Bias in the media

[Neil D]

NPR Ombudsman

By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin

Media Bias on NPR -- It Seems Obvious to Some

NPR.org, June 21, 2005 · NPR listeners (and some non-listeners) have made up their minds.

They are convinced that NPR is biased... but there is no consensus as to what that bias is.

Kenneth Tomlinson, the chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), has raised the issue of bias at NPR. Tomlinson has also expressed specific concerns about NPR's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To address these and other issues, CPB, which funds a portion of public broadcasting, has appointed two ombudsmen -- one for the left and one for the right.

A point of clarification: I am neither one of those two ombudsmen.

My remit is only to NPR and its listeners, not to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and certainly not to any political party or tendency. It is a sad comment on the state of both journalism and ombudsmanship that this needs to be said at all.

PBS, the public television service, has announced that it, too, will soon have an ombudsman. Its programs often evoke a strong response and many viewers have used me as a conduit to get their concerns through to PBS. I'm happy that PBS will have its own viewers' advocate.

Many NPR listeners say they are unconvinced about CPB's intentions and I agree with them. In my opinion, the idea of a "political" ombudsman is a contradiction in terms. Ombudsmen are neutral adjudicators, not partisan advocates. That is the modus operandi for ombudsmen at all other newspapers and broadcasters.

Undermining Public Broadcasting

The appointment of the CPB ombudsmen has, indeed, accomplished something: It has sown doubts (or reinforced existing ones) among many listeners (and viewers) that there is something fundamentally wrong at NPR and PBS. But these doubts are based on impressions, innuendo and hearsay evidence.

Questioning the practices of journalism is always a good thing. But declaring a priori that there is bias, as Mr. Tomlinson has, contradicts the high standards of public broadcast stewardship that CPB has always advocated.

Where's the Bias?

But now that the allegation has been made, do accusations of bias at NPR stand up to scrutiny?

Some listeners think NPR already has a subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) bias. They say NPR is overwhelmingly liberal on a number of issues. Others insist that NPR has, for many years, been slowly, yet discernibly drifting to the right.

What exactly is editorial bias? Is it something hard to recognize but -- as Justice Potter Stewart famously said of pornography -- something we'll know when we see it? And if NPR has a bias, what -- if anything -- can or should be done about it?

Some listeners say they know it is there, because they can hear it, even if they can't put a finger on it.

'One-Sided News'

Listener Sam Johnson insists there is bias (he doesn't say precisely what it is), but he's prepared to live with it:

I think you have one-sided news, but I listen.

Margaret Davis seems to think NPR has changed and she doesn't like what she hears:

What is happening to NPR? I'm detecting a subtle change in programming direction. Less hard news, soft-pedaling this administration's decision-making, the introduction of religion, more 'light' subjects which I can get on afternoon TV if that's what I am reduced to, and on and on...

My deep interest in NPR has always been its wonderful source of hard INFORMATION. It's all we have! Please don't introduce so much 'filler' stuff. We have become so isolated from what is really happening worldwide... We need to know this, and we certainly won't get it from the right-wing corporate radio stations pounding at us nationwide.

Listener Phil Harris agrees that it is time that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting started looking into NPR's biases:

I have been watching with interest the hand-wringing concerning increased attention to strike political balance in NPR's programming. I have largely stopped listening to NPR, and have become uninterested in personally donating because of the lack of balance. I find it stunning that executives at NPR do not recognize the fact that the perceived support for keeping things the way they are, comes largely from those who remain, and who in fact share the same side of the biased viewpoint. You have long ago lost many of us who may have provided an opposing viewpoint.

Please tell your leadership, that balance is long overdue. They very well need to listen to these outside pressures if they truly wish to achieve public broadcasting that serves all taxpayers and potential contributors.

'Doing a Critical Job'

Listener A. Amer thinks everything is fine as it is:

Well, I think you guys are doing a critical job. There are only a few options left for news that isn't bought and paid for.

In this fractious environment, any news organization that claims to be apolitical is assumed to be liberal by default.

NPR Fits Today's Definitions of 'Liberal Journalism'

If that is today's idea of liberalism, then perhaps NPR fits it. But such a practice also results in the best of American journalism.

Most of the e-mails I receive are heartfelt. If public opinion means anything in today's culture, it would be foolish to ignore expressions of discontent.

Following the Money?

Most of the complaints about NPR's bias concern public radio funding. NPR, like other public broadcasters, receives public money. It's not much these days -- less than 1 percent comes from the CPB. Public radio stations average 13 percent of their funding from the CPB and some of that money comes back to NPR in program fees and membership dues.

Those opposed to public money for public broadcasting insist that NPR rely entirely on paid subscriptions and corporate support.

Other listeners think that by taking federal money, public radio can guard against corporations being able to influence the news. These listeners worry that NPR already accepts too much in underwriting from corporations and foundations. They find federal and (for some stations) state money an acceptable counterbalance.

NPR's value for many listeners is that it operates without a lot of preconditions. It is not an explicitly political news organization. It does not have one program for the left and another for the right.

I think NPR implicitly believes that listeners deserve reliable and contextual information presented without partisanship. Those may be high ideals, but there is no better reason to be in journalism. And that may be what angers the partisans on both sides.

NPR needs to state its principles and post them prominently on its Web site. It would be reassuring for many listeners -- especially these days.

Next week, a look at what listeners should expect of NPR in this heated journalistic and political environment.

[Ron Lambert]

Name one NPR journalist or commentator or manager or news director who is a conservative.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Name one NPR journalist or commentator or manager or news director who is a conservative.

---

Quote:

---

I think NPR implicitly believes that listeners deserve reliable and contextual information presented without partisanship. Those may be high ideals, but there is no better reason to be in journalism. And that may be what angers the partisans on both sides.

---

I think that this said it well enough, Ron.

Perhaps there is not the need for conservatives in the news as there is conservatism in stated principles that NPR is using when reporting. Perhaps that is the reason that I believe that they are more balanced in thier views than say Fox...or CBS....Perhaps there is a way to get around the "conservative/liberal" bias/lableing by sticking to accepted principles for reporting the new that one can use and news that one can enjoy for pleasures' sake alone [usually in contrast to the horror stories, and other sensational topics that top the list.

BTW, feel free to put in here an editorial on your favorite news source that explains why it is so balanced.

[Dr. Shane]

I listen to NPR because I like getting a liberal prespective.

The mainstream media is changing and becoming more balanced because the marketplace is demanding it. Years ago the three major networks had a media monopoly. Now that the consumers can choose where they want to get their news more are choosing sources that are more balanced. The mainstream media is being forced to change in order to maintain its market.

[Ron Lambert]

Neil, who are they trying to kid? Just because a news organization staffed exclusively by liberals says it is going to be fair and balanced, doesn't mean it really will be, or is even capable of it. Fox News really is fair and balanced, in the judgment of the vast majority of Americans (who give them higher ratings than CNN, CBS, and MSBNC combined) because it has people of all viewpoints, including liberals, and gives all viewpoints. To claim that NPR is anything other than uniformly extreme liberal is a joke.

[Neil D]

I have waited patiently for someone to comment on this....It is time for this to be commented upon.

Quote:

---

Neil, who are they trying to kid? Just because a news organization staffed exclusively by liberals says it is going to be fair and balanced, doesn't mean it really will be, or is even capable of it.

---

In your profession, are there not accepted rules where everyone agree to? For example, in my line of work, I am a Respiratory Therapist. I have the option of working for a hospital or an agency or starting up my own department [well, don't think that's posible now.]I currently work for an angency, where I am placed in different hospitals every day that I accept work. Each hosopital enviorment is differeent as they like to emphasis things just a bit different. The hosipital that I am at uses a special nebulizer with straight albuterol [brreathing medication ] for 90 seconds where as other hospitals use the same medication, but only .5cc in 2.5 cc solution of normal saline and deliver it over 10 minutes. Which works better? Well, if the goal is to get the drug on board faster, the first method is 'better". If you want it cheaper, then the second method is 'better ' as the first method has a far more expensive nebulizer. The outcome is the same. Time and expense is different.

In the profession of journalizm, there are definately principles that are adhered to by the company that wants to sell it's product. ABC and NPR, Fox and CBS, NBC and CNN are all delivering the same product, the news. That is why you will see each organization place each news worthy item for that day in thier broadcasting. Some may place the news-item closer to the headlines than others, but they weill bein the news. NPR has outlined thier principles as to what they concider excellent journalizm. And they are adhering to those principles.

Quote:

---

Fox News really is fair and balanced, in the judgment of the vast majority of Americans (who give them higher ratings than CNN, CBS, and MSBNC combined) because it has people of all viewpoints, including liberals, and gives all viewpoints

---

And every professional journalizm organization has said that Fox news is nothing more than a news outlet for the Republican party. I would trust the varied professional journalizm professions who studied this rather than the masses whose partook of a poll designed to make the Fox news look good. Wouldn't you trust a professional over a an arbratry layman ? The next time you need surgury, I suggest you think about that...While the layman may be very cheap, I bet the outcome with the professional would be much more in your living favor.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

every professional journalizm organization has said that Fox news is nothing more than a news outlet for the Republican party.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If that is true (which you offer no evidence of) maybe what these (professianal) organizations define as conservative is defined by their own liberalness. After Dan Rather had the Bush NG story blow up in his face, 60 Minutes said they would consider putting a conservative on staff so they could get a different perspective. Wow! Do you understand that means 60 Minutes was admitting their entire staff was liberals?

FOXNews does have a lot of conservatives. However they also have liberals. FOXNews isn't the opposite extreame of 60 Minutes. SkyAngel just recently added the FOXNews channel so I have just recently started watching it on a regular basis. I do like their balance. I like having liberals on with conservatives. According to Alan Combs, one of the morning show hosts is liberal although I haven't figured out which one it is.

However we have to remember that perfect objectivity is not realistic. That is why it is important to get our news from a variety of sources.

[Ron Lambert]

Journalism schools are notorious for their liberal faculties. The Los Angeles Times is notorious for being virtually a "house organ" for the Democratic Party, in the judgment of virtually everyone. But the only people who call Fox News a mouthpiece for the Republican Party are confirmed liberals, who for some reason are intolerant of any organization that includes conservative viewpoints along with all others in a fair manner. To liberals, fairness means excluding the conservative viewpoint. This has become so transparent in recent decades, it explains why Fox News is such a refreshing change for the vast majority who want real fairness and real balance. It is not just conservatives who are watching Fox News in such large numbers that their ratings beat out those of CBS, CNN, PBS, and MSNBC combined.