|
Media Matters
Jan. 23, 2003
A Week of Journalistic Minefields at NPR
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
After last October's anti-war rally in Washington, D.C., NPR came in for some well-deserved wrist slaps for under-reporting a major political event.
At the time, NPR's reporting seemed dismissive to many listeners because the number of demonstrators seemed seriously low-balled.
'Did NPR Really Say That?'
Last weekend the anti-war demonstrations were reported more accurately, in my opinion. NPR reporters filed into every newscast. There were reports from buses on their way to Washington, D.C., from the National Mall and from San Francisco. NPR also referenced the demonstrators around the United States and overseas with sounds of the marches as well as BBC and CBC reports from Tokyo, Karachi and Toronto.
In total, NPR provided almost an hour of reporting over the weekend, including the dozens of reports for newscasts. NPR also avoided falling into the trap of the numbers game. On All Things Considered, reporter Andrea Seabrook described the crowd on the Mall, without locking herself in by giving a crowd estimate:
"Steve, I can see from where I'm standing many city blocks full of people, at least a mile. As far as I can see, the street is packed full of people, and I have seen people -- a wide range of opinions here at the march, from people who oppose war and violence under any circumstances and then people who oppose unilateral action by the United States. So you see people who are on the sort of radical left, who think the U.S. should end occupation everywhere in the world and then Republicans who believe we should go with the United Nations..."
But that reporting still came under attack from a Web site (www.democrats.com) that misinformed hundreds of people by stating that "NPR Gives 5 Minutes to Massive Anti-war Protests, and 4 Minutes to the Queen's Trousers":
"While Pacifica radio devoted the entire day to coverage of the antiwar protests in DC and SF, "listener-supported" NPR spent all of 5 minutes of its evening news coverage on perfunctory coverage of the story. Not a single protester was interviewed, and only two brief soundbites of the many outstanding speeches were played. What did they cover instead? 9 minutes of in-depth analysis of the turnover of staffers and lobbyists accompanying the new governor of Maryland (duh!), and 4 minutes of idle transatlantic chitchat with a British journalist about the Queen's shocking public appearance in slacks following knee surgery. Send your complaints...and tell them you'll remember at pitch time."
Democrats.com describes itself as "the aggressive progressives," and in this case at least they were more like "the unfounded confounded." They couldn't have been more wrong.
Aside from the protests, All Things Considered reported on the problems facing new state administrations -- in this case, in Maryland. And there was a three-minute report on the Queen wearing slacks in public for the first time. But that was a light feature that aired late in the program.
But that didn't stop more than 500 outraged "listeners" from giving NPR a piece of their -- or someone's -- mind.
Abortion Terminology
With the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, NPR has devoted some considerable airtime to the politics that are being fought around the abortion issue.
Many listeners are bothered by the language used by the media (NPR included) to describe abortion, its supporters and opponents.
"I would be interested to know who instituted the apparently universal naming convention for the groups on different sides of the abortion debate. Those in favor of allowing abortions have been given the lofty titles "abortion-rights groups" or "abortion-rights activists," or the old standby, "pro-choice," while those opposed to the practice are always referred to with the sinister name, "anti-abortion groups" or even "anti-abortion-rights groups." Why not turn the tables, at least once in a while, and refer to the one as "pro-life" or "right to life" and the other as "anti-life?" How can we have impartial reporting and meaningful debate if the mainstream media have prejudged the issue by the time we have named the contenders?"
-Mark Oveson
Peggy Girshman is the deputy managing editor of NPR News. She sent out a note recently to remind NPR reporters and editors that the language around this issue remains volatile:
"NPR's policy on abortion language is:
abortion rights proponents or advocates
anti-abortion activists
abortion foes/opponents
Of course, interview subjects are allowed to describe themselves anyway they like in actualities or titles "Mary Smith, head of the Pro-Life Party," etc. But our language should remain neutral and descriptive as above."
And in a subsequent memo to staff, Girshman noted that a related medical procedure (frequently described as "partial-birth abortion") also needs a language advisory:
"You can use the term "intact dilation and extraction" to describe the procedure; You can say "the procedure opponents call 'partial birth abortion'. You can say "certain late term abortions" (see below). Please don't use the phrase "so-called partial birth abortion" because it doesn't explain who's calling it that.
"Partial-birth" is not a medical term and has no exact parallel in medical terminology -- intact dilation and extraction is the closest description. Also, it is not correct to call these procedures "RARE" -- it is not known how often they are performed.
Nor is it absolutely precise to use the phrase "LATE TERM ABORTION." Intact dilation and extractions are performed in both the second and third trimesters -- the second trimester is not considered "late" pregnancy. Thus "late term" is not appropriate -- and if you need some short-hand, it may be unavoidable --"certain late term abortions" would be okay."
Like many controversial issues that NPR covers, this one is fraught with emotions and implications for many listeners.
But NPR has done a good job in covering this story, reporting on the science, the politics and the emotions around this issue. As well, all the stories on the Roe v. Wade anniversary were posted together on the NPR Website (NPR News Series: 30th Anniversary of 'Roe v. Wade'), making it evident how the stories were balanced. Many listeners on both sides of the issue wrote to say how impressed they were by NPR's coverage.
Race and the Census
But in another reportorial minefield, NPR was not so lucky. The 2000 Census reported, according to the Associated Press (and reported by NPR) that Hispanics are now the largest minority group in America. But it's not quite that simple:
In a note to staff, reporter Pam Fessler reminded us to:
"Please be careful about the wires related to the census and race. Yesterday, AP reported that Hispanics for the first-time outnumbered blacks as the nation's minority. In fact, that is not what they reported... it's how AP, on its own, interpreted new numbers that came out. And it's an interpretation that is very much open to debate.
Many Hispanics are black, many blacks are Hispanic. They are not mutually exclusive groups. But individuals who said they were both black AND Hispanic were only considered to be Hispanic by AP.
The only thing that is clear from the census numbers is that the Hispanic population is growing faster than any other minority group and is very likely to exceed other minority groups in the future, no matter how you calculate the numbers."
Two memos that illustrate how NPR helps its reporters help the listeners through some tough stories. But overall, not a bad week for NPR.
Listeners may contact me at 202-513-3246 or at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
