Contact
The difference between NPR and Fox or MSNBC
Photo by Todd Huffman/flickr.com
During the 100-yard dash that was the last few weeks of the election, I didn’t have time to comment on National Public Radio’s controversial firing of Juan Williams. Although the news cycle has moved on to Brett Favre’s sextploits and Sarah Palin’s new Alaska travelogue, NPR’s firing of Juan Williams gives us an opportunity to think about what we value from our news sources.
Also, buried among the $200 billion in spending cuts recommended by President Obama’s deficit commission is the elimination of government funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides important monetary support for not only Sesame Street but also NPR. With its funding endangered, and its reputation again questioned by both liberals and conservatives, it’s an important time to consider Juan William’s firing, and the difference between NPR and Fox or MSNBC.
The Juan Williams firing
In spite of his sexual harassment problems and tendency for faux pas, I’ve always rooted for Juan Williams because he wrote the companion book to the 14-hour civil rights documentary Eyes on the Prize, which had great influence on me when I watched it as a teenager. So, I was bummed to see that he’d gotten fired from NPR.
I’m further bummed that many right-wing commentators have used NPR’s firing of Juan Williams as an opportunity to question its objectivity, and renew their calls for stripping its government funding. Fred Barnes’ recent blog for the Weekly Standard is typical of their argument:
“I have no doubt that Juan’s comments about Muslims were merely a pretext (for his firing). There had been prior run-ins between NPR and Juan over his appearances on Fox. But fire him over remarks that most Americans would identify with? I didn’t think the loathing of Fox would cause NPR to do something so ideologically driven, unprofessional, and bigoted… The motto is, Fox is fair and balanced. Mainstream media types sneer at this. Juan actually embodies it. He’s both fair and balanced. NPR is neither. “
I’ll deal with the question of whether NPR is fair and balanced later, but I want to address Barnes’ implicit argument that NPR fired Juan Williams because of what he said. I think this is a cynical mischaracterization of what likely happened. Here’s what NPR ombudswoman Alicia Shephard said in her article “NPR’s handling of Juan William’s firing was poorly handled:”
“This latest incident with Williams centers around a collision of values: NPR’s values emphasizing fact-based, objective journalism versus the tendency in some parts of the news media, notably Fox News, to promote only one side of the ideological spectrum.
“The issue also is whether someone on NPR’s payroll should be allowed to say something in one venue that NPR would not allow on its air. NPR’s ethics code says they cannot. Williams was doing the kind of stereotyping in a public platform that is dangerous to a democracy. It puts people in categories, as types – not as individuals with much in common despite their differences.
“Although NPR had handled the situation badly, the fact remains that NPR must uphold its journalistic standards.”
Many of us who’ve had to fire an employee know that it is a complicated process. To protect the company from legal retaliation, it’s important that an accurate history of misconduct has been documented. An essential component of this documentation is proof that the employee has been informed what the company considers acceptable behavior, how his or her behavior has deviated from that policy and, most importantly, how he or she is expected to act from then on. It’s clear from Shephard’s article that NPR followed this sort of procedure with Juan Williams.
Despite how pundits like Barnes want to talk about Juan William’s firing, NPR was merely doing what every company has the right and obligation to do: ensure that their employees follow policy. This isn’t a matter of liberal bias or political correctness. It’s a matter of enforcing stated policy and procedures – something almost everyone can agree is a reasonable and ethical way to conduct business.
Could NPR have handled the firing better? Yes. Should Juan Williams have been fired for repeatedly not following company policy? Yes.
Barnes also complains, without evidence, that Juan William’s was fired for remarks that “most Americans would identify with.” I would contend that just because most Americans would agree with a statement doesn’t make it newsworthy. Still, as Shephard points out, discussion of tough issues is valuable, but only so long as it contributes to useful public discourse rather than reinforces differences and stereotypes.
The difference between NPR and Fox or MSNBC
Like many of you, I’m a news junkie. NPR is on at our house in the morning while we get ready for work. When I drive around during the day, I often listen to talk radio programs like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and our local show hosted by Michael Swickard and Jim Spence. When I’m at work or working out at the gym, I listen to podcasts of NPR’s On Point or the Diane Rehm show. When my wife and I are fixing dinner, we switch around between the PBS Newshour, Countdown and Hannity.
I look to each source for a different type of information. From Countdown, Rush and Hannity I expect partisan spin. From NPR, on the other hand, I expect objective reporting. Here’s a long (sorry!) excerpt from columnist James Fallow’s article about what separates NPR from many other news outlets:
“Isn’t NPR just the same thing (as Fox News), from a different political perspective? No, and the difference matters.
“NPR, whatever its failings, is one of the few current inheritors of the tradition of the ambitious, first-rate news organization… It has reporters at state houses and in war zones. At last count, it has something like 17 foreign bureaus and 16 domestic. In much of the country, especially away from the coasts, it’s a major source of local information and news. It claims that its total audience is some 27 million people a week; with all allowances for counting differences, it reaches a lot more people than Fox does. (Eg, a recent report put O’Reilly’s usual audience at around 3.3 million.) NPR is increasingly important in state-capital coverage, as small newspapers have weakened. Because it can carry on-scene interviews and “soundscapes,” it can convey an impression of realities from inside China, or Haiti, or Detroit, or Kabul in a way print stories cannot.
“In their current anti-NPR initiative, Fox and the Republicans would like to suggest that the main way NPR differs from Fox is that most NPR employees vote Democratic. That is a difference, but the real difference is what they are trying to do. NPR shows are built around gathering and analyzing the news, rather than using it as a springboard for opinions. And while of course the selection of stories and analysts is subjective and can show a bias, in a serious news organization the bias is something to be worked against rather than embraced.”
This closely matches my perspective on the issue. Rather than being concerned with building media personalities or winning short-term political victories – as so many cable news corporations seem to be – responsible news organizations build processes and policies into their practices that resist bias and strive towards objectivity. Then they enforce those policies. That’s what NPR did when it fired Juan Williams.
But it’s impossible to be objective!
Conservative columnist Mona Charen argued – on NPR, of all places – that what “infuriates conservatives is that they see no willingness on the part of NPR to recognize that they have a point of view.” She claims that no news source is free of bias and that, essentially, Fox News is preferred because it doesn’t pretend to be objective (although one wonders what their slogan “Fair and Balanced” is supposed to suggest).
Ultimately, I agree with Charen that it’s impossible for a news organization to be completely unbiased. However, I don’t agree that it’s not worth resisting bias. For example, many of us admire the objective reporting that we believe we get from this site. Still, do most of us believe that Mr. Haussamen doesn’t have an opinion about the stories he reports? I certainly don’t. But I appreciate that he has the training and discipline to bracket out his own bias and opinion so that we can get news that’s based in facts and mostly free of bias.
I also appreciate this about much of NPR’s reportage. To push them to be as ideologically driven as Fox News or MSNBC seems like a dangerous and cynical suggestion that would only further reduce the availability of credible information.
The effect on the public discourse
Furthermore, I’d argue that the way that people yell at one another on Fox News and MSNBC (as opposed to on NPR) contributes largely to the acrimonious timbre of public discourse. If we really are interested in getting the country back on track, we should be lauding any venue that is committed to rational discussion of the issues of the day. It’s hard to learn or solve problems by yelling at each other. I want to hear the best arguments – rationally articulated, and carefully challenged – from all sides so that I can understand the decisions before us.
For example, NPR’s program On Point frequently gathers the smartest people (not the media darlings) from either side of an issue and brings them into the studio to vigorously – but politely – discuss. For a great example, please listen to this hour long program where Congressman Paul Ryan discusses his “Roadmap for America’s Future.” Programs like this are concerned with informing its listeners rather than convincing them of a worldview.
It’s hard for me to understand how people who value careful consideration over ideological dogmatism would resent NPR’s consistently positive contributions to the public discourse. Rather than complaining about NPR enforcing company policy, perhaps we should demand that our other news sources – local and national – recommit to meaningful exploration of the important issues.
Nick Voges is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s Zeitgeist. E-mail him at nick@nmpolitics.net.
16 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree that we shouldn’t rely upon one source for news, be it about politics, sports, pet care, or the cheapest place to buy books. But it has to be acknowledged that too many news sources have a slant that by default, will not include objectivity, and sadly, includes mistakes, errors, or lies (which news sources, for example, recently misquoted the daily amount the President spent on his trip to India?).
Like the author, I listen to and read multiple news sources, with favorites being NPR, BBC, LA Times, NY Times, CNN, and our (sadly lacking) local news websites. I’ll dip into Fox or MSNBC every now and then.
At the end of the day, however, which news stories do I think about, talk with family/friends about, or take action on (i.e., further research, a donation, a purchase, etc.). It truly is NPR and BBC.
No news source is going to influence my vote, but if my opinion is going to be affected, I want it from a reputuable source. Does every NPR story/commentator provide that; of course not. But in the land of reality and objectivity, the Fox News and MSNBC’s of the world can only play a limited role.
Happy Thanksgiving folks.
NPR is biased toward the left wing, no one could seriously question that. Their reporting of true news without political implications and complications is outstanding. But shows like that old lady (Rehm) tries to pull off only have left wing guests and is as bad as Rachel Maddow, Olbermann, Hannity, or Limbaugh. Any news item withpolitics and policy implications, especially enviro items, is slanted toward the left wing agenda of government control of all things. It is just obvious.
NPR is a publicly funded propaganda machine, designed to push the radical agenda of the 20% of Americans who identify as liberals. They use the airwaves to help get so called “progressives” elected, and everyone knows it. There is no publicly funded radio outlet, designed to help conservatives get elected.
Michael Hays, since you don’t know what I listened to or read, maybe you should try not offering an opinion about what I listened to or read. That would be smart.
Yes tax dollars support many things I don’t use but things that can be viewed as in the public’s best interest or the proper role of government. I don’t think that includes public broadcasting (and many other things). A lot of people agree with me.
These “federal cultural agencies” are subsidies by the poor to the rich.
I know this is off-point on the merits of the firing of Juan Williams and on the definitions flying around on this post about what is and what is not “journalism” – but I would like to add a broader governmental, constitutional point regarding the funding of NEA, NEH, or CPB.
In a society that constitutionally limits the powers of government and maximizes individual liberty, there is no justification for the forcible transfer of money from taxpayers to broadcasters (CPB). Moreover, the power to subsidize broadcasting cannot be found within the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government under the Constitution.
These “federal cultural agencies” are subsidies by the poor to the rich. Since art museums, symphony orchestras, and public TV and radio are enjoyed predominantly by people of greater-than-average income and education, the federal cultural agencies oversee a fundamentally unfair transfer of wealth from the lower classes up. It’s no accident that you hear ads for Remy Martin and “private banking services” on NPR, not for Budweiser and free-checking accounts.
I quit listening to NPR some years ago because there is simply NO focus on the United States. If I want to know what city or country children are starving in this week (excluding the United States) I’ll listen to NPR. If I want to know what country or city is presently being bombed or pillaged or sacked or if a volcano or a tidal wave has wiped out some place then NPR is the place to hear it. However, if I want to know ANY news about the United States then I listen to any news source that is NOT NPR. Because NPR gives passing glance at news in the U.S. but no serious or in depth review. And, quite frankly, while I feel bad for the poor starving children of the world I feel worse for the poor starving children in this country and in this state. I feel bad for the people in this country who can’t afford to pay for heat or electricity and you don’t hear about those people in American news until they die. NPR will do an in depth news story about some poor village in some place so far and so remote that they had to buy special vehicles to get there because they wouldn’t be caught dead lugging thousands of pounds of video equipment on foot to get there yet we have starving children here in these United States. NPR does not report their stories. In fact, no ‘news’ entity reports their story.
As far as funding – NPR got the brunt of the McDonald:s fortune some years ago. It was no small amount. They immediately put the money in the bank and then the next month started asking the public for more donations. I don’t mind public funding for entities that serve the public good and which do not have sufficient funds to pay their bills. However, when NPR inherited the fortune they did they moved out of the ‘poor’ category and into the ‘doesn’t need public funds category in my book.’ Maybe NPR wants to open its books for inspection (maybe they do) but my experience in life is that they won’t want anyone looking at where their money is going to and they want more money from the public trough. I suspect that if their funding is cut we won’t see any cut back on NPR’s international new focus. But, maybe, we might see that there is a little more focus on the home front.
Sorry, that’s just the way I ‘hear’ it.
stever–Maybe you should try listening or reading something with an opinion other than one confirming your own. What are you afraid of? And, in case you have not noticed, any taxpayer pays for a lot of things which he or she does not use directly. But if a community is better off–if housing values are better–because of a public library, say, then happy homeowner who does not use the library still benefits from its existence in his neighborhood.
Tribunals–You offer a smart analysis of “objectivity,” but a consistent methodology to test facts is only a part of it, maybe not the most important part of it. Two other sources of biases come to mind: selection of coverage and emphasis on it once selected.
Beyond the fact that its arguably not objective, its corporate welfare, tax dollars used to support something largely used by the upper income groups and therefore one thin dime is too much. Of course its laundered through stations. Big deal, a distinction without a difference.
Not only is NPR “absolutely NOTHING like Fox ‘News,’ ” MSNBC is nothing like Fox “News.” To put them in the same category is misguided at best. Do your research.
Can you tell me us to what extent you support NPR with your tax dollars, indirectly or otherwise?
If not, I can help. However, my ability to research these facts relies heavily on the fact that I learned journalism as community radio station reporter, funded in part by CPB community service grants, though primarily through support of non-profit foundations.
NPR receives no federal funding. However, 40 percent of NPR’s revenue comes from member stations, which in turn receive 6 percent of their budget through direct funding from local, state and federal governments, and 10 percent from Corporation for public broadcasting grants. NPR also gets between one and two percent of it’s revenue ($164 million last year) from CPB grants.
Let’s do the math.
164,000,000 X .40 =65.6 million from local stations.
65.6 million X .16 = 10.5 million from govt. funding via local stations
164,000,000 X .015 = $2.46 million CPB grants to NPR
Assuming the funds NPR receives from local stations are the same funds those stations receive from government funding and not from the far greater portion of their revenue that comprises individual, business and foundation support, NPR receives about $13 million indirectly each year that might be considered state, local or federal funding.
By far the greater federal funding to public broadcasting is through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was appropriated $422 million for fiscal year 2010. That’s $3 million less than it was appropriated in 1996. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 set the CPB appropriation at 40 percent of the revenue local stations received from other sources.
In short, though the CPB gots $422 million this year from U.S. taxpayers, NPR indirectly and theoretically got about 8 percent of its total budget — $8 million — from taxpayers. Of this years $1.061 trillion in federal revenue from U.S. taxpayers, about one-thousandth of one percent (0.0000123) was used to fund NPR.
Let’s break it down further. If you earned $50,000 last year, chances are, maybe 10 cents of your income went to NPR? (is there a data editor in the house?)
With that information, (which you need of course to verify since I’m just an anon who claims to be a former non-NPR public-radio reporter), you can make intelligent decisions about your support for taxpayer funding of NPR. Try balancing it against other federal spending — maybe such as the budgets for public affairs functions of Congress and of each executive agency. I suspect members of congress spend about that much sending glossy mailings to their constituents.
NPR is absolutely NOTHING like Fox “News”. Fox is the propaganda arm of the Tea Party Republicans…and that’s it. NPR is actually a respectable news entity…they’re not perfect, but they should not even be compared with Fox…two totally different things.
I’m glad NPR, et. al., have such enthusiastic support and that their journalistic model is so well respected. I still don’t know why I have to support it with my tax dollars, indirectly or otherwise. That they do a fine job and are the last line of defense for good reporting is a refrain that’s been repeated for decades. Get a better reason.
Is NPR biased? Of course it’s biased. It’s primarily biased toward audio content. Reporters might examine complex public spending reports as part of their news-gathering research, but their goal is to produce audio content, from a few seconds to several minutes in length. That means their reporters might be less likely than print or Web reporters to compile interactive data presentations to let us see what have been priorities in government spending during recent years.
If they don’t prepare such visual analysis for readers, chances are they don’t rely on such original analysis to support their reporting. Without such analysis, they might tend to be less objective than say, a public-policy researcher compiling data for a peer-reviewed journal.
Is NPR objective? Is objectivity possible? The best answer I’ve found recently to the latest question appears on page 72 of “The Elements of Journalism”:
“The original meaning of (objectivity in news reporting) is now thoroughly misunderstood, and by and large lost.
When the concept originally evolved, it was not meant to mean journalists were free of bias. Quite the contrary…Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information….”
Objectivity implies fact checking, and to consistently report things as they are instead of as how journalists wanted them to appear. To debate whether NPR is more or less biased than Fox poses a false dilemma. It focuses argument on what is on the table rather than what is in the field, toward what we have and away from what we could have.
The listener supported model has provided useful source of reasonably objective news, but their presence in state capitals doesn’t imply they are all we need or that they are all we can afford. As media moves toward a network of interwoven channels based loosely around the Internet, our challenge becomes to establish objective methods to provide information on these new channels.
A hybrid of user and philanthropic support has proven effective. but in so far as it NPR been protected from the degree of bias we see on other channels, it is because NPR is not a collective of one-man or one-woman bands, but is overseen by boards of directors who help keep things on track. Those boards do reflect the bias of publicly funded institutions they serve — largely public educational institutions whose executives can only be expected to advocate for public institutions to some extent.
Wherever we find a place to anchor new media organizations, as media consumers, we need to appreciate objectivity not as a synonym for unbiased, but rather as a method for testing information. In so far as we become more astute and demanding consumers of objective source information, we support those media outlets that practice a more forensic, scientific, objective approach to news gathering. We can come to appreciate depth in news gathering, which inevitably will inform greater depth in news reporting.
Please tell Mr. Voges I shared his article with some NPR journalists I know. It’s been a discouraging couple of months, ever since they found out they couldn’t go to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Since the whole Williams kerfuffle, some are even having a hard time getting interview subjects to return calls, as the reactionaries scream to cut off NPR’s funding, etc. This article may cheer them up.
Dude, if I wasn’t Queer, I’d kiss you on the lips for this article! DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER WHAT JOURNALISM IS? Helloooooo?
It’s hard for me to understand how people who value careful consideration over ideological dogmatism would resent NPR’s consistently positive contributions to the public discourse.
Between large private donors/sponsors and those who support the various CPB entities via pledge drives, etc., its hard for me to understand why I should support a broadcast company I never watch ior listen to and that only in a token sense comes anywhere close to my viewpoints, politically or otherwise.
“Careful consideration” is your view.