NPR ombudsman denied tilt toward conservative think tanks -- then demonstrated the tilt
SUMMARY: After claiming that National Public Radio (NPR) "does not lean on the so-called conservative think tanks as many in the audience seem to think," NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin presented a tally of think tank experts featured in NPR stories that showed a sizable majority of experts quoted in the past year did, in fact, come from conservative institutions.
Responding in a December 14 column to listener comments on the issue, National Public Radio (NPR) ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin presented a list of the think tanks from which the radio network draws experts for comments and tallied the number of times experts from each think tank were interviewed in NPR stories. Before he presented the figures to his audience, Dvorkin asserted, "NPR does not lean on the so-called conservative think tanks as many in the audience seem to think." But those who read on would have learned that, in direct contradiction of Dvorkin's statement, the list demonstrates that NPR does in fact "lean on" conservative think tanks disproportionately.
Here is Dvorkin's list, which he described as "the tally sheet for the number of times think tank experts were interviewed to date on NPR in 2005," and his explanation:
American Enterprise -- 59
Brookings Institute [sic] -- 102
Cato Institute -- 29
Center for Strategic and Intl. Studies -- 39
Heritage Foundation -- 20
Hoover Institute -- 69
Lexington Institute -- 9
Manhattan Institute -- 53
There are of course, other think tanks, but these seem to be the ones whose experts are heard most often on NPR. Brookings and CSIS are seen by many in Washington, D.C., as being center to center-left. The others in the above list tend to lean to the right. So NPR has interviewed more think tankers on the right than on the left.
The score to date: Right 239, Left 141.
Yet contrary to his earlier denial, Dvorkin's "score to date" indicates that "NPR has interviewed more think tankers on the right than on the left."
One could argue whether centrist think tanks such as The Brookings Institution (which has been led in the past by Republicans, though its current president is a Democrat) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (whose board of directors includes Henry Kissinger) provide "balance" to highly conservative institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and The Heritage Foundation. But even accepting the classification Dvorkin uses, he has found that 63 percent of the think tank experts quoted in the past year came from conservative institutions, while only 37 percent came from liberal institutions -- a pronounced conservative tilt.
The group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), using somewhat different criteria, has documented a similar preference for conservative think tanks in the American media more broadly over a number of years. FAIR's latest study is available here.
As Media Matters for America noted, on November 30, NPR's All Things Considered cited military analyst Daniel Gouré as "with the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Virginia, think tank," but it failed to identify the Lexington Institute as a "limited government" proponent with Bush administration ties. Dvorkin noted that listeners had written to NPR regarding this omission.
Please have your wonderful network contact a few of these in the future:
The Panetta Institute
Center for American Progress
I'm sure there are many other respectable and progressive institutions who would love to comment on your stories.
Oh, and try getting out of your little ol' cube every once in a while.
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen and
Surveys have shown that NPR listeners are better informed than other users of such mainstream media. Why is that? Maybe because they try harder to be more "fair and balanced," than some other media I can think of. NPR beat "crap journalism" hands down.
For those of you who haven't heard, NPR has may not have always leaned conservative, but they have always been lame.
If you want to hear some ear-splitting, hard hitting news, check out Democracy Now! Free downloads at: [link to www.democracynow.org]
NPR is weak in comparison.
1. NPR's Dvorkin: "And if, as John Hendren says, most news organizations resist labeling think tanks, why should NPR be any different? " So is NPR following the lead of other news organizations in setting its own journalism standards? Currently, CNN and NBC are doing a good job of following FOX's lead.
2. NPR seems to have a hard time accepting that there are at least three categories of expert organizations: left, centrist, and right. Nor does NPR seem to understand the difference between "expert organizations" that are ideologically driven from those that are not.
3. News reporting shouldn't just be about finding two contrasting opinions and baffling listeners.
Hot on the heels of this item comes the news that a senior fellow at the Cato Institute was taking money from Jack Abramoff to write favorable op-eds for his clients. NPR should be pressured to drop Cato as a source of news or comment until there is some assurance that the talking points are not being delivered on behalf of some unnamed client.
Actually, NPR shouldn't be seeking Cato's opinion at all. Think-tank journalism is lazy journalism.
dvorkin;
don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
is this the same clown that intervened following the terry gross/ bill o'liely/al franken episode? if so - strike two.
A recent British publication (BBC? Guardian? Sorry I don't recall now) referred to AEI and similar so-called "think tanks" as "PRESSURE GROUPS" which is a much more appropriate and accurate description. (However, I'm partial to calling them "Adult Day-Care for Right-Wing Hacks")
On the subject of calling a spade a spade, Media Matters needs to drop the inaccurate and positively slanted word "conservative" when describing right-wing groups. Just becaust they may called themselves "The All American Motherhood and Apple Pie Majority," doesn't mean we can't call them what they are.
Look up "conservative" in the dictionary. It doesn't fit any aspect of current GOP policy.