|
Media Matters
Nov. 26, 2002
'How Do You Know NPR is Unbiased?'
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
A listener, Rachel Seely, wrote to ask that question. In this business, a question like that can immediately provoke a defensive response.
But since allegations of bias go directly to issues of credibility and reliability, I thought Ms. Seely deserved a reply to her e-mail:
"To whom it may concern,
Do you have any information about NPR policies that are designed to ensure unbiased reporting? I am currently involved in a debate about whether NPR is truly an unbiased news source. As a supporting member of my local NPR (station), I of course argue that it is. However, I could not find any mention on your Web site that would provide any concrete facts on how that is accomplished.
Your help is appreciated."
Thank you,
Rachel Seely
Dear Ms. Seely,
Your question is excellent and it is one that all NPR journalists should try to answer, just to make sure they are still reasonably confident about how and why they do their journalism.
First, I must confess my initial instinct to your e-mail was to say, "Of course we're unbiased." But how do we know we are and what steps should we take to make sure of that?
Bias can be, of course, very subjective as well as very subtle. Both the accuser and the accused usually wrap themselves in righteous indignation. But once the emotion gets stripped away, there are some important aspects to consider.
Let me suggest that the best way of answering this is to tell you what steps NPR has in place to insure fairness as it sees fit. Then I'd like to tell you about what I think gets in the way of being unbiased -- in journalism overall and in NPR particularly.
Checks and Balances
NPR has in place a strong system of checks and balances. NPR editors are among the most experienced broadcast journalists in the United States. Many of them have come to NPR after years of working in other media because of NPR's reputation for thoughtful and contextual journalism.
Stories get pitched to the programs and are only accepted after being considered by the editors. The reporters work the story, get the facts, gather the interviews but before it gets on air, their scripts are gone over with their editors. Reporters and the programs get feedback everyday from the senior news managers. Discussion can be fierce as to whether a story worked well or not. Editors, at NPR and elsewhere, take particular pride in defending "their" reporters and the work they do. Reputations tend to be on the line so an intense working relationship between program producers and editors is always present.
A newsroom, it has been said, is a kind of contact sport. But through this extremely tough process, the outcome should be -- and mostly is -- very high quality journalism for the benefit of the listeners.
This is all very well and sounds rather "Lou Grant-ish," but what about the bias, I hear you wondering?
Can Journalism Be Bias-Free?
Bias cannot, in my experience, be entirely eliminated. Only by asking ourselves and each other whether the story is complete in every way, can we feel reasonably confident that the story is as unbiased as possible -- under the circumstances of time limitations and available information.
If journalism could be made bias free or influence free, we would have no need for journalists. We could choose stories based on a pre-determined model for fairness, a computer could be programmed with all the information available and the story would literally, write itself.
Perhaps the closest model for that is the cable TV-supported C-SPAN radio and television service. Its mission, according to the Web site is "to provide public access to the political process." C-SPAN receives no government funding; operations are funded by fees paid by cable and satellite affiliates who carry C-SPAN programming.
Within the definition of the political process, C-SPAN does a pretty good job, in my opinion, being a mirror for the political process, as defined by C-SPAN. But I'm not sure that it makes for good journalism.
Making Choices
To my mind, journalism is about making informed choices on behalf of the listeners or viewers or readers. Not every fact is useful to the story. Not every statement is worthy of reporting. NPR reporters, editors and producers are paid to make choices about what are the most interesting, compelling and important aspects of the day. Sometimes they even choose stories that may seem irrelevant in the grand scheme of war, the economy and the future of our society. It will be, in effect, a micro-view of reality, specifically because it's NOT all that important, but merely undeniably fascinating.
Our critics tell us when they think we have overdone the "important" stories. They want some relief in music or cultural affairs or even something about our own foibles.
Other times they tell us when they think NPR has been overly foible-oriented. "Give us back the meat and potatoes," they write, worried that NPR risks becoming overly-amusing.
Still on other occasions they tell us that they want stories about the real lives or real people and less politics.
As you can see Ms. Seely, the listeners want a bit of everything. So NPR journalists have to decide what gets included, and what doesn't. They have to decide if they've got it all in balance. The fact that choices have to be made means that NPR is open to allegations of bias.
Journalists can't and shouldn't be completely neutral. They don't leave their lives, their experiences or their obligations as citizens when they walk through the door to work in the morning. But they should know that they are in the business of telling stories that help explain the world. Ideally, someone should say to him or herself, "I didn't know that" after listening to NPR. It could be about the big picture or a little revelation. But it would mean we are doing our job as "explanatory journalists."
Bias (and accusations of bias) becomes the by-product of making those choices. In the end, NPR has to be able to justify its choices and be judged by its listeners.
Does Opinion Count as Information?
One other aspect of bias: NPR is often accused of seeking out opinion in matters of public controversy. I frequently receive mail accusing NPR of engaging in opinion-mongering, as if opinion by itself were something to be shunned.
In this pundit-crazed culture, some people place an extremely high value on opinion -- as if opinion were just another kind of fact-based reporting. Or conversely, they condemn it as being inimical to good journalism.
NPR needs to make it clear -- again and again -- to its listeners that opinion (or "commentary" as it is known) is not the same as reporting. Nor is it the same thing as analysis. Opinion is in fact useful to understanding complicated issues. That's why newspapers have the editorial page right next to the op-ed page.
As a public broadcaster, NPR has no editorial page. But it does have op-ed-style essays where opinion and analysis can be heard.
Some critics accuse NPR of actually having an editorial page and calling it news reporting. That's unfair and untrue but it is why NPR must take every step to ensure that it has made the right choices in what has been included and what has been excluded in its reporting.
And NPR programs must reaffirm the clear distinction between reporting and opinion.
Regards,
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
Correction: In the last column, I described Kee Malesky as a "broadcast" librarian. She is of course, a reference librarian. My apologies to the aggrieved broadcast and music librarians. Believe me, you don't want to have librarians upset...
Listeners may contact me at 202-513-3246 or at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
