The full policy, which falls under the NPR News Ethics Policies and Social Media Guidelines adopted in 2004, can be found here. The "relevant excerpts" included the the memo were as follows:
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. This restriction applies to the upcoming John [sic] Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies.
The memo was in response to a debate percolating around water coolers at NPR's headquarters in Washington as to whether the Stewart/Colbert event, taking place just 12 blocks away, would qualify as "political" - a label the event's organizers flatly deny - or merely as an entertainment gathering. In the context of the upcoming midterm elections and the often-attributed center-left leaning of the Comedy Central audience - what Bill O'Reilly repeatedly refers to as the "Stoned Slacker" demographic - NPR execs decided they would cover the event as if it were a political rally, and due to the ambiguity, needed to clarify that decision to their staff.
Since sending out the memos - and even intentionally forwarding them to other media outlets in order to avoid malicious rumors or confusion - NPR has taken a beating in the blogosphere. Pundits from the conservative fringe have accused NPR of "protesting too much;" asserting their impartiality as a cover for their actual arch-liberal bias, while those in the center, left and right have focused on the uncomfortable precedent of telling employees how they are allowed to spend their time off the clock - the rally will take place on a Saturday from noon to 3 pm.
In an effort to quell the monsoon of speculation, NPR quickly issued an official clarification through the blog of its Ombudsman, Alicia C. Shepard. In it, Shepard responded to the more lunatic accusations, basically clarifying what everyone already knew: NPR is not secretly an organization of neo-fascists masquerading as a journalism organization, only to be caught by the leaking of this internal memo.
By 6:30 that evening, NPR Senior VP of Marketing, Communications and External Relations, Dana Davis Rehm, published the full text of the memo in question as well as a further official defense of the policy and its application. In particular, she suggests that the NPR policy is standard among respected journalism organizations, and that NPR is "curious about what other news organizations – The New York Times, CBS, ABC, NBC and The Washington Post – are thinking about whether their own ethics policies are consistent with their staffs' attendance at these events."
The following day, the Washington Post announced it would enact a similar policy. According to its press release, "Events, like those organized by Glenn Beck or involving Jon Stewart and Steven [sic] Colbert, are political, and therefore Post newsroom employees may not participate." (link)
Learning from NPR's guffaw, the Post announcement continues, "By participate, we mean that Post newsroom employees cannot in any way put themselves in a position that could be construed as supporting (or opposing) that cause. That means no T-shirts, buttons, marching, chanting, etc. This guideline does not prohibit Post newsroom employees from observing—that is, watching and listening from the sidelines. The important thing is that it should be evident to anyone that you are observing, as journalists do, not participating, whether you are covering the event or not."
This is exactly the type of specificity and limitation that the NPR memo lacked, when Schiller said, "no matter where you work at NPR you should be very mindful that you represent the organization and its news coverage in the eyes of your friends, neighbors and others. So please think twice about the message you may be sending about our objectivity before you attend a rally or post a bumper sticker or yard sign. We are all NPR."
CNN, MSNBC, and all 3 broadcast networks have announced their intention to cover the rally live, but not all media organizations are on-board with the objectivity-boycott. Consider the coverage of this little tryst afforded by the generally-controversial Huffington Post. Spearheaded by its leader, Arianna Huffington, the site has taken on Stewart's charge of returning political discourse to a more civil, moderate temperature. Fashioning itself as almost a co-sponsor of the rally, Huffington Post has clearly stated that while it views the rally as political, it is not partisan - that is, the rally is against both Republican and Democratic excesses, and so the only way to be unobjective about it would be to give the radical fringe of both parties equal credit with the "moderate majority" the rally hopes to represent.
And this brings us to the issue that is being overlooked in this minor media fracas - to what degree NPR trusts the judgement of its staff, and how far it is willing to go to protect itself from unfounded accusations of bias by those on the political fringe of either extreme.
It seems clear that journalists actively covering political topics should not themselves be actively engaged in political campaigning, promoting a particular candidate, or attempting to persuade public opinion. This is "Journalism 101" and - frankly - disqualifies the majority of Fox pundits from the categorization of "journalist." In reality, things can get more complex, with respected newspapers openly backing political candidates, and cable news programs overwhelmingly favoring one party over the other. Neither seems especially savory, and are exactly the type of actual media bias that NPR has worked hard to avoid, aided for many years by FCC equal-time requirements, and other bygone efforts to regulate media accountability.
But many individual journalists, especially those that attended Journalism school, stick by the highest standards of objectivity. Nathan Cone, Classical Programming Director and occasional reporter for Texas Public Radio, an NPR affiliate station in San Antonio, posted on his facebook in response to my inquiry:
"I actually agree with this policy, and held myself to it long before it was in place. I don't go to rallies (unless I'm covering them), I don't sign petitions, and I don't make cracks about politics around the office. When he was at ABC, Ted Koppel went even further and never voted. Well, I do vote, and vote my conscience. My close friends and family know my views, but I strive to remain, to the outside world, apolitical."
In other words, the ideal is to be 100% neutral in every word, deed and thought, but this is virtually impossible to achieve. As an acceptable alternative, serious journalists are allowed to have personal opinions, but expected to put those aside in order to produce professional-caliber news. To the lay person, this seems an impossible segregation, especially on emotional topics, and the wealth of vindictive-laced pseudo-journalistic blogs (and, ahem, cable news channels) speaks volumes to how much easier it is to forgo the extra effort objectivity requires. But it is not an impossible feat, only requires a higher degree of sensitivity and self-sensor than the average person must employ.
I am reminded, as a personal example, of my father's ridiculous attention to grammatic detail. He is a veteran title attorney, and in his line of work the placement of a comma can dramatically alter legal property lines, with incredible ramifications in the competitive Oklahoma oil and gas industry he serves. In grade school - and indeed today, even after graduate-level work at Columbia University - I have great difficulty respecting the same arcane rules of grammar which, for my father, are an essential quality of the professionalism of his craft.
Likewise journalistic objectivity.
It is essential to the proper achievement of a basic job function - accurate communication of facts and events - and as such every effort must be made to not only protect it, but to ensure audience confidence in a journalist/ organization's maintenance of that objectivity.
But how far do we pursue this? Among journalists themselves, especially those covering the political spectrum, presumably no length is too far, as the Ted Koppell reference suggests. But what about those outside the realm of journalistic content at news-focused media organizations? Can janitors, security guards, auditors, and IT technicians jeopardize a newspaper's objectivity? Presumably not, though one must admit that a hypothetical cluster of 30 NY Times telemarketers at a Glenn Beck rally, decked out in Times apparel, would (improperly) raise questions.
So, can off-the-clock actions of non-journalists affect the objectivity or perceived objectivity of a media organization?
The unsatisfying answer is, "maybe," and therefore the NPR policy, and its extension to broad departments like Programming, Digital, Communications and Legal, can be seen as a 'safe bet.' They represent, at most, a minimal threat to the organization's ability to cover events objectively, and admittedly a more robust weapon for critics to bludgeon about accusations of institutional bias.
But this is exactly where I have my issue with NPR. The organization, now celebrating its 40th anniversary, is enjoying some of its greatest success despite years of decreasing government funding. New programs are constantly under development, and membership - both nationally, and at local affiliate stations - continues to grow. The causes are complex, but the most commonly cited are NPR's continuing commitment to the journalistic standards eschewed by other mainstream news channels, its strong focus on localism, and its dynamic embrace of digital media. When newspapers and TV stations are cutting staff reporters, NPR consistently adds salaried positions, and is presently launching a new "blog network" of locally-produced series specialized by topic. It's all very exciting, and its all built on a two-part contract. NPR trusts in the intelligence and humanity of its audience, and that audience trusts in the professionalism and ethics of NPR individuals, and as an organization.
So my query to NPR is this - why would you let a collection of admittedly sharp political satirists shake your faith in your audience or your staff? Why do you think Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert can shake the mighty foundations of trust and confidence that you have spent 40 years creating, and which your dedicated audience reaffirms in bi-annual fund drives and quarterly Arbitron ratings?
This is an awfully long blog post about what is, in essence, a minor memo mis-step, but I would hope that in the future, NPR returns to the policy that has served them best - to maintain professional objectivity through serious treatment of serious issues, rather than expend their energies trying to protect their reputation from assault by the highly-partisan amateur "press," who will doubtless find excuses to pan them anyway.
But what about Huffington's point, that the real purpose of the event itself is the promotion of objective, civil discourse on the subject of politics? How is it that rational news outlets like NPR, the Washington Post, and others, identify this as a - let's be blunt - "liberal" political event to the same degree that Glenn Beck's Tea Party-inspired rally was a "conservative" political event? While Stewart has repeatedly denied his Rally is a counterpoint to Beck's, the exact opposite is true. But this is not a question of partisan politics, but rather political practice. Do we believe in reasonable debate based on verifiable evidence, or do we prefer shouting lies and half-truths until we're red in the face. Which presents a more likely prosperous, just, transparent future for our venerable democracy, and which is simply better at driving up commercial ad sales?
I will be attending the 10/30 Rally to Restore Sanity, and intend to report on the event in this online format. I will not claim to be objective, but will present my opinions in such a manner as to clearly identify what biases I have, and perhaps where my actual observations contradicted them. I greatly enjoy the freedom of not being a real journalist, and sincerely invite you to appropriately take me not entirely seriously.
I will be at the Rally, and easy to find.
I will be the one wearing an NPR t-shirt.
Weber
::(lame)Texpatriot
Posts
A side note, that I didn't feel like expanding upon in the post despite how much it bothered me, was the lack of fact-checking displayed by both NPR and the Washington Post. I know these are interior memos, and I know that both John/Jon and Stephen/Steven are easy to mix up. But really, as respected news orgs they wouldn't put into print a story without double-checking the proper spelling of the name, and I don't see why they should apply a lesser standard to their press releases, especially when involving individuals who are obviously well-known. It's not a big deal, really, but only serves to make the news orgs look less professional, all while they're making such a big noise about how professional and objective they are.
ReplyDelete