|
Media Matters
Feb. 28, 2003
Keeping Our Heads While All About Us...
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
As nations try to slow or hasten the move to war, news organizations including NPR are also getting ready. NPR has been working for months to prepare the listeners for what may happen even while it makes programming and logistical choices about which stories to cover and where to position reporters.
Requesting 'Less Neutral' Reporting
Many listeners write to say they find this objectionable. They sense in NPR's reporting a certain tone of inevitability on this. They assume that to report in this way legitimates the Bush administration's position. These listeners (and there are a lot of them) insist that NPR should be less neutral by reporting more fully on the non-war possibilities and prospects.
Two recent events and NPR's coverage (or non-coverage) of this aspect of the Iraq story are worth noting.
First was a report on a lobbying campaign called the "Virtual March on Washington." This was an organized effort by people who are opposed to war. This Internet campaign culminated on Wednesday, Feb. 26 with hundreds of thousands of e-mails, faxes and phone calls to the U.S. Senate.
NPR's Andrea Seabrook reported it this way in conversation with All Things Considered's Melissa Block:
They said they'd never seen anything like this. I mean, you know, the Senate staff are sort of used to getting lots of calls every day, especially when there's an important vote coming up. But this was different. This was totally organized.
Nobody was really expecting it. But it was floods and floods of calls. That, again, should be tempered by the fact that the vote has already been made giving President Bush the authorization to attack Iraq, and so some senators were saying that it was kind of irrelevant at this point.
'Too Evenhanded?'
On this story, many listeners objected, finding NPR "too evenhanded" and "pro-administration," especially when the report pointed out that politically, the protest could not change the fact that the Senate had already voted to back the president.
The other objection has come from an organization called FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting).
FAIR points to a "Periscope" article in the most recent edition of Newsweek (March 3, 2003) as an example of what the U.S. media -- including NPR -- is not reporting.
In the article, Newsweek says that a high-ranking Iraqi defector told U.S. and British intelligence that Saddam Hussein had destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons plus the means to deliver them back in 1995.
Many listeners wrote to ask NPR to report this story:
Will NPR give proper coverage to Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, Iraqi chief weapons inspector, by your news network so the American people have a more complete coverage of what is our nation's upcoming war may be all about? (Isn’t) social responsibility and freedom of the press the issue, before we charge of into a major war?
- Michael Seymour, Brookline, Mass.
I asked NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Gjelten for his take on the FAIR vs. Newsweek controversy. Here's his response:
I am familiar with the 'Newsweek' story. I find this FAIR commentary to be curious... so much so that it raises questions in my own mind about the organization's political agenda. FAIR actually criticizes 'Newsweek' for underplaying its own story -- as if FAIR knows better than 'Newsweek' whether the story is important or not:
Unfortunately, 'Newsweek' chose a curious way to handle its scoop: The
magazine placed the story in the miscellaneous "Periscope" section with a
generic headline, "The Defector's Secrets." Worse, 'Newsweek's' online
version added a subhead that seemed almost designed to undercut the
importance of the story: "Before his death, a high-ranking defector said
Iraq had not abandoned its WMD (weapons of mass destruction) ambitions."
Well, I would say that last point is pretty essential. Why should 'Newsweek' be CRITICIZED for including it? Moreover, the FAIR commentary did not mention a very important part of the 'Newsweek' story:
Kamel said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions. The stocks had been destroyed to hide the programs from the U.N. inspectors, but Iraq had retained the design and engineering details of these weapons. Kamel talked of hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches and even missile-warhead molds.
Jeffrey, I saw the 'Newsweek' story as I'm sure many people did. I found 'Newsweek's' placement of the story to be appropriate given the caveats. I think those caveats also go far to explain why the story did not get the attention FAIR apparently thinks it should get.
Journalism in a Nervous Time
This is a very nervous time, as I have mentioned before. The consequences of what may or may not happen over the coming weeks and months are incalculable and unimaginable. That is why it behooves us to ensure that the information presented on NPR is as balanced and as contextual as possible... to "keep our heads, while all about us are losing theirs."
In my opinion, NPR has done a reasonable job in presenting both the pro and the anti-war opinions, arguments and options. It is not NPR's role to provide a sounding board for any single point of view, whether on this or any other issue.
Some critics of NPR have written to me to say that they find the British approach to information much more satisfying. In the UK, the press is highly partisan and the dividing line between the news and the editorial position of the paper is often indistinguishable.
It is worth noting that the BBC, as that nation's public broadcaster, does not take an editorial position on matters of public controversy. That is as it should be whether at the BBC or at NPR. It is difficult to imagine an American newspaper exhorting its readers to attend an anti-war demonstration as the London Daily Express recently did on its front page.
But that is the subject for a future column.
NPR's Vice President of News, Bruce Drake, put out a note to staff this week in anticipation of what is to come. It's worth noting and worth holding NPR to this promise of performance:
As we approach the likelihood of war with Iraq, it is a good time to restate the principles and philosophy of NPR News coverage.
We start with these principles:
1. NPR news must be timely, accurate and contextual.
2. NPR edits with thoughtfulness and intelligence, not adrenaline, and applies the highest editorial standards to what it puts on the air.
3. NPR's coverage is seamless and professional; it advances the story throughout the day and recaps for listeners joining us along the way.
4. NPR is mindful of the needs of stations, providing frequent communication of our coverage plans and clocks that include breaks for stations.
We believe listeners count on us to be responsible where others are not; to avoid pack journalism; and to resist the temptation to go to air with rumor, speculation or the headlines of other broadcast networks. We believe that what the listeners have found most memorable about NPR News coverage, particularly in troubled times, has been the comprehensiveness of the coverage and the measured way it is delivered to them.
When major news breaks -- be it bombs over Baghdad or a tragedy like the Columbia shuttle disaster -- NPR will take the air and hold the air, even if initial information is slight. We put a high premium on reporting on our air what our reporters have witnessed or what we have been able to confirm. If there is a development we have not been able to confirm, we will sometimes cite a report by other credible news sources -- like the Associated Press -- if that report has the taste of authenticity when judged against our experience and other information we know.
In rare moments, we might be late; we might not be perfect. But we will always be responsible and careful in exercising our best judgment -- the judgment that has earned our system the respect and loyalty of its audience. This is the core of our programming philosophy.
Listeners may contact me at 202-513-3246 or at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
