

"I can't tell her that NPR put that on the radio," said Latimer over the phone. (Millions listen to WATC.) "She would be quite upset and it would seriously damage relations in my family if she found out that story was put on the radio. I was never really worried about her hearing that. I haven't told anyone in my family. She would flip out."

Maybe Latimer's story is true. But NPR should have tried to verify it by getting the sister's side. If he had refused to put NPR in contact with her that would have answered the question of whether the story should have been aired.

"In every story we do, we should check to the best of our ability," said Richard L. Harris, director of afternoon programming. "If we had asked Chuck to let us talk to his sister and he said, 'I'm sorry, no go,' then we shouldn't put that on the air. It's a bit of a sucker punch to go on air without talking to the sister. And that should not be permitted."

WATC's Holter has since agreed his team should have tried to reach Latimer's sister. "Essentially this should reflect badly on me because I edited the piece," said Holter. The editor of a show does bear ultimate responsibility for the content, but journalism is a collaborative process and others read the piece as well.

In fairness, I contacted Rebecca Roberts who was a guest host that weekend. She did narrate "The Outcast" story but wasn't involved in the production.

"That said, I didn't think to contact the sister, and perhaps I should have," she said in an email. "I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way. It was Chuck's personal story, not a news piece. And I do know that [the editorial assistant] went the extra mile to triple check the more dubious story in that series, 'The Wedding.'"

Overall, WATC's "Inaugural Journeys" produced great stories, all of which came to NPR directly from listeners. This kind of interactivity can be a good thing because it extends NPR's reach and draws it closer to the listeners.

But depending on listeners for stories -- whether they are small anecdotes such as Latimer's tale or a major news event -- also means that NPR needs to scrupulously check all information for accuracy and fairness before it is put on air or on the Web site. That's what NPR listeners expect.
END

Continue reading "What about Chuck and his Sister?" >

By Alicia C. Shepard

Less than a month ago, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, The Washington Post reporters who helped topple President Nixon, made a surprise visit to Mark Felt, the man known as Deep Throat.

It was a fitting denouement among men who played a historic role in the Watergate scandal, and in changing journalism. It was also the first time that Bernstein had ever met Felt, who died yesterday at 95.

The relationship among the three men was complicated. It was Felt, the No. 2 in the FBI during the 1972 Watergate break-in, who became a key source for the two young reporters. Many speculate on Felt's motives, but no one ever will know exactly because Felt was 91 and showing signs of dementia when his identity was revealed.

Woodward met Felt by chance when he was a young man in his late-20s in the Navy. He nurtured a filial-like relationship seeking out Felt for career advice. When the Watergate story broke, Woodward called Felt, promising him what's known in journalistic parlance as 'confidentiality.' It meant that Woodward would use Felt's information but never reveal Felt as his source.

And he never did.

In the modern history of journalism, there is little dispute that Deep Throat is by far the most famous known anonymous news source. Nor is there any dispute that the Post's reliance on Deep Throat played a role in popularizing the still--controversial use of anonymous sources.

But it also showed what can happen when journalists keep their word.

Ironically, when Woodward referred to Felt inside the Post newsroom, he told his editors, "My friend told me on deep background" when relaying information. In his notes, Woodward identified his source as "M.F." for my friend, even though those are also Felt's initials.

It was then-managing editor Howard Simons who dubbed the secret source Deep Throat based on a notorious pornographic movie in 1972 with the same name. The nickname stuck. Among several unanswered questions is a basic one: Would Felt have become such a cultural icon if his moniker were "my friend?"

The nick name "Deep Throat," appeared for the first time in Playboy magazine in May 1974, when an excerpt of the book All the Presidents Men, ran. Felt was one of many anonymous sources the pair used but he drew the lion's share of attention because of the sexy name.

It was only when the book came out that Felt learned how Woodward and Bernstein privately referred to him. He was embarrassed and furious, and thought Woodward had betrayed him. He was equally unhappy when the book became a hugely successful movie in 1976.

His anger unnerved Woodward, but neither he nor Bernstein ever waivered in keeping their promise. Over the decades, both reporters were repeatedly asked when they spoke publicly: "Who is Deep Throat?" They never even gave a hint.

Through the decades it became a parlor game to figure out who was the source high up in the Justice Department who betrayed the Nixon administration. Articles and books were written fingering people. A University of Illinois class spent four years investigating Deep Throat's identity. The class held a press conference at the Watergate in 2003 to announce their suspect. But they were wrong.

Each time an author was certain of Deep Throat's identity, Woodward and Bernstein said nothing. Neither did Felt. In fact, Felt denied he was Deep Throat in his 1979 memoir, The FBI Pyramid. He wrote that he'd only met with Woodward once during the Watergate investigation.

Actually, Woodward secretly had contact with him 18 times during the years from the break-in until Nixon's 1974 resignation.

Most famous were the late-night meetings in an Arlington, Va. garage portrayed in the movie, All the President's Men. There were 6 garage meetings, 7 phone calls, one rendezvous at Felt's Fairfax, Va. house, one meeting at a Maryland tavern, one on-the-record visit to Felt's FBI office and two other meetings, according to Woodward's papers that were sold to the University of Texas along with Bernstein's for $5 million in 2003.

The Deep Throat mystery lasted 33 years -- a record for such a high-profile secret in a gossipy town like Washington, DC It lasted that long because Woodward and Bernstein kept their promise of confidentiality. Ben Bradlee, the Washington Post editor during Watergate, told me he didn't learn Felt's identity until 1976.

"Ben and I made a decision that on some of them [sources] we wouldn't ask," Simons told the pair in 1973 when they interviewed him for their book. "For instance, Deep Throat. You know, we've never wanted to know."

Woodward was shocked. Why not?

"Because you really didn't want to tell us," Simons said. "Sure. At one point we could have said to you, 'Ok. We must know.'"

But they didn't.

While it may be hard to believe, over three decades only five people knew Felt's identity -- Woodward, Bernstein, Felt, Bradlee and Woodward's wife, Elsa Walsh, whom Woodward told in the early 1980s.

Finally, Felt and his family decided to reveal the identity on May 31, 2005 in Vanity Fair magazine, hoping to profit from their secret. It did lead to a book and a movie contract for Felt.

Although Woodward and Bernstein were following typical journalistic protocol by keeping Felt's name quiet, it was a decision that would influence the rest of their careers. Future confidential sources knew that if they spilled secrets to either man, the secrets would be kept.

Even more important to journalists is the notion that every source deserves a reporter's protection, regardless of whether that person is a hero or a heel. As long as the source tells the truth and sticks to the bargain that's implicit in confidential relationships, a journalist will go to jail rather than reveal the name.

By keeping their promise to Felt, Woodward and Bernstein, in turn, helped many other journalists who followed. It paved the way for other sources to trust journalists who keep their word.

"This is an absolute contract," Woodward said in 2005 at Harvard University. "This really is an unbreakable contract unless somebody is dishonest with you." And Felt never was.

Shepard is the author of Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate (2007).
END