News Consumer

MSNBC was right -- and wrong

MSNBC was right to suspend anchor Keith Olbermann for making financial contributions to three political campaigns, but the network shares some of the blame for the problem.

Last week it was possible to watch Olbermann one night working as a journalist providing election night coverage and on another night as a political commentator naming his "Worst Person in the World," and going well beyond news analysis. Olbermann has strong opinions and the network wanted him to express them on his nightly "Countdown" program.

So what are news consumers to think about Olbermann's role at the network? Is he a journalist? A pundit? Both?

That's the problem. If Olbermann were just a commentator advocating political views, then his contributions would not be an issue. It wouldn't be surprising that he backs up his opinions with his checkbook.

But news consumers expect journalists to leave their opinions at the door and to bring neutrality to their work. Making contributions tips the reporter's hand and brings into question the objectivity of their work.

Certainly journalists have opinions, but the standards and ethics of the profession provide guidelines on how to report stories without bias. Those rules also apply to behavior outside the newsroom or the studio.

Olbermann was wrong to make the contributions if, at times, he wants to behave as a journalist, but MSNBC should not have put him in that position. The network needs to be clear about whether someone is working for them as a journalist or a commentator and not force news consumers to guess about what role the person is playing at any given moment.

If MSNBC wants to be known as a news network and not an opinion network, it must act with the same integrity that it expects from its staff.

Chuckle politely, but not genuinely

Journalists take their ethics seriously -- and we want them to -- but sometimes it can border on ridiculous.

This weekend Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are holding mock political rallies in Washington, D.C. Some news organizations have told their staffers not to cover the event.

Those news managers believe coverage of an entertainment event would give it political weight, but that horse has already left the barn. Stewart is ranked by many as one of the most trusted news people in America, despite the fact that Stewart says he is a comedian, not a commentator.

But much of Stewart's and Colbert's humor is political satire and their jokes have an impact on what America thinks about it's leaders and the country's policies. It may be comedy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have political impact.

Whether the event is worth coverage is an issue each newsroom will decide independently, but to suggest it would be unethical to cover the event is simply ignoring the reality of the situation.

Fortunately, the editor of the Washington Times, Michael Schaffer, provided tongue-in-cheek guidance to his staff concerning coverage of the event.

You can read his memo here as staffers are advised to "to politely chuckle, in a non-genuine manner, after each joke."

The firing of Juan Williams

Last week NPR fired news analyst Juan Williams for comments he made during an interview with Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News Channel. It wasn't Williams' first appearance on the show and it wasn't the first time NPR had problems with what Williams said.

The situation is well described by Alicia Shepard, NPR's obmbusman, but it's important to note here why the incident is important to news consumers and what has been lost in the discussion.

NPR and Fox News are near opposites in today's media world. NPR takes a scholarly approach to the news, attempting to provide middle-of-the-road reporting while using a wide variety of guests to provide opinion and context.

Fox comes to news with a viewpoint and it accentuates that viewpoint with commentators who tend to reinforce the prevailing point of view at Fox rather than challenge it.

In today's media environment, the Fox model is growing in popularity not only among news consumers, but also among media managers. While the size of the audience for news hasn't grown much, the number of people who are providing products they describe as news is growing. That means the pie is getting smaller for everyone. In an attempt to increase their share of the pie, news providers are increasingly adding opinion and bias to their reporting.

NPR wants to avoid that tactic and that, in itself, is a marketing decision. NPR sees the middle as its position in the marketplace and that makes it somewhat surprising that NPR would allow its staffers to appear on programs where opinions are in demand.

As NPR's Shepard says in her column, it wasn't the first time NPR had a problem with Williams' statements on Fox. "Williams’ appearances on Fox News, especially O’Reilly’s show, have caused heartburn repeatedly for NPR over the last few years. Management said he’s been warned several times that O’Reilly is a professional provocateur and to be careful," Shepard reported.

The network told him to be careful, not to avoid Fox News, and that's where NPR made its mistake. If it wants to be perceived as a middle-of-the-road player, it shouldn't allow it's news staffers to appear on news programs that are the the edge of journalism. It's not fair to the staffers and it is even more unfair to NPR's audience. Fox is very clear about its point of view; Williams' appearance on Fox left NPR listeners less certain about the radio network's standards.

Why did NPR allow Williams to go back rather than telling him to choose one organization or the other? Very likely it's because NPR benefits when its people appear on other news programs.

Unlike most other news organizations, NPR gets its funding mostly from donations, not advertising. When NPR staff appears on other programs, it promotes the radio network and enhances its stature among other news organizations and the public. That makes it easier to raise money and hire talented reporters and producers.

While NPR may benefit when its staff members work elsewhere, it's a temptation the network needs to restrain. Lending staffers to other middle-of-the-road newsrooms is consistent with NPR's goals, but allowing appearances on opinion-oriented media is not.

NPR's first responsibility should be to its audience and its handling of the Juan Williams shows that it allowed funding to become a distraction from that mission.

The courage to publish

Reporters and editors know it's impossible to please everyone. It's always possible -- even likely -- that someone will be offended by something that is published or broadcast.

But that doesn't mean that reporters and editors should go out of their way to offend people. That was the thinking recently when the Washington Post decided not to print a popular cartoon because it invited readers to find an image of Muhammad in a drawing based on the "Where's Waldo?" series. According to Andrew Alexander, ombudsman of the Post, the editors were concerned that it ""it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." The cartoon did not include an image of Muhammad.

Alexander contacted the artist of the strip "Non Sequitur", Wiley Miller, and reported:

The award-winning cartoonist, who lives in Maine, told me the cartoon was meant to satirize "the insanity of an entire group of people rioting and putting out a hit list over cartoons," as well as "media cowering in fear of printing any cartoon that contains the word 'Muhammad.' "

In opting not to publish Miller's strip, the Post validated the artist's point of view.

"Non Sequitur" is, at times, a satirical strip. It pokes fun at all kinds of human foibles, including our political ones. When the Post agreed to buy the strip, its editors had to know what they were getting and that some people might be offended by it.

They also knew that satire often helps people see things in a new light and that's one of the benefits we get from the press.

In deciding not to publish the strip because it might be offensive, the Post proved that the commentary was not only valid, but timely. And while editors need not provide space or time to any person who wants it, the Post sought out this comic strip because of its content. That means they should be prepared to deal with criticism from time to time.

Miller's strip demonstrated that some groups have the power to intimate reporters and editors. Whether those interests are political, religious, commercial or otherwise, editors and reporters should put their responsibility to the public first and not suppress ideas that could help citizens be better informed.

The Post's editors deserve credit for being sensitive to social issues, but they were wrong to be too timid to publish the strip.

Ghostwriting

One of the unfortunate things about the so-called "new media environment" we find ourselves in is that news providers of all type are slipping bias into their reporting as a way of drawing an audience.

The atmosphere also makes it possible for some publications, that may have exercised a more subtle influence on the news, to become more open about it. That's what's happening in Salt Lake City now.

Things have changed at the Deseret News.There are new managers on board and, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, a competing publication, staffers are being asked "about their approaches to team leadership, their skills and abilities that would relate to the paper’s future work, their adaptability and demonstrated alignment with the mission and values of Deseret Media Co. And whether the employee supports the principles of the LDS Church."

That was discomforting enough, but the newspaper also printed a story on its front page that was written by a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the writer was not identified as such. To the casual reader, it appeared to have been written by a journalist.

There is a saying in the news business that goes "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." But smart owners allow reporters and editors to do their jobs without interference from owners or those on the business side of the company. Journalists have an obligation to the owners, but their first loyalty to be to their readers and viewers.

The owners of the Deseret News certainly have the right to dictate what is published in their newspaper and on their web site, but if they want to have the trust of the public, they need to prove they are worthy of it. Until then, news consumers should be cautious about whether they are getting the truth or just the truth as the Deseret News owners see it.