Is this public radio hypocrisy?

[FredLeonard]

This weekend, On The Media's Brooke Gladstone introduced a story as follows:

"If there's a legal basis for this show, and frankly for the style of our coverage, it's the first amendment - and ironclad protection for all manner of speech - popular and unpopular - a distinctly American bulwark against being silenced."

This story was followed by an enhanced underwriting announcement for a "reputation management" company. Basically, they are in business to stifle criticism of companies or professional practices. Post a bad review and you get an intimidating letter from their lawyers (to start).

Should a program that claims to be all about free expression be taking money from an outfit like this?

Then there are various stories NPR news magazines have done Facebook's onerous and arbitrary "privacy policies." But those same programs solicit user input on stories using Facebook.

Does this trouble anyone else?

 

[bturner]

Very interesting and I see this as unsettling.

I can see the point of the Underwriter from the perspective that many consumers embellish their stories with non-fact. Many times consumers do not understand the situation. Sometimes the situation has been resolved in the customer's favor but they post a public complaint. Obviously the motivation of the 'poster' of a bad review is to cause harm...it is willful. So, where must the line be drawn?

The apartment community where I live had horrible management when I moved in but they were quickly fired and a new staff put in. The new staff is exceptional. Even so, the negative reviews haunt them daily although the previous legitimate compaints are no longer valid.

My Government teacher said something that makes so much sense if you think about it: You can't be free unless you choose not to exercise your freedom. She described it this way: the way we had the freedom to drive the highways in relative safety comes from giving up our freedom to do anything we want on the highways. Only by giving up that freedom and tempering it by following a set of driving rules could we enjoy that freedom.

I am a huge fan of the First Admendment but I realize that the harder you push, the harder the opposing side pushes back. Sometimes it is better to pick your battles and let some fall by the wayside. Sometimes it is better to cause a bruise than slice off an arm, for example. The idea is to take the least evasive action required to remedy the situation.

I think this company, while in the business of controlling speech, is poorly placed on a program that champions free speech, but I think the company has a valid reason to exist and a valid reason to 'control' speech about their clients just as much as the person has to exercise their free speech. I doubt there will be any major court cases but the company better 'temper' their freedom or they might find a class action suit eventually. I'm sure that most people who get a letter are intimidated a bit and that's the point they want to make, that they will fight for their client if forced to. Certainly we have to ask about the integrity of such a company, is it morally or monetarily driven?

Another detail I do not know is if this company is a 'program' supporter (ie: contributing to the program) or a local/regional advertiser. In commercial talk radio they always have the problem where the host talks down, say, reverse mortgages and take a commercial break and a commercial about how great reverse mortgages are fires off. Might it be a local placement as part of a group of 'general' underwriters who sponsor the station in general or a locally sold 'sponsor' of the show? Even if the program itself has accepted them as a sponsor although they champion free speech is a real dilemna for them because to refuse is to go against what they champion although ethically they disagree with the sponsor. Regardless it is not a good situation and unsettling.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I just pulled up "On The Media" on line and listened to the program.

I'm sorry. I fail to see and hear the "bells, whistles, and flags" you waved over this broadcast.

The endorsement was by a "company?"... a website, that says we will watch the Internet for you and fight battles for you.

We are all left to wonder what the techniques are that a company like this would use. BUT.... "Free Speech" does not mean I am required to sit idly by while you speak, write or pampleteer untruths about me. If fact, I am not required to sit idly by while you spew information about me that I have made reasonable efforts to keep private. Your free to tell. I'm free to protest, deny and discourage.

If you become overly aggressive with speech that causes me damage that is not warranted, I'm a free to write a letter of protest to the local newspaper editor for publication, I am free to hire a lawyer to advise you that you have maybe stepped across the line of social and legal acceptability, I am free to hire a lawyer to take you to court and press a demand that unreasonable speech.... whatever that might be, has caused me damage, humiliation, financial loss, and whatever.

I have never understood "Free Speech" to mean that I must lay down on the sidewalk and lay there while you tell half-truths, untruths and plain old lies about me.

How is my view in violation of the premise of the program as outlined by Brook Gladstone? Doesn't On The Media sometimes do a feature about media and "Speech Gone Wild"?

 

[TheBigA]

The thing to know is that there is no connection between underwriting and editorial at NPR. If Brooke herself read the funding announcement, you might have a point. And the funders of these shows share in the same First Amendment as everyone else.

 

[aaronread]

Should a program that claims to be all about free expression be taking money from an outfit like this?

I think this was a screwup of sorts, but it's emblematic of the firewall between editorial and finance at NPR. That "reputation defender" spot is a national one, I think. That means it is sold and recorded at NPR, and the show producers have no say, input or knowledge of the spots. In this case, there's the added layer that OTM is produced at WNYC, not NPR, so they're even more removed from that decision.

Generally that's a good thing: it shows that there's no consideration of the funders when it comes to the editorial process. In this case, it did create a somewhat awkward situation of a statement about free speech being immediately followed by a spot that is, essentially, about censorship of a sort. Oops.

FWIW, I also agree that there's not too much molehill to be made into a mountain in the first place. But this basically shows that the editorial firewall is working.

 

[FredLeonard]

Sounds like the firewall is working too well. The sales department (I mean "development") needs to show some sensitivity to where spots (I mean "underwriting announcements") are placed. It's one thing to allow this company to sponsor a show like Marketplace (as an example, I know it's an APM show) but not one that claims a dedication to free speech.

I had always assumed the spots on OTM were sold by WNYC. I have some evidence that stations may have different standards than described here for NPR. As an example, WHYY in Philadelphia regularly does long-form items in the local news on medical "advances" or treatments followed by an underwriting announcement for a pharmaceutical company or hospital (connected to the topic). They also do a call-in show with a local shrink (preempting Here and Now one day a week) with similar healthcare underwriting announcements. Regardless of any firewall policies, there is certainly the appearance of influence of content and conflict of interest.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Should a program that claims to be all about free expression be taking money from an outfit like this?

In this case, it did create a somewhat awkward situation of a statement about free speech being immediately followed by a spot that is, essentially, about censorship of a sort. Oops.

I think I am a strong advocate for free speech. But maybe I don't understand the concept.

If I learn that someone is running around my town telling people that I am rowdy and I abuse my wife via physical beatings, I don't consider it a violation of the free speech concept for me to confront my town gossiper and suggest that he/she get the facts straight. I might also suggest to the town gossiper that there is a court house down in the town square and that people have been known to file lawsuits over damages to one's reputation and that I could possibly be pushed to the point of finding out how you file one of those court cases. That's my free speech.

I was not, I am not a supporter of the candidacy of Rick Santorum for president. But he is the "poster child" for why there is a legitimate place in this world for someone like Reputation Defender. (I just now did a Google Search on SANTORUM and I see that he has had some success in getting the Internet tamed a bit, but it is still quite ugly.)

There was a time during the presidential primary when if you searched for Rick Santorum, you would get THOUSANDS of returns from Google of 'perverted language regarding sexual activity' before the first legitimate reference to "Who is Rick Santorum" would appear on your screen. As I understand the story, Mr. Santorum and a very tech-savvy gay man got into a war of words, and the tech-savvy guy pulled off a feat that probably cannot be defended as "an exercise of protected free speech". If Mr. Santorum hired counsel and technocrats to wrestle the abuse to the ground, I don't see that as some kind of violation of the free speech of the gay man who felt a need to trash Mr. Santorum.

The Internet today is the "wild, wild western frontier" of pushing the envelope of free speech. I don't quite understand all the furor over Reputation Defender doing endorsements on NPR/NPR Stations.

There are days that those of us who post here in the forums should maybe be hearing from some one like Reputation Defender. ;D

And sometimes we do. He/She goes by the title of MBE. :

 

[FredLeonard]

Goat Radio Cowboy: What if somebody was beating his wife?

Based on stories I've heard about these companies - both NPR and Marketplace - they often stifle valid criticism. If you are a dissatisfied customer, do you have a right to say so? The story on OTM pointed out that before the Sullivan ruling, libel laws were used to squelch political criticism and opposition, as well as unfavorable news coverage. Now, these companies want to use the law - and threats of law suits against regular people who can't afford legal bills - to stifle commercial criticism.

You mention Santorum. People on the right often look to the "market" to fix things. That applies especially to the marketplace of ideas.

In any case, legal bullying is not the solution. It's one thing to remove a questionable post from a message board. It's another to threaten someone with an expensive to defend lawsuit because you don't like what they say.

 

[TheBigA]

Keep in mind that the First Amendment and Free Speech are not exactly the same thing. The key words in the First Amendment are: "Congress shall make no law..." That doesn't mean other parties can't come up with various rules. That could include an employer or a rights holder.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Goat Radio Cowboy: What if somebody was beating his wife?

I guess the context of that question as it relates to this thread is totally lost on me. Maybe you can explain your question in more granular terms that I can comprehend.

Based on stories I've heard about these companies - both NPR and Marketplace - they often stifle valid criticism. If you are a dissatisfied customer, do you have a right to say so? The story on OTM pointed out that before the Sullivan ruling, libel laws were used to squelch political criticism and opposition, as well as unfavorable news coverage. Now, these companies want to use the law - and threats of law suits against regular people who can't afford legal bills - to stifle commercial criticism.

They must have broadcast something different in your area from the program I downloaded from the web site as being the program originated 03/29/2013. They talked about legal actions regarding "leaks" of classified info just before the "offensive" endorsement. I heard nothing about the Sullivan ruling.

You mention Santorum. People on the right often look to the "market" to fix things. That applies especially to the marketplace of ideas.

I'm sorry that "people on the right" are such poor students of history. It seems that leading nation after leading nation, empire after empire in the history of our planet usually fail because the marketplace leads us into intellectual and moral decay... when the marketplace is left without limits and regulation. The marketplace is a wonderful tool to create a vigorous economy. It apparently is lacking when it comes to creating morality and integrity.

In any case, legal bullying is not the solution. It's one thing to remove a questionable post from a message board. It's another to threaten someone with an expensive to defend lawsuit because you don't like what they say.

Freedom to speak is not free. It can cost you your job. It can ruin your marriage. It can destroy your standing in your community and social realm. It can cause you to be ejected from your "tribe of religious and spiritual expression." It can keep your from being elected to realm of governmental power.

The constitution may grant some kind of protection from the government regulating your vocal or visual output. But it does not prohibit your boss from demoting or terminating you. It does not prohibit you spouse from disconnecting from you. It does not force the people living down the street from you to invite you to their backyard bar-b-cue. It does not regulate the discipline that takes place within religious and spiritual organizations. It cannot assure you of acquiring a seat in local government.

Why would you assume there is a connection between the First Amendment and what kind of claim a company or person can pursue in court?

 

[FredLeonard]

Goat Radio Cowboy: You wrote...

If I learn that someone is running around my town telling people that I am rowdy and I abuse my wife via physical beatings, I don't consider it a violation of the free speech concept for me to confront my town gossiper and suggest that he/she get the facts straight.

Your premise is the gossip is false. What if the gossip is true or has some reasonable basis in fact?

I think I am a strong advocate for free speech. But maybe I don't understand the concept.

You seem here to be defending those who use lawyers to bully critics into silence.

The OTM program this weekend did not do a story on these companies. They ran an underwriting announcement for one. NPR and Marketplace have done stories on them in the past. OTM did mention how libel and sedition laws had used in the past to silence unwanted or unfavorable political speech or news coverage. What these reputation companies do is similar in silencing commercial criticism. They are bullies and I find it distasteful that public radio is willing to take their money.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

What btuner and Goat appear to be saying is that with freedom comes responsibility. And BigA's observation on the spirit of the first ammendment makes for an important wake-up call on the true realities of "free speech".

Freedom of speech is precious. Still, the constitution blesses no one with authority to yell fire in a crowded theatre. We must never confuse liberty with libel.

I too am troubled by the alleged "hypocrisy" cited by Fred. This programming alliance may prove itself harmless. Still, it makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Goat Radio Cowboy: You wrote...

If I learn that someone is running around my town telling people that I am rowdy and I abuse my wife via physical beatings, I don't consider it a violation of the free speech concept for me to confront my town gossiper and suggest that he/she get the facts straight.

Your premise is the gossip is false. What if the gossip is true or has some reasonable basis in fact?

I fear we are getting too far astray from the discussion of radio at this point. But this example may parallel some circumstances that can happen in broadcasting.

If I learn that someone is running around my town telling people that I am rowdy and I abuse my wife.... I know whether the gossip is false. I DON'T HAVE TO PREMISE. Now, let's assume for a moment, the gossip is about a friend of mine. I may have the ability to accurately size up my friend... and accurately size up the tow gossiper and decide whether I can make a valid intervention into what I am able to determine is false information. To reply to me that I ONLY have a PREMISE that the gossip about me kind of takes the integrity out of this conversation.

I think I am a strong advocate for free speech. But maybe I don't understand the concept.

You seem here to be defending those who use lawyers to bully critics into silence.

If the law firm knows they do not have the facts on their side and they simply bully critics into silence, I offer them no defense.

Your criticism of NPR and OTM makes the assumption that we know for a fact that most-of-the-time or all-of-the-time the players in the "reputation defenders" operation are never correct, never have facts on their side. I'm simply debating with you that maybe sometimes, maybe most of the time, Reputation Defenders are working from valid positions. Demonstrate that I am wrong if you like, if you can.

In the meantime, for NPR, WNYC, and whoever else is involved to simply declare Reputation Defenders as unwelcome persons in their support of Public Radio has the possibility of being a poor steward of the public airwaves concept.

There is a fine line between it being a bad thing to have your lawyers attempt to bully critics into silence and when it is the acceptable and legitimate arm of the market place.

 

[aaronread]

Sounds like the firewall is working too well. The sales department (I mean "development") needs to show some sensitivity to where spots (I mean "underwriting announcements") are placed.

I know it seems counter-intuitive but to have an editorial firewall it must be complete; you actually can't let the sales department do that. Even if, on the surface, it would make good sense to let them - any blurring of the line destroys the concept of journalistic integrity, which is all perception to begin with.

I had always assumed the spots on OTM were sold by WNYC.

I think some are and some aren't; NPR allows stations to sell spots on national shows they produce, but NPR also has the right to sell some of those slots. Like how some of the spots you hear on On Point are nationally-sold by NPR, but the Liberty Mutual billboard spot is sold locally for national exposure. I assume there's some complicated revenue sharing plan in place between NPR and the member station, too. I don't really know too much about the nitty-gritty mechanics here.

I just know that Reputation Defender has bought lots of spots nationally on NPR so I assume it's a national spot. I suppose it could be that WNYC sold that particular spot to RD instead of NPR.

 

[TheBigA]

I know it seems counter-intuitive but to have an editorial firewall it must be complete; you actually can't let the sales department do that.

I agree. An editorial firewall has to work in both directions. Sales can't tell editorial what to cover, and editorial can't tell sales what products or clients to accept.