Deep Throat's Legacy to Journalism

By Alicia C. Shepard

Less than a month ago, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, The Washington Post reporters who helped topple President Nixon, made a surprise visit to Mark Felt, the man known as Deep Throat.

It was a fitting denouement among men who played a historic role in the Watergate scandal, and in changing journalism. It was also the first time that Bernstein had ever met Felt, who died yesterday at 95.

The relationship among the three men was complicated. It was Felt, the No. 2 in the FBI during the 1972 Watergate break-in, who became a key source for the two young reporters. Many speculate on Felt's motives, but no one ever will know exactly because Felt was 91 and showing signs of dementia when his identity was revealed.

Woodward met Felt by chance when he was a young man in his late-20s in the Navy. He nurtured a filial-like relationship seeking out Felt for career advice. When the Watergate story broke, Woodward called Felt, promising him what's known in journalistic parlance as 'confidentiality.' It meant that Woodward would use Felt's information but never reveal Felt as his source.

And he never did.

In the modern history of journalism, there is little dispute that Deep Throat is by far the most famous known anonymous news source. Nor is there any dispute that the Post's reliance on Deep Throat played a role in popularizing the still--controversial use of anonymous sources.

But it also showed what can happen when journalists keep their word.

Ironically, when Woodward referred to Felt inside the Post newsroom, he told his editors, "My friend told me on deep background" when relaying information. In his notes, Woodward identified his source as "M.F." for my friend, even though those are also Felt's initials.

It was then-managing editor Howard Simons who dubbed the secret source Deep Throat based on a notorious pornographic movie in 1972 with the same name. The nickname stuck. Among several unanswered questions is a basic one: Would Felt have become such a cultural icon if his moniker were "my friend?"

The nick name "Deep Throat," appeared for the first time in Playboy magazine in May 1974, when an excerpt of the book All the Presidents Men, ran. Felt was one of many anonymous sources the pair used but he drew the lion's share of attention because of the sexy name.

It was only when the book came out that Felt learned how Woodward and Bernstein privately referred to him. He was embarrassed and furious, and thought Woodward had betrayed him. He was equally unhappy when the book became a hugely successful movie in 1976.

His anger unnerved Woodward, but neither he nor Bernstein ever waivered in keeping their promise. Over the decades, both reporters were repeatedly asked when they spoke publicly: "Who is Deep Throat?" They never even gave a hint.

Through the decades it became a parlor game to figure out who was the source high up in the Justice Department who betrayed the Nixon administration. Articles and books were written fingering people. A University of Illinois class spent four years investigating Deep Throat's identity. The class held a press conference at the Watergate in 2003 to announce their suspect. But they were wrong.

Each time an author was certain of Deep Throat's identity, Woodward and Bernstein said nothing. Neither did Felt. In fact, Felt denied he was Deep Throat in his 1979 memoir, The FBI Pyramid. He wrote that he'd only met with Woodward once during the Watergate investigation.

Actually, Woodward secretly had contact with him 18 times during the years from the break-in until Nixon's 1974 resignation.

Most famous were the late-night meetings in an Arlington, Va. garage portrayed in the movie, All the President's Men. There were 6 garage meetings, 7 phone calls, one rendezvous at Felt's Fairfax, Va. house, one meeting at a Maryland tavern, one on-the-record visit to Felt's FBI office and two other meetings, according to Woodward's papers that were sold to the University of Texas along with Bernstein's for $5 million in 2003.

The Deep Throat mystery lasted 33 years -- a record for such a high-profile secret in a gossipy town like Washington, DC It lasted that long because Woodward and Bernstein kept their promise of confidentiality. Ben Bradlee, the Washington Post editor during Watergate, told me he didn't learn Felt's identity until 1976.

"Ben and I made a decision that on some of them [sources] we wouldn't ask," Simons told the pair in 1973 when they interviewed him for their book. "For instance, Deep Throat. You know, we've never wanted to know."

Woodward was shocked. Why not?

"Because you really didn't want to tell us," Simons said. "Sure. At one point we could have said to you, 'Ok. We must know.'"

But they didn't.

While it may be hard to believe, over three decades only five people knew Felt's identity -- Woodward, Bernstein, Felt, Bradlee and Woodward's wife, Elsa Walsh, whom Woodward told in the early 1980s.

Finally, Felt and his family decided to reveal the identity on May 31, 2005 in Vanity Fair magazine, hoping to profit from their secret. It did lead to a book and a movie contract for Felt.

Although Woodward and Bernstein were following typical journalistic protocol by keeping Felt's name quiet, it was a decision that would influence the rest of their careers. Future confidential sources knew that if they spilled secrets to either man, the secrets would be kept.

Even more important to journalists is the notion that every source deserves a reporter's protection, regardless of whether that person is a hero or a heel. As long as the source tells the truth and sticks to the bargain that's implicit in confidential relationships, a journalist will go to jail rather than reveal the name.

By keeping their promise to Felt, Woodward and Bernstein, in turn, helped many other journalists who followed. It paved the way for other sources to trust journalists who keep their word.

"This is an absolute contract," Woodward said in 2005 at Harvard University. "This really is an unbreakable contract unless somebody is dishonest with you." And Felt never was.

Shepard is the author of Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate (2007).
END

Tags: Bob Woodward | Carl Bernstein | Deep Throat | Mark Felt | Watergate | anonymous sources

4:16 PM ET | 12-19-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

NPR Makes Budget Cuts

As one walks from NPR's basement garage inside to the elevator, a sign asks to make sure the door shuts tightly. "We don't want the bliss to escape," it says.

Well, last week, some of the bliss escaped when management announced it was laying off 64 people, eliminating 21 unfilled slots and ending two California-based programs, Day to Day and News & Notes. That's a 7 percent cut of 889 employees.

The sadness, confusion and anger inside and outside NPR are palpable. Many names on the list have been at NPR for more than two decades. Vicky O'Hara, who now edits "The Impact of War" series, is on the list. She joined NPR in 1982, when it was still an adolescent network trying to figure out what it wanted to be.

O'Hara famously covered the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing, stuffing a radio cassette down her pants to save it from confiscation. Others on the list have equally storied careers, but don't all want to go public.

Some inside NPR have demanded the 64 names be shared, but I agree with NPR's general counsel that it is their story to tell. It's never easy being laid off, and it's hard to not take it personally -- even if it is not meant to be.

The layoffs are not surprising in an economic climate where practically every day, a new lion is felled. Many, but not necessarily all, NPR employees seem to accept the rationale that big cutbacks were needed to ensure the company's long-term financial health. Assertions by senior executives that the layoffs were not targeted at getting rid of specific individuals have not been as widely accepted, however.

I'll take the company's word on both counts. But wouldn't buyouts have been a more humane way to go -- such as many news companies have been doing for the last few years as troubles descended? NPR's financial situation has been deteriorating for more than six months, so there has been time to make adjustments, as the company did in July when it dropped the experimental Bryant Park Project.

Targeted buyouts were considered and rejected, said NPR's interim President and CEO Dennis Haarsager. "It could take months and months and leave you with a lot more expenses if people you don't want to leave, leave," he said. "Then you have to deal with recruitment and possibly hiring temporary employees. I don't believe we have the time and money to do that."

While I believe buyouts still would have been preferable, NPR did give those laid off a 20-day notice including holiday pay and severance packages based on Jan. 1, 2009 salary levels, which will include merit increases. NPR also will keep Day to Day and News & Notes on air until March 20. I doubt anyone losing his or her job, though, would say these concessions greatly ease the pain.

Listeners quickly reacted with emails and phone calls -- especially to canceling two shows. A petition drive was started to save News & Notes, a show hosted by Farai Chideya and aimed at an African-American audience. "People in public radio are passionate about their programs," said Ellen Weiss, senior vice president for news. "These decisions are not reversible. These are economic decisions. They are not about the quality of the programs or the quality of the staff."

Repeatedly listeners have expressed two concerns that indicate NPR needs to better explain how public radio works and what NPR has done with a generous bequest five years ago from Joan B. Kroc, widow of the man who built the McDonald's hamburger empire.

Why hadn't NPR let listeners know that it faced financial difficulty?

"NPR should have given listeners a warning that Day to Day & News & Notes were in trouble and we could have had a bake sale type of fundraiser to save these good shows," said Mike Smith. "This is another sign of NPR's disrespect of listeners after yanking Justice Talking and Bryant Park Project (in July) without advanced warning to rally to save it." [Editor's Note: NPR didn't produce Justice Talking; it only distributed it.]

If only it took a bake sale. When one donates money to public radio, you donate it to your local public station. Your station then uses it to buy NPR's programming or to pay for locally-produced shows (Fresh Air, for example, or local news segments) or to buy other programming produced by Public Radio International (This American Life) or American Public Media (Market Place and Prairie Home Companion.)

About 50 percent of NPR's operating budget comes from donations to stations. The rest comes from corporate sponsorships, foundations and the Kroc endowment. Because of the way the current system is structured, NPR couldn't hold a bake sale. The stations would have to do that, but they are experiencing their own financial woes. Chicago Public Radio's WBEZ just announced it laid off 9 percent of its staff.

Another listener expressed frustration at not being able to find a "donate" button on NPR's website. In fact, there's no donate button because local stations, which ultimately control NPR, don't want the network accepting direct donations from the public. The board expressly forbids NPR from soliciting individual contributions on its website. Nor is NPR allowed to solicit money through direct mail, on-air fundraising or telemarketing unless it's done in collaboration with the stations, according to a board document.

It's important to note that NPR is not a radio station. It depends on local stations to buy and air its content.

Now to the Kroc pot of money.

"Didn't NPR receive one billion dollars in a bequest from Joan Kroc?" asks Bill Diunbgfelde. "Doesn't such largesse insulate you from having to make cuts? Please let me know."

I'm sure management wishes it were $1 billion.

Mrs. Kroc gave NPR $230 million in 2003; $193 million was consigned to a restricted endowment from which only investment interest could be spent. The rest is held in ready reserve for costly contingencies such as covering wars, natural disasters, etc. Up until this year, NPR earned about $10 million annually in interest off the gift. That money helped support the $150 million operating budget.

But like many bequests, it came with legal restrictions that prevent NPR from dipping into the endowment's principal for short-term needs. As any investor knows, if you dip into the principal, then each year subsequently you earn less interest. This year, the financial downturn wiped out even the expected interest on the Kroc money.

While other news organizations have contracted, NPR has been growing steadily over the last 10 years, both in terms of its audience and its news-gathering. It now has 18 foreign and 18 domestic bureaus, and no plans to close any. NPR also has been expanding its online offers to continue to be relevant.

Weiss promises that cutting the staff through layoffs won't mean cutting quality. Let's hope the network, and those who support public radio, can make sure that promise is kept.

Other stories about the layoffs: Morning Edition, Day to Day, News & Notes, New York Times, Ellen Weiss on WAMU, NPR announces cuts.

Continue reading "NPR Makes Budget Cuts " »

Tags: Farai Chideya | Joan Kroc | NPR cuts | layoffs | public radio

6:22 PM ET | 12-15-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

Live Chat: NPR's Ombudsman Takes Your Questions

Immediately following her appearance on Talk of the Nation, Alicia Shepard will take your questions live.

She will talk about an NPR funding credit from the Department of Homeland Security, which offers E-Verify, a program that allows electronic verification of an employee's legal status. (Read her blog post on the subject.)

You can start leaving your questions, now, in the comments section below.

The chat starts shortly after 3 PM EST.

10:40 AM ET | 12- 4-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

Should NPR Run Funding Credits from the Department of Homeland Security?

Whenever NPR's Talk of the Nation dips into the topic of immigration, the national call-in show's telephone board lights up like a Christmas tree.

Immigration is an especially hot-button topic. So it's not surprising that when NPR began running a funding credit on Nov. 10 for the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify program, my office heard from listeners and a few concerned public radio station managers.

They all questioned NPR's judgment in running the credit about the federal computer program that employers use voluntarily to check the legal status of new hires. At the least, some said, it is not a good fit for NPR. Some suggested NPR is endorsing E-Verify.

First, it's helpful to explain funding credits. Since NPR is a non-commercial network, it accepts money for what's called "underwriting." Local public radio stations do the same. The 10-second underwriting credits, which appear at various points in NPR programming, come from foundations, banks, auto companies, other businesses, and federal agencies.

Here's the text that is generating controversy: "'Support for NPR comes from NPR stations, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), offering E-Verify, confirming the legal working status of new hires. At DHS dot gov slash E-Verify."

E-Verify runs a free electronic database system for employers to scan 450 million Social Security and 60 million DHS records to confirm if new hires are eligible to work. Two states -- Arizona and Mississippi -- have made E-Verify mandatory for employers, as has the federal government for its new hires. Beginning Jan. 15, federal government contractors will be disqualified from competing for new contracts if they do not use E-Verify.

"In very basic terms, the goal of E-Verify is to assist employers in maintaining a legal workforce and to protect jobs for authorized U.S. workers," said Bill Wright, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. According to his agency's statistics, 96.1 percent of employees are confirmed as "work authorized" instantly or within 24 hours.

Some listeners say the program is far from benign. In fact, the program is the subject of lawsuits, court cases and Congressional investigation. "E-Verify is an extremely problematic program," writes Mary Hopkins."Big Brother aside, it 'verifies employment eligibility' against a filthy database, is ridden with delays and errors, and has caused a great deal of trouble for a lot of innocent people, including US citizens."

"The E-Verify system was being promoted to target illegal immigrants," wrote Richard Imm. "This program is error-filled, and is yet one more racist intrusion of the Bush administration into the business world and the private lives of all job-seekers. I recently became a Sustaining Member of my local NPR station (WNMU-FM) -- was this a mistake?"

Then this from general manager Matt Martin of public radio station KALW, in San Francisco: "Given the political uses to which DHS has been put and the fact that listeners want to be assured that NPR (and by extension, KALW) can be depended on for independent critical coverage of this and other government agencies, the credit may not belong in a news program."

DHS is in the midst of a two-month marketing campaign to promote E-Verify. "We are picking NPR because of its national reach," Wright said. "NPR has morning shows, reaches a lot of commuters out there. It's a trusted network and has a wide following and reaches a lot of demographics across the country." E-Verify funding credits also are carried on Latino USA, a show that NPR distributes but does not produce.

But there are problems with E-Verify, according to a May 2008 Government Accountability Office study, which found the service is vulnerable to employer fraud and misuse and noted that it can't ferret out stolen documents.

Another problem concerns the database's accuracy, said Tyler Moran, employment policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, a group that promotes legal rights for immigrants. "The error rate disproportionately affects foreign-born workers and that includes naturalized citizens and legal immigrants," she said. "It's often because of their names." Moran wrote a paper last month on how E-Verify has hurt legal workers.

So, should NPR run these funding credits? NPR has accepted underwriting from the government for 20 years, said John King, operations manager for sponsorship.

"In addition to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting," he said, "we've accepted underwriting from the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Postal Service, the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities." None, though, has generated anywhere near as much controversy as the E-Verify credit.

NPR has strict guidelines about funding it will accept. Those guidelines indicate a funding credit must be 10 seconds and cannot contain price information, an explicit inducement to buy or a call to action. For example, a spot could not say, "Stop by our showroom to see a model." A credit can name a program or a store and tell listeners how to get more information. "Learn more about" is not considered a call to action but rather a way to provide listeners information, according to NPR's legal office.

E-Verify's Wright admits the service has some minor flaws. And certainly it has detractors in Congress and among groups advocating for immigrants. Even so, the E-Verify credit does not violate NPR's guidelines. Just because some listeners might not like the funder, or even the program it promotes, that is not a strong enough reason for NPR to reject an underwriter.

Accepting underwriting is not the same as approving the message, NPR managers said.

"The underwriting credit does not advocate a position about immigration," said Blake Truitt, senior vice president of National Public Media, NPR's sponsorship subsidiary. "The credit describes a DHS service."

But there is another potentially more serious concern. Will NPR do stories about E-Verify in hopes of keeping the funding coming? Or will DHS be able to influence NPR's coverage since it's helping keep NPR afloat?

The answer to such questions is no because of what's known in the news business as an impenetrable firewall between NPR news and the underwriting department. NPR reporters pay no attention to the funders, and the funders have no influence over what is covered, said managing editor Brian Duffy.

But the perception of a conflict can exist. Sean Collins, executive producer of Latino USA, is concerned about this since his show reports in-depth on immigration issues.

"There's a perception of a conflict when you hear reporting and then you hear a funding credit that's from a particular point of view and you realize the program was funded in part by that government organization or entity," said Collins. "It just makes you a little queasy. I don't think we do a good enough job of reiterating the concept of a firewall. It really does exist."

It's possible that NPR's immigration correspondent Jennifer Ludden will cover E-Verify, as she has in the past.

"Having this funding credit on air would have no bearing on how I handled future stories," said Ludden. "I certainly would have no idea if this particular credit would air in the same show or segment as one of my pieces. More to the point, I would have no problem continuing to report on the program's shortcomings, and the controversy over it."

But in any future reporting on E-Verify, Duffy says that NPR will need to also mention at the same time that E-Verify is a sponsor. "If Jennifer Ludden does a story on it for NPR, we should clearly disclose that E-Verify is something that NPR is receiving underwriting for," said Duffy. "We want to be as transparent as possible. We have no secrets."

Another concern -- one that involves all funding credits -- is that at many local public radio stations funding credits are read on-air by the same announcers who give the local news. This blurs what should be a clear distinction between news and underwriting.

In my view, local stations, and NPR, should take whatever steps necessary to make sure that listeners don't associate underwriting with legitimate news reporting.

NPR will continue running the E-Verify credit until Feb. 9.

END

Continue reading "Should NPR Run Funding Credits from the Department of Homeland Security?" »

Tags: DHS | Department of Homeland Security | E-Verify | Jennifer Ludden | NPR | immigration

10:41 AM ET | 11-25-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

The New President is Black

Why do your programs consistently refer to Obama as "black," when he is the son of a black man and a white woman? He could just as easily be referred to as white. Why refer to his skin color at all? If you are referring to more than skin color, what is it? Is this a formal policy?

The All Things Considered series on race never defined what the editors meant by the term. I sent emails asking for some, but never got a reply. As a result, I think the most important question was left unanswered. The science of genetics offers no basis for the notion of race, so why persist with this term without giving a definition? Please give me a real answer.
--Forrest Furman

Dear Mr. Furman:
NPR identifies Sen. Barack Obama as black because that is how the president-elect identifies himself. There probably isn't a man or woman in America who does not know that Obama had a white mother and a black father. NPR respects how anyone wants to identify themselves in a case like this. As an example on a more simple identification, Gov. Sarah Palin prefers to be called Ms. Palin in second reference of the New York Times which uses honorifics-- not Mrs. Palin. That is her choice.

I listened closely to the series on the role of race in the presidential campaign and All Things Considered defined race in this case as looking at how black and whites get along, interact and view one another. One way to think about racism is that it's the result of not knowing people different from you. You can see an evolution in how people's thinking evolved about race in NPR's York (Pa.) project that explored race during the presidential election.

As for why NPR refers to Obama's skin color, it is unavoidable in the society we live in.

###
WHY did you put on the piece with David Duke? A better use of our time would have been for him to answer one question and then for you to tell us we could listen to the rest of the interview on your website. Yes, the piece was, as you warned us, offensive. WHAT do we learn from listening to him interrupting and disrespecting you, disrespecting us listeners, spouting his vitriol? Sheila O'Flaherty

David Duke is a former Louisiana state lawmaker, grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and onetime presidential aspirant. I think it's critical for an informed electorate to hear all kinds of voices-- even voices that you don't agree with, and many don't agree with David Duke. I found the interview fascinating and noticed how tough Michel Martin was on him. Whether we like it or not, there are individuals and groups that will not like Sen. Obama as president. We need to hear from them rather than ignore them.

When I posed listener concerns to Michel, she replied: "I wrote about it on my blog and in the comment thread. If you have additional questions after that I am happy to answer them. But it seems obvious enough. Two separate groups of white supremacists have been arrested for trying to kill Obama and we consider one of our mandates to talk TO people rather than about them. Duke is the most famous (white) racist in the country, so it seemed appropriate to call him the week after the second assassination plot was made public. We had a conversation about the psychology of racism earlier in the week as well."

Here are some comments from listeners:

I do think we should listen to people who disagree with us ... Thanks for bringing us both sides of issues we may be uncomfortable with...

--LaShanta Harris (LRH)

I vehemently disagree with your decision to give this type of person any outlet to share his racist and hateful views.

--Chris Valentine (cval)

What do you think? --ACS

5:02 PM ET | 11-12-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

Live Chat: NPR's Coverage Of The Election Season

The election is over. But NPR's audience is still registering its frustration over NPR's presidential coverage. In an experiment, I will be conducting my first online chat about media bias in the election. I encourage participants to read the previous post on bias. The 30-minute chat will begin at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 11.

I would like to encourage people to post questions ahead of time. See you then. ACS

11:28 AM ET | 11-10-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

When It Comes to Core Beliefs, Bias is Everywhere

Every day emails, phone calls and letters flood my office. They say basically the same thing about the presidential campaign but each comes from a partisan political perspective.

NPR is biased.

Too much coverage, one side says, is aimed at NPR's obvious goal of getting Sen. Barack Obama elected. "You cover Obama's campaign endlessly," wrote Javad Sarvestani of Los Angeles. "And when you do devote time to John McCain you seem to aim your coverage more at undermining his candidacy than reporting on it."

The other side says that NPR is purposely ignoring Obama and instead only doing stories that reflect well on McCain. "Recently, I have heard several interviews with people who support Senator McCain and I can't remember when, if ever, I have heard a positive interview or report on Senator Obama and the excitement his candidacy has generated," wrote James Summers. "I expect the commercial networks to obfuscate most of the time. I expect more from NPR."

Between June 9 and Oct. 19, 2008 my office received 282 emails specifically accusing NPR of favoring Obama and 252 emails accusing NPR of favoring McCain. Hundreds more insist the network is either too conservative or too liberal in general, and the writers allege specific bias with particular stories.

The volume and frustration from those who claim NPR is biased have troubled me since I became Ombudsman a year ago. Is there a way for me, as an independent voice for the public, to determine if NPR is biased? Instead of getting an answer, I got a lesson in how passionate NPR listeners can be.

The Ombudsman's office decided to study all stories and interviews about the presidential campaign airing on Morning Edition, All Things Considered (ATC) and the corresponding morning and evening weekend shows. We studied 429 campaign stories that aired between Aug. 1 and Sept. 30, a period that covered the two political conventions and the first weeks that followed.

We put each story into one of three categories: It focused primarily on Obama (or his running mate Joe Biden), or on McCain (or his running mate Sarah Palin), or about equally between the two. Our study focused on news coverage in the major shows and did not include commentaries, special convention coverage or newscasts. Click here for PDF with charts.

We found that, overall, NPR shows ran more stories about, and devoted more air time to, McCain and Palin than Obama and Biden.

During August and September, Morning Edition and its weekend equivalents aired 96 stories totaling 6 hours and 5 minutes about McCain-Palin. All Things Considered carried 72 stories in 4 hours and 47 minutes. Overall, these NPR shows focused on the McCain-Palin ticket in a total of 168 stories that covered 10 hours and 52 minutes.

On Obama and Biden, Morning Edition ran 74 stories in 5 hours and 1 minute and ATC ran 72 stories in 4 hours and 6 minutes, for a total of 146 stories that covered 9 hours and 7 minutes.

Of the 429 stories studied, 115 focused about equally on both candidates.

Overall, McCain and Palin got nearly two more hours of air time on NPR than Obama-Biden.

So, do these statistics mean that NPR is biased toward McCain? Or, as I suspect, did McCain's unexpected choice of a little-known running mate mean that NPR journalists spent a lot of time filling in the blanks in a way that was not needed for six-term senator Joe Biden?

"Obviously Palin became the new main focus of the campaign beginning the weekend before the Republican convention and dominating the news for several weeks thereafter," said Ron Elving, senior Washington editor who's in charge of NPR's political coverage.

"I think it's apparent that this coverage was more analytical than promotional, and that Palin was far more of a new subject than Joe Biden or by that stage of the campaign, Obama himself," he continued. "But for this period of time, taking into account all the show elements in addition to the reported pieces, it's not surprising that Republican ticket stories were more common than Democratic."

Elving noted that last winter Obama and Mike Huckabee, who won the Republican Iowa caucus, received more coverage than other candidates because they were new faces.

Palin certainly was a new face. Our study showed that 95 of the 168 stories that NPR did on the Republican ticket focused on Palin. She received 6 hours and 21 minutes of coverage during the two-month period examined -- more time than was devoted to McCain.

It also needs to be said that counting the number of stories or minutes does not necessarily give a complete picture of how a broadcast network covers political candidates. For one thing, a 2-minute piece with riveting tape could pack more of a punch than an 8-minute piece that seems to drone on. Also, story length says nothing about content, and the overall impression it leaves listeners. A piece focusing on negative aspects of a candidate or his campaign obviously can give listeners one impression, while an upbeat piece has the opposite impact.

(A Pew Research Center campaign coverage study last week indicates that across the media McCain got a lot of coverage but 60 percent of it was negative, while Obama's coverage was 29 percent negative. It should be noted that Obama, and later McCain, received negative coverage as each began to drop in the polls.)

While our study is not a scientific one, it provides an illuminating snapshot of NPR's coverage during a two-month period.

But when it comes to core political beliefs, even scientific research may do little to persuade many complaining listeners that NPR isn't biased. It's just the nature of who we are as human beings and our passionate attachment to our core political beliefs.

Philo Wasburn, a Purdue University sociology professor who just co-wrote a book on media bias, knows this well. He told me that research going back to the 1960s shows how difficult, if not impossible, it is to change people's central core beliefs.

"When people are really committed to some ideological position, especially with politics, even if you present them with empirical evidence that supports the opposite of what they believe, they will reject it," said Wasburn. "Core beliefs are very, very resistant to change."

People also are often resistant to accepting statements or information that goes against core beliefs. While it may be inconceivable to Democrats that Palin is qualified to run the country, for example, it is undoubtedly inconceivable to her Republican supporters that Obama is qualified to be president.

Perceptions of bias typically arise when a listener disagrees with something said about a presidential candidate, explains Wasburn. So when listeners hear something they disagree with in, say a perfectly balanced piece about either Obama or McCain, they reflexively decide NPR is biased.

And they often complain to me. But I'm coming to believe that there is little I could say or any evidence I present that would alter either side's perceptions of bias.

"What they are really annoyed about is that something was said about McCain or Obama that they didn't like," said Wasburn. "The person calling in and annoyed with NPR most likely doesn't have scientific evidence. They are annoyed by something said or by some guest. It doesn't matter that their perception is not true. So soldier on. You are not going to change any minds."

Timothy Groseclose is a political science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also studies media bias. He and another professor published a study in 2005 that concluded that 18 of the 20 major media outlets studied (including NPR) were left of center, as compared to the average U.S. voter. Only Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume and The Washington Times scored to the right of the average U.S. voter. (Results are on P. 22 of PDF.)

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," said Groseclose. "It had the same scores as Time, Newsweek and was slightly less liberal than the Washington Post and well to the right of the New York Times and CBS Evening News. One of the surprising findings is that NPR is not as left as everyone says it is."

Groseclose and co-author Jeffrey Milyo, a University of Missouri economist, published their results in the respected Quarterly Journal of Economics. They took no outside research money to avoid any perceptions of bias. They made sure half their researchers had supported a Democratic presidential candidate and the other half a Republican. Their study was scientific and their methods transparent, so the methods could be tested or duplicated by others.

NPR got a score of 66.3, with 50 being centrist and 100 being most liberal. The Wall Street Journal's news pages (not the well-known conservative editorial pages) got an 85.1 and The New York Times and CBS each got a 73.7.
Although this study shows that NPR is relatively less biased that some other major news organizations, I doubt it will sway those who are convinced that NPR is liberal and pro-Obama -- or those who have the opposite impression that NPR is siding with McCain.

The results didn't sway liberal bloggers either.

"Just Google my name and you will find all kinds of left-wing blogs saying why my study used the worst method ever," said Groseclose. "Now, if I had found that most media outlets have a conservative bias, those same blogs would have said, 'Here's the best method ever and here's a study by a respected scholar.' They don't say that because they don't like the results."

As we near the end of an emotional presidential campaign, it is worthwhile for all of us to inspect our core political beliefs and ask if something we heard on NPR (or any other news media outlet, for that matter) is truly biased or just doesn't jibe with what we believe or what we want to hear.

"Hardly anyone's personal world view or value system is entirely neutral when it comes to questions of public life," said Elving. "But professional journalists take it upon themselves to present what they report with as much neutrality as possible. That is how we are trained."

And while that's an article of faith in the profession, it is another statement that people with strong views -- in this case about the news media -- may not want to hear or accept.
-30-

Chantal de la Rionda, Ahnalese Rushmann and Holley Simmons contributed to this report.

Tags: Groseclose | Quarterly Journal of Economics | Ron Elving | Wasburn | bias | negative coverage

2:23 PM ET | 11- 3-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

Balancing the Newscasts

Almost 25 million people get their news on a weekly basis from NPR newscasts -- more than listen to the flagship news-magazine shows, Morning Edition or All Things Considered.

NPR carries 37 newscasts around the clock each day. In the morning and evening slots, newscasts air every 30 minutes. Otherwise, reports are hourly.

Since newscasts air across 768 public radio stations and overseas on Armed Forces Radio, there is more exposure in general to newscasts -- and more repeat exposure during the course of the day -- than any NPR show, said Lori Kaplan in NPR's audience research department.

This gives NPR's news segments significant weight and a great deal of journalistic responsibility. Network newscasters have to work hard to pack a lot of news into a five or nine-minute newscast. And they have to ensure news is fair and balanced, as NPR's ethics code demands.

It's not easy, particularly during this edge-of-the seat presidential campaign.

Lincoln Smith of Seattle believes that NPR newscasts are "consistently" unbalanced when it comes to presidential hopefuls, John McCain and Barack Obama.

"On almost every news break Obama gets much more air time, usually with sound bites from a speech," wrote Smith, "while McCain will often get nothing or one sentence which often comes off as being slanted."

Other listeners say the opposite: that NPR gives more air time to McCain.

Obama doesn't get more airtime than McCain, or vice versa, though it's easy to see why a listener -- who might hear just one or two newscasts a day -- would believe that's the case.

NPR newscasters are keenly aware of their responsibility to provide balance when airing news about McCain or Obama, said Greg Peppers, executive producer of NPR newscasts.

"The mandate is balance, balance, balance," Peppers said. "To be fair, it has to be even. It does a disservice to listeners to not be balanced."

If there's a story in a news segment on one candidate, Peppers wants something on the opponent, too. So if McCain's voice is on air, and Obama is taking the day off, Peppers said the newscaster should mention what Obama is doing that day.

It sounds good in theory.

But including both candidates in a news segment does not always sound "even" or "balanced." Here's why. In some newscasts, a newscaster might, for example, use tape of Obama's voice at a campaign appearance and pair it with written copy the anchor reads aloud about McCain, sans a sound bite.

That can sound to the ear like Obama is receiving more attention -- even if more time is devoted to McCain.

"When you give one candidate's voice and not the other, it can really create some problems in terms of elevating the perspective of one," said Dhavan V. Shah, a University of Wisconsin professor who specializes in political communication. "For example, if NPR directly quotes [Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah] Palin and then a newscaster says that Obama repudiates what she said, what gets reinforced is hearing the Palin quote. That's what troubling when you are not letting candidates speak for themselves."

Another way listeners might think they hear bias is when a newscaster runs a brief story (known as a "spot") by an NPR correspondent traveling with one candidate, and balances it with a few written lines read aloud about the other candidate. Since a reporter spot (with a newscaster-read introduction) tends to be 1 minute, there's not much time left for the other candidate in a five-minute newscast that attempts to cover the top news of the nation and world.

NPR's 13 newscasters are all seasoned journalists trying to be as fair as possible given time constraints and campaign vagaries. Some days, a candidate makes no news, perhaps because he or she is taking the day off. Some days, newscasters have tape of one candidate and not the other. Some days, an NPR reporter assigned to one candidate files a spot from the road while the reporter with the other candidate is stuck on the press plane and can't file a story.

And because there are 37 newscasts each day, odds are that one of those situations will be in place for any single newscast. As a result, a listener hearing a newscast at 8 a.m. might hear Obama's voice but only newscast copy about McCain, while a listener at 8 p.m. might hear the opposite.

"There's no formal system but we are always trying to, at least, mention the other candidate if we have, say, a 50-second spot," said newscaster Jean Cochran, who began at NPR in 1981. "With the nature of news, it's never going to be 50-50. But I assure you we're not working to get any particular candidate elected."

Newscaster and producer Paul Brown, who's frequently on the air weekday mornings, noted that favoring one candidate over the other would be both journalistically unsound and counter-productive. "How on earth would it be in my interest at NPR to present any story unfairly?" he asked. "It would only hurt my credibility. I have no interest in favoring one side over the other. I'm sure what we do is far from perfect but you do your best."

What if NPR clocked minutes to make sure each candidate gets equal time on a newscast?

Brown doesn't favor that idea. "We are covering news," he said. "One candidate may say something very significant in four seconds that may take the other candidate 14 seconds to say."

Brown says he tries to make sure all the main candidates, and their major proposals, are represented. Last week, he noticed a discrepancy between coverage of Sarah Palin and her Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden.

"Since I really hadn't heard Biden's voice much, I went looking to see if I could find him addressing issues," said Brown, who found tape of Biden at a Florida rally. He then paired it with tape of Palin at a Pennsylvania rally. "Palin is making a lot of news because she's new and dramatic," he said. "But listeners need to hear from Biden too."

One way the newscast unit attempts to reach balance is to try to make up in the next newscast what wasn't in the current one.

"When I'm scheduling several newscasts ahead, if I have a reporter spot on one candidate, then I'll try to use the opposing candidate in the next hour," said senior producer Carol Anne Clark Kelly, who manages the newscasts after Morning Edition and before All Things Considered. "I look at the whole day but listeners may only hear one newscast."

NPR news executives often ask that listeners evaluate coverage over a long period and not make judgments based on one story or one newscast. That is a fair request when evaluating long-running Middle East coverage or NPR's overall presidential campaign coverage.

But it may not be realistic to expect listeners to evaluate newscasts over a long period of time.

In talking with the morning newscast team, Dave Mattingly suggested what could be a workable solution. Mattingly has spent 12 years as a morning newscasts producer. He acknowledges that sometimes, under the current system, the presidential campaign coverage in the newscasts can appear unbalanced.

"I can understand how it might sound when you hear a reporter on the road and you have a 'reader' [copy read by the newscaster] on the other candidate paired with it," said Mattingly. "But slighting a candidate is never done on purpose."

As an alternative, Mattingly suggested using tape from each candidate, along with a summary of news explaining the context of the tape [called a "write-around"] read by the newscast anchor. "To the listener's ear, a clip of each [candidate] with a write-around by the anchor probably sounds the most balanced," said Mattingly.

Peppers agrees it would be ideal to have both candidates' voices in a segment. "We often do in the form of actualities," he said. "However, we also have to put reporter spots on the air. The listener wants the reporter spots from the campaign trail. That's what brings listeners closer to the news."

Shah believes something like what Mattingly suggested might help NPR newscasts achieve better balance.

"How journalists frame and focus certain things can really sway how people think about it," said Shah. "The best model would be to use direct quotes from each candidate and roughly equal time as possible but then have the journalist" set the candidate statements in context.

The reality is that most listeners don't listen as closely as NPR's newscasters might hope. As listeners drive to work or go about their daily lives, they don't always distinguish between an anchor inside an NPR studio and a reporter covering a candidate in Ohio.

They listen, I think, far more closely for balance. And, for many listeners, balance means that the candidate they favor gets at least equal time with his opponent.

As interest in the election continues at an all-time high, the newscast unit should try to make Mattingly's suggestion that candidates do more talking its goal.

Continue reading "Balancing the Newscasts" »

4:15 PM ET | 10- 6-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

Changes on the Column

Last week, NPR began a new social media community. It will give you a chance to participate more fully in NPR's journalism, and allow you to comment on every NPR story posted on the web. It presents an opportunity for all parts of the NPR community to talk to each other and offer story ideas, comments and expertise.

I applaud the effort because it encourages transparency and accountability -- two things that can only make journalism better. It's bound to have bugs at first, so be patient.

There are a few major changes for this site if you want to comment in the future:

1. You will now have to register and create a public profile to participate in comment threads. Comments will be automatically posted. Previously, we moderated comments. We still ask that you follow the guidelines of good behavior.

2.Comments for blog posts (except the music blogs) will close after 7 days. All posts previous to the implementation of the new system will be permanently closed to comments, although the comments themselves will remain visible.

You can read a little bit more about NPR's philosophy in this post.

Here are some of the benefits:
1. All users will be able to "recommend" stories.

2. Comments by users may be featured on the NPR home page and in the inset column of story pages.

3. Users will also be able to participate in the moderation of site commenting through the "report abuse" links associated with user content

4. Registered users will be able to connect with NPR.org staff and other users through their public profiles and the community home page.

You might want to read NPR's multimedia editorial director Dick Meyer's blog post on NPR.org's social media changes:

To register.

For more information on community guidelines.

Continue reading "Changes on the Column " »

12:52 PM ET | 10- 3-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail

Cutting Off Interviews Isn't as Rude as It May Sound

The day after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked Congress on Sept. 19 to provide hundreds of billions to bail out Wall Street, it made sense for NPR to talk with one of the top members of Congress who will deal with the request.

An NPR booker arranged for Weekend Edition host Scott Simon do a phone interview with Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Four and a half minutes was allotted, including a host introduction.

Simon had 26 seconds of small talk and asked one question about what Paulson and Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke had told congressional leaders at an earlier meeting. And then Frank, never known for short answers, explained the long history leading up to the current financial crisis. He spoke non-stop for nearly four minutes until Weekend Edition Saturday ran out of time.

At one point you could hear an exasperated sigh from Simon, who had other questions prepared. Finally, Simon had to cut Frank off. "Mr. Frank, I'm afraid we've absolutely run out of time," he said.

Simon was frustrated that he couldn't ask more questions. "Rep Frank knew our time constraints," said Simon in an email. "I am disappointed that a public official consented to an interview, and used the occasion to launch into a monologue. The public's right to know depends on the ability of the press to ask, and in this case, we barely got to ask."

But some listeners were equally frustrated because they felt Simon was being rude.

"I was amazed by how frank and honest Barney Frank was in talking to Simon or whoever that Saturday morning host is," emailed Susan Hatch. "It stunned me to hear someone speak so straightforwardly to tell us what was afoot in the banking meeting, and to explain it in layman terms.

"It was an historic statement and vitally important for the record and for the public, to whom this bloody government supposedly belongs, along with the debts," she continued. "And your man Simon had the foolishness and gall to cut him off and interrupt him!"

It may appear Simon was being rude, but he wasn't.

This was a live interview, unlike the majority of pieces on NPR shows, which are pre-produced so they can fit into the strict time clock each show lives by. Here are examples of the Morning Edition and Weekend Edition Saturday clocks. At 18 minutes past the hour, the first segment on Weekend Edition Saturday, for example, is over whether or not someone has something more to say.

Live interviews often run into time problems. But in some cases a live interview is the only way to get timely comments from a news source on a breaking news story. Some live interviews are more successful than others, but at least they give listeners a chance to hear news and views in something approximating real time.

It is possible that Simon could have conducted the interview the previous day so it could have been edited to fit within a different program segment with more time available. But if that had happened, it would have been difficult to take account of late breaking news. (And the financial crisis has, indeed, been shifting almost hourly.) If something major happened overnight, Simon would have been forced to call Frank back and redo the interview.

All broadcast networks do live interviews, and all have time constraints. In the case of commercial networks, the constraints most often are the result of having to air commercials.

In NPR's case, the local stations impose the time constraints so they can come in with local news, traffic, weather, and give sponsor credits.

One listener criticized NPR's priorities in not giving more time to Frank. "Let me add," said Andy Radin in an email, "the interview with the two comedians, and then with Dolly Parton, while interesting and in some way meaningful, took up far more time than an interview with a congressman about pillaging, looting and raping of American taxpayers."

All NPR shows are tightly scripted and must adhere to a time clock with each hour divided into segments. (Morning Edition has five segments of varying lengths in an hour while Weekend Edition has three segments in an hour.) For Weekend Edition, Segment A is 11:29 minutes long. Segment C is 17:49 minutes. In the midst of the segments, newscasts, funding credits, promos and music are interspersed.

Because of this rigid structure, it's not as easy as shortening the comedians interview to add more time for Barney Frank. It's also important to note that NPR shows are popular because they are radio "magazines" that carry a mix of hard news and features. Also, in the opening segment of the Sept. 20 Weekend Edition show, nearly 12 minutes of the first hour was devoted to the financial crisis including two other stories. One by Scott Horsley and another interview with a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors.

What happened with the Frank interview is called hitting the time post. Simon had run out of time in that segment and even if he had continued to talk with Frank, listeners would not have heard it because the time is reserved for local stations. (If local stations don't cut in, listeners hear NPR-provided music.)

"Listeners have to realize that their local stations will come in at those time posts with local news, which is also important, whether we hit those time posts or not," said Simon in an email. "We just try to be professional enough as broadcasters to hit those time posts."

Sometimes live interviews can be fixed later. After a segment ends, a host might continue the interview off-air so it could be edited for later feeds to people living in time zones west of Washington, DC, where most NPR-produced shows originate.

In this case, as with hundreds of live interviews, an important interview went up against NPR's time clock, and the time clock -- as always -- won.

-30-
Update: The day after I posted this, NPR again interviewed Rep. Barney Frank and again, the host had to cut him off.

In the first feed, Morning Edition host Renee Montagne had to cut him off so the show could go to a John McChesney piece on retirees. In the second feed to western time zones, the show was able to continue the Frank interview and edit it so that the interruption was not heard.

Tags: Barney Frank | Scott Simon | time post

4:58 PM ET | 09-26-2008 | permalink | trackbacks (0)

comments () | | e-mail