According to its ethics code, NPR still has a Fox News problem
Smart newsrooms develop an ethics code to help journalists do their jobs well, and to create clear lines of demarcation for when inevitable conflicts arise. To its credit, National Public Radio operates under a wide-ranging ethics code that leaves little doubt about how its journalists should conduct themselves.
And yet still, NPR finds itself struggling with the evergreen controversy that surrounds Mara Liasson and Juan Williams, two well-known NPR voices who regularly appear as commentators on Fox News. Last week Politico reported that NPR news executives approached Liasson and asked her to re-think her weekly Fox News appearances. (She declined to cut her contractual Fox News ties.) And in February, the same NPR bosses asked that Williams no longer be identified as an NPR journalist when he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor.
If NPR bosses don't want the network's name associated with The O'Reilly Factor, and if they asked Liasson to re-think her Special Report and Fox News Sunday appearances, then that confirms there's a problem that ought to be resolved. Why else would the issue keep popping up? And the problem is this: A thoroughly respectable and professional operation like NPR has no business associating itself with Fox News these days, by lending its status and credence to an utterly irresponsible enterprise like the one Roger Ailes is running. Consequently, by continuing the association, NPR is doing real damage to its brand and its hard-earned credibility.
The need for action is confirmed by NPR's own ethics code, which specifically spells out why the Fox News-type of alliance is such a bad idea. And yet, at least publically, NPR executives continue to duck the matter. I'm not sure what all the dithering is about, the issue does not appear to be that complicated.
NPR's association with Fox News has been a thorn in the radio network's side for years. From NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard, Dec. 8, 2009:
Barely a week goes by without my office getting an email or phone call insisting that NPR tell Mara Liasson or Juan Williams that they should not and cannot appear on Fox News.
And from then-NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, May 15, 2006:
Nothing riles some public-radio listeners like NPR journalists appearing on FOX News television programs.
Maybe if we turn the tables slightly and look at the conflict from a different perspective, the picture will come into sharper focus.
Imagine this scenario: What if NPR currently did not have an association with Fox News and Ailes' team reached out to public broadcasting in 2009, the year Fox News co-sponsored political rallies, promoted partisan conservative PACs on the air, backed hosts who attacked the president of the United States as a racist and a socialist and a communist and a Nazi, passed off a Republican Party press release as its own research (typo and all), and featured a sister website that regularly cheered "Victory!" whenever an Obama initiative failed. Given that media landscape in 2009, would NPR executives today think it would perfect make sense to begin aligning itself with Fox News?
In the year that Fox News seemed to proudly obliterate any barrier between journalism and politics as it morphed into the de facto media engine driving conservative politics, invited fringe conspiracy theorists on air, declared itself the "voice of the opposition," and promoted violent political rhetoric, would executives in charge of protecting NPR's brand and credibility be willing to now begin associating their network with Fox News?
I seriously doubt it.
And yet today, NPR remains publically, and stubbornly, aligned with an organization that makes a mockery of NPR's own ethical standards, a cable outlet whose employees would be summarily fired from NPR for the seemingly countless and chronic journalism transgressions they make.
The roiling controversy seems to represent a clear case of how the media players have changed dramatically in recent years, yet NPR's leadership has failed to adjust. I don't think there was anything wrong with Liasson or Williams signing on to be contributors with Fox News back in its early days, during the Bill Clinton's second term. At the time, Fox News was truly a right-leaning news organization. Meaning, it framed the news from an obvious conservative perspective, and it employed conservative hosts such as Bill O'Reilly. But the Fox News that Liasson signed on with 12 years ago is virtually unrecognizable to the overtly partisan and chronically deceitful Fox News that broadcasts today, acts more like the RNC than NBC, and which no longer even qualifies as a legitimate news organization. (Read 30 reasons why.)
That's what's changed. And while I'm not surprised that Liasson and Williams want to maintain their high-profile, well-paying TV jobs (TV always trumps radio on the Beltways' celebrity totem pole), Fox News' radical new direction this year means the sweetheart deals it's offering the NPR personalities not only continue to do real damage to NPR's reputation, but they clearly violate NPR's ethics code.
Indeed, it's not even close.
Public broadcasting guidelines clearly state that when appearing on outside programs "journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist." And, "They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis."
The NPR ethics code, written "to protect the credibility of NPR's programming by ensuring high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and staff conduct," also forbids NPR journalists from participating in appearances that "may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization." Is there any independent viewer still watching Fox News today who thinks it does not endorse a political agenda? Its on-air hosts help raise money for GOP PACs, for crying out loud.
According to the ethics code, the solution to such transgressions is quite simple:
Permission for such appearances may be revoked if NPR determines such appearances are harmful to the reputation of NPR or the NPR participant.
How is being so publically associated with wildly partisan and habitually irresponsible Fox News not harmful to NPR's reputation? Or to put it another way, does anyone think that being aligned with Fox News today helps NPR's reputation? Yeah, me neither.
According to Politico's reporting, when recently confronted about her Fox News appearances, Liasson claimed that because she appeared on "serious" news programs and not the heavily opinionated ones, her pundit job shouldn't cause NPR any problems, and that, by extension, there was nothing wrong with her cashing Fox News checks and allowing the channel to buy her NPR status each week.
But that's an awfully narrow, naïve, and convenient reading of the situation. Liasson is part of the Fox News family. Period. For instance, Liasson appears on the Fox News website as a "Fox News contributor," not as "Fox News contributor to the sorta/kinda serious shows." The only way she'd really be able to defend her continued alliance would be to argue that Fox News in its entirely (i.e. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity) is a serious endeavor worthy of NPR's status. But if Liasson can't defend all of Fox News, then her half-pregnant approach (i.e. she's only employed by a tiny portion of Fox News) just doesn't fly.
And by the way, the fact that Juan Williams is now an NPR "news analyst," rather than a full-time staffer, does not solve the radio network's quandary. Being a news analyst under contract does not mean that Williams' regular appearances on Fox News don't pose an ethical problem, because according to NPR's guidelines, free-lancers like Williams must also adhere to the network's ethical standards:
The code also applies to material provided to NPR by independent producers, member station contributors and/or reporters and freelance reporters, writers, news contributors or photographers.
And what if a non-staff contributor violates the code of ethics? NPR has the option simply to stop using that person in the future:
Because contributors in this category are not NPR employees, the remedy for dealing with a conflict of interest or other violation of the principles of this code is rejection of the offered material or of any future programming proposals similarly affected by the conflict or other violation of the ethical principles. NPR may also terminate any ongoing contract with the freelancer.
I admit that the ongoing Fox News controversy is a thorny one for NPR. But it's really a political mess, not a journalistic one. Meaning, if the simple question before NPR executives revolved around whether associating with Fox News caused harm to NPR, and whether it ran afoul of the network's ethics code, the answer, I think, is quite obviously yes. And if that were all there was to the story, I think NPR leaders would move quickly to end the associations given how Fox News has transformed itself in 2009 into a purely partisan entity and not one that still adheres to traditional journalism standards.
However, anything having to do with Fox News and the partisan debate about its obvious failures means NPR bosses are really wrestling more with a political problem. Because if they forbid Liasson and Williams from regularly appearing on Fox News, NPR would have to deal with the wrath of the right-wing noise machine and right-wing foot soldiers who would no doubt descend (electronically and perhaps even physically) on NPR and raise holy hell. And let's face it, that's not a pleasant scenario to contemplate, especially when the previous Republican administration launched a federal crusade to rid public broadcasting of its alleged liberal bias; a crusade that came with it the implicit threat of funding cuts.
But for the sake of NPR's long-term health and reputation, the network's signal callers need to face that right-wing mob and do what's right according to the ethics code. NPR needs to cut its ties with Fox News.
In the second place, it is not critical to Boehlert's argument to document even one instance of inappropriate commentary on the part of Liasson as an individual. His argument is that association with and appearing on a network like Fox may suffice to violate the ethics code.
And what do you want to bet that they still don't get it?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/u/uptonsincl138285.html
I'm not sure if any posters here are paid to represent a certain point of view, but I like this quote.
I WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE ONE PENNY TO National Public Radio AS LONG AS SHE CONTINUES TO APPEAR.
If that is not tangible harm, I don't know what is.
I think NPR should implement an 'non-compete' clause that restricts any and all journalists from appearing on ANY other network.
That none were cited here is surprising, but it's not for lack of material. Try the using search function.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Both should be fired from NPR. To hell with the RW noise machine. They should not only be fired, but NPR should be very clear in explaining WHY.
That's not politics, it's veracity. I know Fox has trained you to be confused about the difference there, but try. NiceguyEddie feels that NPR should give Williams and Liasson the boot for their lack of veracity. You can disagree with him on the point he makes, but making up your own point and assigning it to him is sloppy thinking.
Jerry Elsea
Jerry Elsea
Jerry Elsea
Sorry, but Fox is fair-and-balanced. I find it hypocritical that libs constantly b*tch about Williams and Liasson, then turn around and b*tch at Fox for being too conservative/anti-Obama. You libs have 2/3 of the government under your fingers and you're still NEVER HAPPY.
It became clear what Fox was during the presidential election, when they gave credence to fringers who claimed "death panels", Obama "birthers", etc. They continue today as cynical climate deniers, opponents of reform in health care, etc, as paid shills for industrial groups.
A news organization can't promote absolute lies as "possibility" when they know otherwise...this crosses the line.
I doubt that Fox News will actually start killing folks, but some of their crazier followers might just decide that the "evil,' "Nazi," "communist" President of ours needs to be taken out. How will Liasson and Williams react then?!?!?!
Here's another way to look at it but is probably just wishful thinking on my part: I am surrounded by successful, highly educated people who rely primarily (and sometimes, by their own proud claims (!), exclusively) on Fox News for information. Because Fox tells them what they want to hear, they buy into the fair and balanced tagline. Many of them are utterly convinced that news outlets like NPR can't be trusted.
Could having journalists like Williams and Liasson on Fox--I am assuming they can be counted among the dwindling voices of reason on Fox--actually help keep Fox followers connected to some semblance of reality? For example, while I don't watch Fox much (though I force myself to sometimes so I can know what I'm up against in conversations with family and neighbors), I have several times see Juan Williams very cleverly inject other reasonable ways of looking at things without being divisive about it.
And if Williams and Liasson are openly associated with NPR when they are on Fox, could they possibly be drawing some Fox followers to NPR where they will be exposed to actual balance and fairness? Could they be helping people who have thought NPR is too liberal think otherwise?
People are inclined to marginalize Fox viewers as rednecks, but I'll tell you, it is really disconcerting being surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who are getting sucked into the Fox vortex. Really, really sucked in. It scares me. I don't want Fox to get even more crazy.
I can't help but thinking this is too optimistic. The people that feed on a steady diet of Fox already have an "NPR = Liberal" mindset, and absolutely nothing will shift them from it. The same is true of their view of the other networks; it simply doesn't matter how many counterexamples are piled up, because their minds are made up. They cannot be reasoned with, and are, hence, unreasonable.
Something has to change. And it has to be within the right-wing media itself. It has to come from them or people won't listen. I can't bear the thought of Fox becoming even more polarized.
As long as Liasson and Williams continue to present reasoned counter opinions based in fact, NPR will not be harmed. And the bonus is that the Fox News audience will actually HEAR a counter argument. Some will actually think because of it. Lanny Davis subscribes to this theory, and will happily "debate to debunk" the madness for this very reason. Instead of fewer reasoned commentators on Fox, we need more and more and more.
From the NPR site:
"Approximately half of NPR's annual operating revenue is contributed from the private sector, primarily from corporations and foundations. NPR receives no direct support from the federal government; typically one to two percent of our annual budget comes from grants from government agencies, for which we must apply. The remaining half of NPR's budget comes from member stations and the fees paid by stations to purchase our programming. More financial information is available in NPR's most recent financial statements, based upon annual audits."
If you consider private donors' deducting contributions on their tax returns (if they itemize) to be "tax support", then, for example, all the churches in the US are "tax supported." I'm not sure you would agree with that.
He might even not ignore it if someone sent him relevant snippets of Eric's excellent work here.
He just wants to watch the masses get riled up and make fools of themselves. He wants to see his followers scream and shout idiotic phrases and he wants his opponents to scream and shout about the stupid stuff he says. In the end, he gets a good laugh at it all.
At least, that's what I keep telling myself, because it makes him easier to watch. It's more of a comedy show that way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this Fox/NPR alliance begin when NPR was headed by a rightwing propogandist?
That having been said, there are lots of journalist out in the field who are professional, well-spoken and make a concerted effort at objectivity. The talent pool is not lacking. Use these other journalist instead and get rid of those folks who think FOX is where they need to be. Liiason and Williams do not have any special insight, so get rid of them. And, get stipulations in new contracts that forbid appearances on shows that are less than explentary.
Mara Liasson & Juan Williams are paid by Fox news to express their opinions. They are usually to the left of Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes and others. At times their points make sense and at other times, they don't. This is what makes it fair and balanced. Different points of view should be encouraged. I for one do not wish to hear 4 pundits with the same point of view ageeeing with one another. As a matter of fact, that's why I will not listen to NPR. They have become all left all the time ,or more pointedly BORING!
Mom is now 90 and still watching FN. She's afraid that Marxists are taking over the White House and believes the country is on the verge of revolt from the good Tea Party "patriots" who want to bring "Americanism" back to the country. She believes that Obama isn't a "real American" regardless of where he was born. She believes that all other news sources are lying and only Fox can be trusted. She's generally upset by all the scary things that "fair and balanced" "news" station tells her every day are true. Mom has always been right wing, but this is really sad and over the top. Note: Mom has a college degree from a top university and an inquiring mind that still works just fine. If this can happen to my mom, it can happen to anyone who starts with a right wing bent.
Do I want NPR to stay as far away from contact with that contagion as possible? Absolutely!
Good thing we don't have liberals, democrats, or progressives marching in lockstep to everything they hear on MSNBC, a truly legitimate news organization. whew!
Although this is the trend nationally on radio, NPR shopuld have avoided this since they don't have to worry as much about the bottom line.
"NPR receives no direct support from the federal government; typically one to two percent of our annual budget comes from grants from government agencies, for which we must apply."