Impartiality Principle: Impartiality


[Editor's Note: This principle was revised on July 7, 2021 to reflect the work and thinking of the Ethics Handbook Committee.]

Our experiences and perspectives are valuable assets to our journalism. We enjoy the right to robust personal lives, yet we accept some unique professional obligations and limitations. Because our words and actions can damage the public's opinion of NPR, we comport ourselves in ways that honor our professional impartiality. We have opinions, like all people. But the public deserves factual reporting and informed analysis without our opinions unduly influencing what they hear or see. So we strive to report and produce stories that transcend our biases and treat all views fairly. We aggressively challenge our own perspectives and pursue a diverse range of others, aiming always to present the truth as completely as we can tell it.

Impartiality in our personal lives

As expressed in our Statement of Principles, we hold ourselves to a high standard. We work extraordinarily hard to prove ourselves worthy of the trust the public places in us. Our reputation as rigorous and impartial pursuers of truth is fundamental to protecting and strengthening that trust. As journalists and representatives of NPR, furthermore, we are in the public eye.

NPR staff lead active private lives and hold a diverse range of religious, ethical and political beliefs. NPR and its coverage are better for that diversity. NPR encourages active participation in civic life and expressions of values. However, the decision to participate in community or national events, including posting on social media, can conflict with NPR's core values when that participation calls into question the credibility, fairness or independence of NPR's coverage or our respect for the people we cover and serve. The intent of this guidance is to allow NPR staff the freedom to show up as their full selves in society as much as possible, while also upholding NPR's journalistic values. This guidance is intended to help staff, supervisors and newsroom managers work together to find that balance.

Guideline: Overall, civic, cultural and community activities are fine.

NPR journalists may participate in civic and cultural events that do not pose conflicts of interest. However, it is always wise to anticipate ahead of time what political or partisan issues or causes might emerge within a civic or cultural event to avoid ethical problems. And we let our supervisors know about any such civic and cultural organizations we do actively engage with, so that any potential conflicts of interest can be headed off.

We can sit on community advisory boards, act as trustees at educational institutions and serve on the boards of religious organizations and nonprofit groups — so long as those organizations do not engage in significant lobbying or other political activity. We tell our supervisors about such activities and understand that NPR may revoke its approval if there are actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

We have the same right to practice religion — or not — as other Americans. But we do not let our religious or personal beliefs distort our coverage of events or other faiths.

Guideline: Be aware that a loved one's political activity may create a perception of bias.

Some of our family members — including spouses, companions and children — may be involved in politics or advocacy. We are sensitive to the perception of bias. So we inform our supervisors and work with them to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest.
NPR journalists recuse themselves from covering stories or events related to their family members' political activities. We may go so far as to change job responsibilities (for instance, moving off the "politics desk" to an area of coverage well removed from that subject). "You have the right to marry anyone you want, but you don't have the right to cover any beat you want" if the potential conflicts appear to be too great, Tom Rosenstiel of Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism once said to the Los Angeles Times.

Guideline: Don't sign, don't advocate, don't donate.

We're not advocates. We may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics in a participatory or activist manner. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record (and not a private expression of choice in a voting booth), those of us connected with news coverage may not contribute to political campaigns or referendums, as doing so would call into question NPR's journalistic independence and impartiality.

This extends to moments when NPR as a company has taken a position on issues that affect us and our industry, such as federal funding for public broadcasting. Even when our company takes a stance on an issue, we, as journalists, remain dedicated to reporting on the issues with journalistic rigor and impartiality.

It also means we should not sign petitions or otherwise contribute support or money to political causes. Also: we don't put political signs in our yards or bumper stickers on our cars.

There may be cases where we can appropriately advocate for issues directly related to our journalistic mission (e.g. First Amendment rights, the Freedom of Information Act, a federal "shield law"). It also may be appropriate to donate money or time to organizations that advocate on such issues.

However, we discuss these exceptions prior to any advocacy with our supervisors. In most cases, permission need only be given once. But if there's a change in such an organization's mission or we're asked to take on leadership roles that would put us in the public eye, we consult with those supervisors again.


Would you say it on an NPR program?

This is the key test for helping us sort through what's acceptable to say in public settings: In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, we should not express views we would not air in our roles as NPR journalists. We avoid participating in shows, forums, or other venues that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.

Guideline: We don't serve on government boards and commissions.

NPR journalists may not serve on government boards or commissions. Generally, we avoid serving on boards, and we don't hold offices that would create conflicts of interest between our work for NPR and our responsibilities to the other institution. We have sometimes made exceptions to allow journalists to serve on the boards of institutions where such conflicts are unlikely, such as other journalism organizations or educational institutions. All such exceptions require approval from supervisors. And of course, if an NPR journalist serves on the board of an institution that becomes the subject of NPR's reporting, that journalist should be recused from any related coverage.

Guideline: Our standards of impartiality also apply to social media.

(Editor's note on July 27, 2017: Click here to go to an updated special section about the do's and don't's of social media.)

Refrain from advocating for political issues online. This extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog). Don't express personal views on a political issue that you could not write for the air or post on These guidelines apply whether you are posting under your own name or — if the online site allows pseudonyms — your identity would not be readily apparent. In reality, anything you post online reflects both on you and on NPR.

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 groups representing other viewpoints.

Guideline: On attending marches, rallies and other public events.

NPR editorial staff may express support for democratic, civic values that are core to NPR's work, such as, but not limited to: the freedom and dignity of human beings, the rights of a free and independent press, the right to thrive in society without facing discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, disability, or religion.

For example: If journalists wish to march in a Pride parade, they shouldn't have to abstain merely because they work in journalism. Journalists should generally be able to sign petitions for sidewalks in their neighborhoods, ask for funding for local concerns, and otherwise participate in community matters as long as they are not responsible for covering the issues and are not interfering with coverage by colleagues at NPR or across the network.

As we've said in earlier sections, NPR editorial staff should not publicly endorse nor oppose political parties, elected and appointed government officials, candidates for public office, referendums or pending legislation. They should not donate money or time to candidates or political campaigns nor attend public events expressly in support of those candidates, campaigns, or specific political issues.

We recognize that the line between standing up for human rights and being "political" is a fine one that looks different from different perspectives. A march for racial equality may be non-political in principle, for instance, but that may not hold true if the march is for a specific piece of legislation or where organizers or speakers include politicians aligned only with one party. The fact that others may attempt to politicize social issues or the way people live their lives does not mean that journalists are engaging in political activity. Decisions on participation will have to be case by case as a result.

Members of the editorial staff should apply these principles to their day-to-day work on air, online and in social media. There inevitably will be questions of participation that land in gray areas of this guidance. Editorial leadership has established a standing committee of journalists to regularly review and advise on questions regarding social media and other activity. The Editorial Director, in consultation with editorial leadership, will also issue specific guidance ahead of large news-making events.

NPR's editorial leaders trust journalists to exercise their best judgement and do not anticipate routine disciplinary action for missteps in applying guidance. However, deliberate and continued disregard for NPR's core values and guidance may result in disciplinary action.


The evolution of our guidance on marches, rallies and public events.

In 2010, the NPR News Code of Ethics included a concise, seemingly straightforward rule concerning marches and rallies. It read, in its entirety: "NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them."

When satirical newscasters Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert announced they were going to hold a rally on the Mall in Washington, D.C., in October 2010, many employees wondered how the ethics policy applied to the event. The gathering – a mashup of Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" and Colbert's "March to Keep Fear Alive" – was clearly satirical. But it wasn't an apolitical comedy show, either. The comedians would use the occasion to extend critiques they often make on their shows, criticisms of our political system, media, and culture. Certainly these are "issues that NPR covers." And a bystander who spotted an NPR journalist cheering along with the comedians' barbs at various news subjects could fairly assume that the journalist shared the comedians' views, undermining our impartiality.

So memos went out reminding staff of the ethics policy, and clarifying that it did apply to the Stewart/Colbert event. The memos and the decisions they reflected offered plenty of fodder for the ensuing news cycle, and touched off a flurry of sharp, wide-ranging questions, including:

  • Why weren't employees reminded of the policy prior to previous events such as the ones Glenn Beck and Al Sharpton had held earlier that fall?
  • How do we distinguish between "observing" and "participating"? (The Washington City Paper's Michael Schaffer offered a notable tongue-in-cheek poke at the distinction.)
  • If being a witness to world events is one of the essential components of journalism, should journalists be prevented from observing an event of significant public interest, even if the event has no direct bearing on their beat or coverage?

The evolution of the News Code of Ethics into this Ethics Handbook offered an opportunity to review our decision-making on the Stewart/Colbert event and to add helpful nuance to the guidance on making similar decisions in the future. This handbook's guidance on attending marches, rallies and other political events is different from its predecessor in several ways that won't be enumerated here. But we highlight the shift to underscore two broader themes that should play into all our thinking:

  • First, the guideline – like many in this handbook – is intended not only to answer or preempt questions, but also to raise them. There's no easy one-size-fits-all answer to the question of how "participating" and "observing" differ, for example, but there's value in considering where our actions sit along that spectrum.
  • Second, our thinking will evolve – as it has here – and should. We not only make decisions, we review them, we consider their effects and we learn from them. This too is characteristic of a healthy ethical newsroom guided by sound ethical principles.

Guideline: Honor impartiality in speaking appearances and outside work.

When appearing on other media outlets, NPR journalists conduct themselves in accordance with NPR's standards of ethical behavior. In other words, when discussing the day's news we do not say or write things elsewhere that we would not say on NPR or

We do not express personal opinions in public appearances outside NPR — just as we would not on our own broadcasts. If we are part of a panel discussion or a current events roundup and are asked what we think about an issue, what we think a politician should do or what is likely to happen next, we give answers that are based on solid reporting, not opinion.

One simple tip: if you find yourself starting to say "I think," pause. Frame your answers around what your reporting tells you, what polls are saying or what history shows is likely to happen.

We avoid speaking to groups where the appearance itself might put in question our impartiality. This includes situations where our appearance may seem to endorse the agenda of a group or organization, as well as participation in some political debates and forums where the sponsoring groups or other participants are identified with a particular perspective on an issue.

Impartiality in our journalism

Fair, accurate, impartial reporting is the foundation of NPR news coverage. On top of that foundation, we layer factual, reporting-driven analysis – breaking down news events and providing explanation and context to aid our audience in interpreting the news. A large part of what makes our work so valuable is our effort to transcend how we feel about a subject and impart to our audience what we know about it, and what we don't.

This is a lofty standard. The perception of bias is intensely subjective, hanging on the tiniest nuances — a gesture, a word, a slight intonation. Complicating matters is the fact that our audiences don't only come to us for our news reporting and analysis, but for reflection, humor, commentary, criticism and much more.1

But journalism is at the core of our enterprise. We should weigh the effect of all our actions on its credibility and integrity.

1. Source: Pew Research Center study, June 2010.

Guideline: Beyond news – how commentary, criticism and essays fit into our journalism.

While news reporting and analysis are at the center of our work, NPR offers its audiences much that isn't "just the facts" – such as essays reflecting on the news, commentaries on current affairs, and cultural criticism. Our audiences value these offerings.

Valid news analysis flows naturally from deep, thorough reporting. Its role is to provide interpretation, explanation and context – breaking down stories to foster understanding, discerning important patterns in news events, revealing historical connections and comparisons, and articulating themes our reporting has unearthed.

For the most part, NPR journalists with a role in covering the news should stick to reporting and analysis. We should not tread beyond well-supported conclusions based on our reporting and should not present opinions as fact. Our aim is to give the public the evidence to weigh and develop their own opinions, without the intrusion of ours.

Commentators have more leeway to express opinions and may do so as long as they are respectful and grounded in facts. Commentators provide opinions, commentary or critique in their area of expertise. This includes those who review music, books, pop culture, television, film, and other artistic works, as well as those who provide political opinions. Commentators who express political opinions must be transparent about their involvement in any issue or event that is covered in their work, if applicable.

It is appropriate for anyone at NPR to write a first-person story about an issue, even if it involves a controversial issue or event, as long as it is clear that it is a personal story and their editor or supervisor approves the work prior to publication.

Such essays differ in tone and substance from commentary, the expression of opinion on items of public interest. By its very definition, a commentary is intended to put the author's opinions on display. Consequently, NPR journalists with a role in reporting and producing the news do not deliver commentaries. In selecting commentaries from independent writers, we honor our commitments to impartiality and fairness by presenting our audiences with a variety of voices, encompassing many sides of an issue. Our commentaries must also hew to other Guiding Principles, reflecting honesty, accuracy and transparency.


Essays to aspire to.

Essays such as these exemplify all that essays are supposed to do, revealing valuable personal insights and reflections without offering opinions on issues we cover:

Guideline: When language is politicized, seek neutral words that foster understanding.

Strive to use words and phrases that accurately deliver information without taking sides on political issues. Politically loaded language not only violates our commitment to be fair, but also gets in the way of telling good stories. It makes readers and listeners stop to consider whether we're biased in favor of one side or the other.

So, for example, we report about efforts to "overhaul" health care or tax policy, not the "reform" that advocates on all sides say they are pursuing. "Reform" is in the eye of the beholder. "Overhaul" is a better, less-charged word.

In such cases we go with what's accurate and err on the side of neutrality.

We also take the time to explain to our audiences how certain words or phrases have taken on politically loaded meanings, as Joanne Silberner did in a November 1995 piece for All Things Considered. Reporting on the debate over certain abortions performed late in pregnancy, she noted that:

This time, the debate even extends to what the procedure is called. Opponents call it a 'partial birth abortion,' while supporters of abortion rights prefer the medical term 'intact dilation and evacuation.' Abortion opponents say the procedure is brutal and inhumane to the fetus, but abortion rights supporters say it can save the life of the mother and allow her to become pregnant again.

For guidance, NPR policy on many terms and phrases is collected on NPR's Intranet (look for the style guides under "Editorial Resources"). If you're unsure and the subject isn't covered there, ask the librarians and consult with our in-house experts — the correspondents and editors who cover controversial topics such as abortion, tax policy, climate change and others. They have likely already worked through the issues. Also feel free to talk it over with the Standards and Practices Editor (email Ethics).

In two separate studies, we have found that balanced and unbiased reporting is what drives listeners to tune in to NPR and is also what they perceive the defining characteristic of NPR to be.

- Sarah Withrow, Senior Research Analyst in NPR's Audience Insight and Research department