NPR Host/Occupy Leader Says She's Been Fired

[raccoonradio]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/10/20/npr-hostoccupy-protester-says-shes-been-fired

(Disclosure: Newsbusters, a part of the Media Research Center, is a site devoted to 'exposing and
combating liberal bias')

Juan Williams was let go from NPR after his comment about feeling nervous about seeing Muslims on a plane was said on his Fox gig. (His new book calls this a chilling attack on open debate). Now someone associated
with a NPR-related show...who also is an "Occupy" leader...has been let go for her involvement in the
movement. She says she's a freelancer, not paid by NPR...

>>"A freelance broadcaster who works for music and documentary programs has been fired from a job after NPR questioned her involvement in a Washington protest." Lisa Simeone said Thursday that she was fired from "Soundprint," a documentary show that is not produced by NPR, but by Soundprint Media in nearby Laurel, Maryland. "Simeone says she was fired Wednesday in a phone call during which NPR's code of ethics was read to her." Simeone is angry that her free-speech rights are being trampled

"NPR Code of Ethics"? A slippery slope, to use a term that pops up on talk radio. Is NPR disassociating itself from charges of a liberal slant (or perhaps, in the case of Williams, a moderate/conservative one--
in many respects Williams can be seen as liberal though)?

http://soundprint.org/radio/produce.php
>>Since its start in 1988 Soundprint has aired stories that
--investigate issues which need to be brought to public attention

Interesting situation...given that NPR does get some public funding and there have been accusations of
liberal bias over the years (the one example I remember is tuning in to Laura Ingraham who played 2 cuts from Fresh Air: One in which Terri Gross seems to fawn over Al Franken while she seems hostile
to guest Bill O'Reilly...)

 

[TheBigA]

This is a complicated issue, because she is not an NPR employee, and is not a journalist. When I first heard this story, my comment was why should the host of an opera show (she is also the host of NPR's World of Opera) be treated like a journalist? She's not. Even being the host of a documentary show isn't the same as being a documentarian. But the issue here is similar to Juan Williams, in how outside work reflects on another job. And it's not just an NPR thing, but it's more likely because NPR people do outside work. You don't see Brian Williams taking on outside work.

Had she just been taking part in the protests, it would not have been an issue. But she chose to be their spokesperson. That places her in a different position than someone who is simply exercising free speech.

 

[raccoonradio]

Good points: "in how outside work reflects on another job...Had she just been taking part in the protests it would not be an issue. But she chose to be their spokesperson"

THAT is important.

btw someone on Free Republic (yes, shock horror another conservative site ) did post an excerpt from
the NPR Code of ethics:
Original source: http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html#conflicts

>>3. An employee covered by this code has the responsibility to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Revealing a conflict of interest after an individual has already participated in coverage where such a conflict exists or appears to exist can be extremely damaging to the reputation of NPR. NPR journalists must, at the time they are first assigned to cover or work on a matter, disclose to their immediate supervisor any business, commercial, financial or personal interests where such interests might reasonably be construed as being in actual, apparent or potential conflict with their duties.

(Though again, is she an opera host or part of a journalistic show? and yes, not an NPR employee.
Soundprint's site does say that they "investigate issues which need to be brought to public attention"
but is that the case with her?)

 

[TheBigA]

(Though again, is she an opera host or part of a journalistic show? and yes, not an NPR employee.
Soundprint's site does say that they "investigate issues which need to be brought to public attention"
but is that the case with her?)

It all points out the difficulties of accepting outside work.

 

[uncamark]

(Though again, is she an opera host or part of a journalistic show? and yes, not an NPR employee.
Soundprint's site does say that they "investigate issues which need to be brought to public attention"
but is that the case with her?)

It all points out the difficulties of accepting outside work.

And NPR's reacting because Simeone was an employee and a host of "Weekend All Things Considered." (I believe "World of Opera" was an in-house production and she was an employee when she took on the show--it's not anymore.)

And considering that the Occupy movements are VERY decentralized in their operations, I could say that I was a spokesperson and I live nowhere near Washington.

 

[TheBigA]

And NPR's reacting because Simeone was an employee and a host of "Weekend All Things Considered."

She's not been a host of WATC since 2002. She may fill in from time to time.

 

[uncamark]

And NPR's reacting because Simeone was an employee and a host of "Weekend All Things Considered."

She's not been a host of WATC since 2002. She may fill in from time to time.

Yeah, but little things like that don't bother the right. If it wasn't for Quadaffi's death, it would be number one on the Fox News playlist today (and I wouldn't be surprised if it's on O'Reilly and/or Hannity tonight).

 

[tomservo]

I think I'm missing something. Are Soundprint and World of Opera (yawn) produced or run by NPR? If not, why should their code of ethics apply to outside productions? That doesn't make much sense. If NPR member stations wish to air the programs, that's between the station and show.

I'm just not seeing how NPR acted appropriately here, even if she was some sort of spokesperson for OWS.

 

[TheBigA]

I think I'm missing something. Are Soundprint and World of Opera (yawn) produced or run by NPR? If not, why should their code of ethics apply to outside productions?

The outside company that produces Soundprint has chosen to follow the NPR code. They feel it affects their journalistic integrity.

And as far as I know, she hasn't been fired from World Of Opera. That company was standing by her.

I'm just not seeing how NPR acted appropriately here, even if she was some sort of spokesperson for OWS.

NPR didn't act at all. They didn't fire anyone. But it was a bad decision for this person to become a spokesperson for a protest group if she wants to host a news documentary show. Really bad decision not to even tell your employer about it. Soundprint found out from a listener email.

 

[markwooldridge]

The company standing behind Ms. Simeone is WDAV - a classical station serving the Charlotte, NC area. It also appears that according to WDAV's website that NPR are no longer going to be distributing World of Opera, and WDAV will do the distribution themselves. They of course are hoping the 60 stations that carry the show continue along with it - odds are good since it sounds like what has happened is that essentially the program continues without NPR in the name.

 

[Tom Wells]

It sounds as though journalists aren't permitted opinions in their free time.

Wait just a minute....What is wrong with a spokesperson position on a policy commitee?

This is wrong. Supposing we tell some policymaker he can't sit on some corporate board of directors because
it would look badly to associate with him.

Journalists ARE permitted opinions, convictions and lives besides journalism.

IF the journalist is properly trained, they know exactly where to apply journalism,
a VERY specific, factual relating of information, and when any part of it leads into
the zone of opinions and disagreement it must be pointed out by a good journalist.
It is, or WAS, well-drilled into journalism students how to distinguish and separate their own
opinions out of their writing.

Opinions belong on the op/ed page, period.

The real problem here is that any employee would be subject to coercive employment policy or
decision for identifying with the present protest.

It's nice to know we already need to be afraid for our jobs so early into this thing.



Especially journalists. Make sure to tell the right story, or you may not have a job.

Don't scold capitalist excess if you value your employment.
That's nice, just really, really nice.


" An' if we tell you dere ain't no story to cover, dere ain't no story to cover."

 

[TheBigA]

It sounds as though journalists aren't permitted opinions in their free time.

According to my journalism professor, no they're not. In fact, from his POV, they don't have free time. A real journalist is always on the job. Because anything you say or do, regardless of the circumstance, comes back to haunt you, and we all have loads of examples to cite. I know of one journalist who was recently caught driving under the influence on a weekend, and he was fired. Being a journalist is a calling, and one should treat it that way.

Not sure that most who call themselves journalists agree. But that was the view from a highly respected professor. In the old days, broadcasting was a calling too.

 

[markwooldridge]

Seems like your journalism professor and the BBC are on the same page. In essence, this is written into their Guidelines.

After further review and reading remarks here and elsewhere about the matter, my opinion is that NPR doesn't appear to have in their code of ethics any separation as to what news and non-news on-air personalities may do outside their NPR role (employed, contracted or otherwise).

 

[uncamark]

Seems like your journalism professor and the BBC are on the same page. In essence, this is written into their Guidelines.

After further review and reading remarks here and elsewhere about the matter, my opinion is that NPR doesn't appear to have in their code of ethics any separation as to what news and non-news on-air personalities may do outside their NPR role (employed, contracted or otherwise).

There's a story about the time a BBC Radio 4 newsreader was booked as a panelist on their "News Quiz" show (their version of "Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me!") outside of their normal roles of being the show's announcer and reading the sort of things you see in the CJR's "lower case" page--and then someone realized that as a newsreader her contract banned her from giving opinions on politics in public, which is part of the panelists' job on that show. The host asked her what she thought of George W. Bush and she blushed and said, "Uh, he's an American?"

 

[TheBigA]

After further review and reading remarks here and elsewhere about the matter, my opinion is that NPR doesn't appear to have in their code of ethics any separation as to what news and non-news on-air personalities may do outside their NPR role (employed, contracted or otherwise).

After the Juan Williams thing, the company hired a firm to redo their Code of Ethics. Not sure if it's been revised yet. But they were hoping to cover outside work, because that was the specific issue that got Juan in trouble.

There really aren't a lot of non-news personalities among employees. The non-news programming is mostly produced by stations.

 

[Tom Wells]

It sounds as though journalists aren't permitted opinions in their free time.

According to my journalism professor, no they're not. In fact, from his POV, they don't have free time. A real journalist is always on the job. Because anything you say or do, regardless of the circumstance, comes back to haunt you, and we all have loads of examples to cite. I know of one journalist who was recently caught driving under the influence on a weekend, and he was fired. Being a journalist is a calling, and one should treat it that way.

Not sure that most who call themselves journalists agree. But that was the view from a highly respected professor. In the old days, broadcasting was a calling too.

In my three years of Journalism education it was frankly admitted that it was impossible to NOT have opinions, but the
position as a "calling" required the person to understand and keep the opinions out of the story.

We had many exercises where sample stories were to be picked apart, and when we detected flaws, bias or opinion we were to indicate
it. It was a very valuable experience.

Even if a journalist HAS signed a code of ethics it cannot be used to prevent them from full excercise of citizenship.
That comes with the right to have an opinion, especialy regarding something like this, which will require a constitutional ammendment
to address declaring "usury limits" on corporations.

A usury limit is like a speed limit. It defines that a certain level of profit is simply an abuse of civilization.
At some pont it's not just a great product or service, it's exploitation and harmful to permit.
No matter how much parties to the transaction are satisfied.

It's just like prostitution at some point. Civilization claims it's not desirable, yet it has always existed
for the same reason theft has always existed.

This sort of thing has a chilling effect on free speech.

I would expect my my employer to fire me if he found out I was supporting the 99%.

Why wouldn't he? Any success of this movement will require that he eventually be a more responsible employer.
He might have to begin reporting the earnings, even in a privately held company.

He might have to give me dedicated breaks, a lunch period where I could leave the property, and even scheduled days off.
They operate on a schedule 7 hours behind actual time.
This permits me to work the first 7 hours of ANY holiday, and they can claim I still had the holiday off.
Okay, the day's over at 7AM, I've been up 16 hours, and now I'm supposed to go pretend I can enjoy the holiday?

But as long as the corporations hold all the aces in this economy, I'll just have to continue enjoying such abuse.

Oh, look here it's Monday night and after working the 12AM-7AM portion of Monday, it's now time to go work the 11PM -12PM portion of Monday.



I could be declared a troublemaker simply by asking for days off.
This is as bad a journalist not being permitted to exercise full citizenship.

 

[TheBigA]

This is as bad a journalist not being permitted to exercise full citizenship.

Someone has to be "the reporter." Someone has to be the impartial observer, so that everyone else can exercise their citizenship in a knowledgeable and informed way. That's what it means to serve the public. You choose to give up some of your rights in order to help others with theirs. It all sounds so quaint and 19th century. But at one time, that's how people thought.

 

[Tom Wells]

This is as bad a journalist not being permitted to exercise full citizenship.

Someone has to be "the reporter." Someone has to be the impartial observer, so that everyone else can exercise their citizenship in a knowledgeable and informed way. That's what it means to serve the public. You choose to give up some of your rights in order to help others with theirs. It all sounds so quaint and 19th century. But at one time, that's how people thought.

I'm agreeing. I've been there. my first job was withe the local paper, and I spent 6 years in school journalism
as a photographer. I became quite aware of the diference of when I was the reporter and when I wasn't.

At some point, for a photographer, you have to decide whether you are documenting an event or would rather
be a part of an event, becuase you MUST experience them in a different way to do either one well.

It doesn't seem 19th century at all.
Serving the public as a reporter does NOT require giving up rights.
It requires stewardship and exceptional extra responsibility that the "product" be untainted.

It probably just SEEMS 19th century because we are so accustomed to getting our news
fitted to our opinions these days. It is easy now to find a news feed that permits one to
retain their positions and beliefs, no matter how isolated.

It's very hard to find a news source that places a high value on examining things objectively.
Too much work, too much trouble.

 

[tomservo]

Even if a journalist HAS signed a code of ethics it cannot be used to prevent them from full excercise of citizenship.

This is a strawman. No one's rights are being abridged by these codes of ethics. You can still go participate in anti-greed rallies or klan rallies or whatever your belief is, and exercise your right to free speech and whatnot. But your employer, who puts you in a position of appearing as impartial figure to the public, has a right to no longer employ you if you do those things against some code of employee ethics.

Almost all employers have some sort of conduct code. This is no different than you or I showing up to our jobs drunk, which would be a violation of that code. You have a right to get hammered off the clock, but you violate the workplace rule once you show up inebriated. If you're fired for being drunk at work, your right to drink has not been abridged, your right to work has.

Now here's the crazy part: a plumber or lawyer or radio station engineer, they can easily go rally in plain clothes as individuals not representing their employer. Media figures do not get this luxury. Media figures, from actors to news reporters to journalists to morning zoo hosts are all representatives of their companies 24/7 because that's the way it works in media and news reporting. It's also the same with pro sports, come to think of it. MLB, NHL and NFL have codes of conduct as well.

Ozzie Osbourne acting stupid on TV affects the brand that is Ozzie. An unemployed schmo protesting injustice at OWS represents no one but his or herself. But for public figures, it doesn't work that way. Albert Pujols acting stupid in a nightclub represents the Cardinals. Brian Williams speaking at a communist meeting represents NBC. And this NPR host leading the OWS rally, whether any of us like it or not, represents NPR and WDAV when she exercises her rights in public.

OK, so Brian Williams has never spoken at a communist party meeting. But imagine if he had; can't you see how that would irreparably damage not only his own reputation with viewers, but that of his employer? It would be his right to do so, but it would be in NBC's rights to ask him to step down, too.

 

[Tom Wells]

So is this really about protecting corporate advantages and interests over people at any cost?

This seems to be leading to a conclusion of corporate "rights" as utmost.

I must forgo having hope for a more meaningful future so I can have rice and beans today?

We can see there are already a lot of folks who feel the efforts of their labor are being unduly appropriated
and used to further the power and influence of corporations.