|
Media Matters
August 8, 2003
Does 'Money Talk' on NPR? If So, What Is It Saying?
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
Does financial sponsorship of NPR have any effect on NPR journalism? Some listeners are always concerned and want to know if NPR is able to remain journalistically neutral in spite of the financial sponsorships from charitable foundations and corporations.
Sponsorship=Ads=Underwriting
In commercial broadcasting, they are known as ads. In public broadcasting, they are known as "sponsorship" or "underwriting." NPR accepts money from various foundations and corporations to support NPR programming. In return, NPR airs messages from these organizations. Each message runs between 12 to 15 seconds. The language and phrasing of every message is required by the Federal Communications Commission to be restrained as befits a non-commercial enterprise such as NPR. More significantly, there must not be what the FCC describes as a call to action."
A "call to action" means that the message cannot implore or encourage the listeners to do anything such as run right out and buy the product. In short, it can't sound like an ad. At least, it is not supposed to.
Many listeners understand that this is the minimally acceptable trade-off for having NPR and other forms of public broadcasting. Commercial -- or underwriting-free -- public radio still exists in Canada, the U.K. and Australia, but the pressures are on to adopt some form of underwriting there too.
In the United States, the pressures are on public radio as well. It was not so many years ago when the economy was more robust than it is today. With the collapse of the stock market and especially with the "dot-com" bust, other sources of underwriting have been sought out. Some of these businesses might not have been heard on NPR in the past. But that was then.
"Support for NPR Is Brought to You By"
Recently NPR listeners have heard underwriting messages from what some consider less traditional underwriters such as Metamucil, Nexium, the AARP and the ACLU.
Some listeners have asked if it is appropriate for NPR to take underwriting from the drug and food supplement industries. Others have wondered whether NPR should accept money from lobby groups like American Association of Retired Persons.
More complicated is the American Civil Liberties Union. Some listeners have berated NPR for running the ACLU’s underwriting as though this were proof of NPR’s “liberal bias.”
Others inside NPR ask if we can still interview ACLU officials, as NPR frequently does, on matters pertaining to the important and complex civil liberties questions that confront American policies these days. For some it sounds as though the ACLU is paying for access to NPR News. That is not the case.
I think the answer has to be, yes, NPR can and should take the money. It should because without the money, NPR would sound a lot less like a news organization and more like a radio service specializing in cultural reporting. Still interesting and a lot less expensive. But most of NPR's listeners rely more on its news service.
It can take the money but the reasons are more complex. Here are some of the reasons:
The "Firewall" at NPR
NPR prides itself on having a "firewall" that minimizes the contact between the people who produce the programs and the companies and foundations that wish to support NPR.
This "firewall" means that money cannot be given for specific news coverage. Some foundations may give money for election coverage or to help pay for coverage of the war in Iraq. But at no time, can a foundation or a corporation insist that the money be used for specific stories or specific editorial perspectives.
Moreover, these sponsors or "funders" may not speak with reporters or producers to lobby them or pitch their points of view. Only the most senior members of news management may chat with "funders" so that both may have a clear but general sense of what might be aired in the way of programs or reporting. In many cases, the news department may feel that the offer from a sponsor comes with too many unreasonable expectations or strings attached, so the offer is declined.
When some would-be "funders" have found out that they will have no say in how their money might be used, the offer has been withdrawn.
Why Is Public Radio So Different?
Some listeners assume that money and influence must happen at NPR. In the commercial broadcasting environment, it is assumed it happens all the time. How could it not be the same in public radio?
From my vantage point, it isn't the same. I have never heard of an instance in the six years I have been at NPR where a story was changed to suit an underwriter.
I wonder though, if some subconscious triage might occur, especially during the editorial process where the stories are selected.
For example, would NPR or any news organization, go out of its way to do a story on trade unions at a time when sponsorship is coming from investment banks? Should a journalistic organization interview ecological movements when support is coming from "agribusiness?" Are those interviews then perceived to be "soft" because of the sponsorship? Or on the other hand, if the news organization does a tough job, is it compensating because it has to prove it can't be bought off?
Even so, some inside NPR management doubt that the rank and file in the news department is particularly aware of the underwriting. Journalists are more concerned with getting the news together than worrying about who NPR's sponsor-du-jour might be.
Can Journalists Be Immune from Influences?
On the other hand, it is impossible to keep journalists in a pristine bubble where they remain in blissful ignorance of how their world really works. I'm not sure that letting journalists ply their craft without that knowledge is still possible. A newsroom is hardly a cloistered monastery.
But the impression still lingers: how could the money not influence NPR? It is always possible and it is up to NPR to make sure it does not by being open about where the money comes from. NPR lists its supporters on the Web site both in terms of who gives and how much, in the organization's annual report. But the most recent report posted on the Web site is from 2000. NPR should make transparency in this instance a high priority.
This issue was raised again recently when NPR News reviewed the movie Seabiscuit on All Things Considered on July 23.
Unbeknownst to ATC, the movie company that distributes the film had purchased an underwriting "spot." The spot was recorded and fed into the computer ten days before it was to be aired.
"Support for NPR... 'Seabiscuit'"
A quick witted manager noticed that the "spot" would finally make it to air just after Melissa Block finished her interview with the film's director. The "spot" was taken out of the computer to run somewhere else. This avoided the cringe factor that might occur when just after the interview, the listeners might hear the announcer's voice saying "Universal Pictures, presenting Seabiscuit, starring..."
Fortunately, that worst-case scenario did not happen.
But if there is an effective "firewall," should it make any difference? If in fact, there is no undue influence, why does NPR still care that the underwriting messages not be placed adjacent to a story on that subject? It shouldn’t matter, but the reality is, when it occasionally happens, it does sound odd.
The New York Times recently ran a full-page ad for the latest from the polemicist, Ann Coulter. Yet few readers of the Times would assume that the Times’ journalism is affected by that ad in any way.
The same assumptions, expectations and precautions should be taken at NPR.
Listeners may contact me at 202-513-3245 or at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
