NPR Adds Editorial Oversight

[TheBigA]

Following criticism over news bias, NPR has added editorial oversight to its newsroom. They are hiring 11 new people, paid for by an anonymous doner, to pay for the new staff:

After criticism over “viewpoint diversity,” NPR adds new layers of editorial oversight

"We will all have to adjust to a new workflow. If it is a bottleneck, it will be a failure."

www.niemanlab.org

NPR plans to hire 11 new employees to help enact the changes. Last year, it laid off around 10% of its staff, a total of around 100 people. An anonymous funder is “helping” to pay for the positions, The New York Times reported Thursday, but editor-in-chief Edith Chapin reportedly declined to elaborate on the source of the money when pressed by staff.

In addition, the company's new CEO has met with a Republican Senator:

NPR chief works to clean up public image with extra editorial review, meeting with GOP senator

NPR's CEO met with a Republican senator the same day NPR rolled out a new editorial layer at the publication after receiving an onslaught of criticism due to alleged bias.

www.yahoo.com

"She acknowledged the problem, which I think is a pretty good first step," Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in an interview with Fox News Digital. "She pretty much validated the concerns that I raised."

The new oversight is in addition to the existing editorial process, as well as the company's ombudsman.

 

[Delete My Account]

I wonder what the politics of that "anonymous funder" are.

Personally, I find it frustrating when NPR and others give in to pressure and bow and scrape before their critics. If there's actually a problem, address it, but don't allow their (incorrect) portrayals to be the new narrative and give them victory laps on Fox News.

Felt the same way with Lois Lerner. The IRS justifiably put scrutiny to applications for tax exemption and it was made political because a number of those organizations were simpatico with the GOP.

 

[TheBigA]

Personally, I find it frustrating when NPR and others give in to pressure and bow and scrape before their critics.

Their critics are also part of the public that they serve. They have to take it seriously. Public is their middle name.

Too bad that others whose job it is to serve the public don't view their constituency that way.

Interesting that they made it clear the new editorial people won't be funded with taxpayer money.

The critics will never be happy. They will still object to government funding regardless.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

If they hope to eliminate criticism over news bias, their new oversight team can start by disclosing who is funding them. That would be actual transparency.

 

[TheBigA]

If they hope to eliminate criticism over news bias, their new oversight team can start by disclosing who is funding them. That would be actual transparency.

There's nothing they can do to eliminate criticism. That's just the fact of life they live with.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Following criticism over news bias, NPR has added editorial oversight to its newsroom.

There's nothing they can do to eliminate criticism.

I was responding to your original post but if you just want to have a conversation with yourself about it then sure, go ahead.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

If they hope to eliminate criticism over news bias, their new oversight team can start by disclosing who is funding them. That would be actual transparency.

Theres some Trump/Fox/OANN joke in there.

Generally, the people who think NPR news is fake news/biased/not factual are on the opposite side of the political coin and dont like NPR because when it comes to straight up news report, they tell truth that those on the other side of the coin dont like to hear and those other siders coiners think Fox and OANN are fact based journalism.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

The obvious question is who is the primary donor funding this "oversight" team? If it's a political operative then it raises questions about what kind of influence and expectations go along with it, regardless of which side it comes from. And ironically, the failure to disclose who the donor is raises further concerns about the opacity of it.

 

[TheBigA]

I was responding to your original post but if you just want to have a conversation with yourself about it then sure, go ahead.

My post didn't say they intended to eliminate criticism. Just that they responded to it.

But as you & Andy point out, it's an endless rabbit hole.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Theres some Trump/Fox/OANN joke in there.

Generally, the people who think NPR news is fake news/biased/not factual are on the opposite side of the political coin and dont like NPR because when it comes to straight up news report, they tell truth that those on the other side of the coin dont like to hear and those other siders coiners think Fox and OANN are fact based journalism.

Good points to this.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Good points to this.

Theres some Trump/Fox/OANN joke in there.

Generally, the people who think NPR news is fake news/biased/not factual are on the opposite side of the political coin and dont like NPR because when it comes to straight up news report, they tell truth that those on the other side of the coin dont like to hear and those other siders coiners think Fox and OANN are fact based journalism.

And my background is in commercial radio, im not some liberal wackadoo NPR devotee, i look at FACTS.

sure, NPR talk/long form stuff shows a lean... but when it comes to straight up news reporting, they about as factual as it gets. And they make every attempt to tell the other sides story.

You dont get that elsewhere

 

[TheBigA]

Inside Radio reports that some staff object to this new layer:

Report: NPR Staffers Upset Over New Editorial ‘Backstop’ Plans.

Some NPR employees are reportedly feeling angst about a new group of six senior editors — called the “Backstop” — who will be charged with reviewing all of the public

www.insideradio.com

This story was drawn from reporting in the New York Times that was mentioned in an earlier link:

New Editing Layer Adds Angst Inside NPR

Many employees have expressed concern that a new group of six editors called the Backstop will be unnecessary and slow down NPR’s journalism.

www.nytimes.com

The fact is that Uri Berliner's job as editor was to be a backstop. Now there's a backstop to the backstops.

 

[boombox4]

It's a good move, regardless of who funded the team. If you're NPR, naturally, it's a good move to do something like this. I'm sure that there will be some transparency in the operations of the team, regardless of who the donor is, especially considering the scrutiny after the Berliner article.

I'm sure that if someone decides to pry, they'll find that there isn't any hidden agenda attached to the money, anymore than there is an agenda attached to any donations to NPR stations, aside from the fact that people who donate care about the stations and would like to see the programs continue, and ensure the stations stay on the air.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Inside Radio reports that some staff object to this new layer:

The real problem here is lack of transparency from an organization that solicits public donations. Quoting from the New York Times article:

Michel Martin, a host of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” pressed Edith Chapin, NPR’s chief content officer, to identify the source of the funding in an editorial meeting at the network’s Washington headquarters, according to four people with knowledge of the exchange.

Ms. Chapin declined to elaborate on the source of the money but said that it wouldn’t be a surprise to NPR’s editorial staff. Ms. Martin replied she would not accept that answer from a source, the people said.

...and...

Ms. Chapin said during the meeting that she would never allow a donor to dictate editorial terms.

So Chapin's answer basically is, "trust me". If she understood anything about how journalists think, she would have known that a good journalist wouldn't accept that for an answer. Michel Martin is absolutely right here.

It also seems like something I saw in the corporate world: when there's a problem in a function, management adds another layer of management in that function because that's why they know as a way of solving the problem. That fails more often than not.

Those resources would be put to better use toward reporting.

 

[TheBigA]

So Chapin's answer basically is, "trust me". If she understood anything about how journalists think, she would have known that a good journalist wouldn't accept that for an answer. Michel Martin is absolutely right here.

Ask any journalist to name their sources. Journalists are in the business of quoting anonymous sources all the time. When someone chooses to be anonymous, they have a reason. They don't expect the organization to unmask the source without a good reason.

It was an unfair question. Just like when the house committee demanded to know the political parties of all editorial staff. Unfair question. NPR did the right thing and didn't respond. Same with this. If the funder wants to be known, it's up to the funder. Either way, someone will find a reason to use that information to attack NPR News. You can bet it will come up when the CEO reports to congress.

NPR lists all its funding sources where its required, which is in the IRS filings. They don't have to specify who is funding what.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Ask any journalist to name their sources. Journalists are in the business of quoting anonymous sources all the time. When someone chooses to be anonymous, they have a reason. They don't expect the organization to unmask the source without a good reason.

Apples and oranges. The journalists are correct to be suspicious of the motivations of the funder especially given the current circumstances. The obvious solution is to be transparent about it.

It was an unfair question.

Nope. It was a damn good question.

 

[TheBigA]

Apples and oranges. The journalists are correct to be suspicious of the motivations of the funder especially given the current circumstances. The obvious solution is to be transparent about it.

Wrong. If they don't know who it is, they won't be motivated to cater the news to that funder. If they know, then they can be accused of aiming to satisfy the funder. Unmarked dollars have no political bias. You attach a name to it, and it does. The funder's only motivation is to fund these editors. Nothing more.

But look: People like to pick at a scab. They'll keep asking until they get an answer. Then they'll attack the answer. We've all seen this movie before.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Wrong. If they don't know who it is, they won't be motivated to cater the news to that funder.

It's not the reporters who will be doing the catering. It will be the executives, who do know...and who have ultimate editorial control.

If they know, then they can be accused of aiming to satisfy the funder. Unmarked dollars have no political bias. You attach a name to it, and it does. The funder's only motivation is to fund these editors. Nothing more.

How do you know? How does anyone aside from the funder and the executives who got or solicited that donation know?

But look: People like to pick at a scab. They'll keep asking until they get an answer. Then they'll attack the answer.

Of course journalists are going to keep asking until they get an answer - especially when it involves their jobs. That's why they can be so irritating. But I'd rather have that irritation than complacency or propaganda.

We've all seen this movie before.

Oh, come on now.

 

[TheBigA]

Of course journalists are going to keep asking until they get an answer - especially when it involves their jobs. That's why they can be so irritating. But I'd rather have that irritation than complacency or propaganda.

Are you really this naive? I didn't mean that journalists will keep asking.

Suppose it's the Ray & Joan Kroc Foundation. They've given a lot to NPR News. No political agenda. But the way this works is the enemies of NPR will now target McDonalds the way they targeted Bud Light. That's how this works.

It could also be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. You can already hear the comments about that. This is why the donor would like to be anonymous. Because whoever it is will become the new target.

The Senator in the article was very nice, and seemed happy with what he heard. But his last sentence is he's still voting to defund radio.

 

[TheBigA]

It's not the reporters who will be doing the catering. It will be the executives, who do know...and who have ultimate editorial control.

Therein is the real target. They want to know personal views of these new editors. Here's the Senator from North Dakota:

While he appreciated the purpose, Cramer noted potential issues with the new layer's implementation. "Three editors that are homogeneous, that are left-wing Democrats — that doesn't increase oversight," he said. "It just validates bias."

So now we're back to hiring decisions based on political party. BTW NPR isn't the only news organization that receives federal funds. The Voice of America is FULLY funded by taxpayers. Yet no one has demanded to know the political parties of anyone at VOA. Probably because they have no idea it even exists.