An Impossible Standard: When NPR Covers Its Sponsors

[salvorhardin]

When host Audie Cornish drank a bottle of 5-Hour Energy on All Things Considered, several listeners were not entertained. Cornish's act and the interview that followed were a conflict of interest and violated NPR's new ethics code, they said. The company that makes the drink, Living Essentials, is an NPR corporate sponsor.

"I have heard their name in underwriting spots for at least the last month and again this morning," wrote Steve Tadd of Cherry Hill, NJ. "The ATC story had no disclaimer about the NPR sponsorship. I thought the story was unworthy of airing and a shill."

"It was a 5-minute infomercial," wrote Linda Mattson, of San Carlos, CA. "Not a single item indicating any critical thinking skills were displayed. Perhaps you might have looked into the potential health risks of mega vitamins."

You either trust NPR's reporters and editors to be impartial, or you don't.

Ms. Mattson makes a good point, and that is doubly unfortunate because it undermines the argument I am about to make next about my real concern: sponsorship and conflict of interest. The segment did not need to acknowledge that Living Essentials is a sponsor. Hardly any story on a company that is a sponsor should.

The new ethics handbook does indeed require such disclosure, but the handbook—though not yet a month old—should be revised. I am happy to say that that revision is now under way.

Full post: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/03/16/148778815/an-impossible-standard-when-npr-covers-its-sponsors

NPR gets called out on violating its brand spanking new ethics handbook. So what does NPR do? Revises the handbook to remove the language that says stories which cover NPR sponsors* should disclose the sponsors' relationship with NPR. "Problem solved!" says NPR's ombudsman, Edward Schumacher-Matos.

"There is no way to totally eliminate the appearance of all conflicts of interest, and sometimes the conflict itself. Any system comes down at some point to trust. You either trust NPR's reporters and editors to be impartial, or you don't."

This story in particular was providing very favorable coverage of 5-Hour Energy. Any reasonable person who heard it would think it's an advertorial (as I did when I heard the story). The least NPR could have done is to have a five-second statement at the end of the report acknowledging that 5-Hour Energy is a sponsor.

But it's all good according to Schumacher-Matos because the interview was with a Forbes reporter who had wrote a positive story about 5-Hour Energy. So I guess it's OK because NPR was engaging in second hand journalism?
Oh, come on, Ed. That's weak. How can we trust NPR to be impartial (or more importantly, tell use the truth) when NPR can't even be bothered to disclose when it's covering an entity that gives it money in exchange for ads (or what passes for an ad on NPR)?

*Has NPR just given up on the whole idea of a distinction between underwriters and sponsors now too? Schumacher-Matos repeatedly uses the words 'sponsors' and 'sponsorship' throughout this blog post. 20 times by my count! That's not including the pull-quotes, the quoted listener, and the NPR ethics handbook which all used the word.

[BiggJawn]

1. "You either trust NPR's reporters and editors to be impartial, or you don't"

I don't.
Not since the days of "This Poplar Wartime President", NPR commentators moonlighting on FAUX NOIZ, and the shit-canning of Bob Edwards.

But they got "What d'ya Know" and Garrison Keilor, and those funny, funny "Car Talk" guys who talk about cars and other really complicated things...

[salvorhardin]

2. I do agree with Schumacher-Matos about one thing

I do agree with Schumacher-Matos that it's hardly ever necessary to disclose when a news outlet covers a sponsor. That's because most news is negative -- it's more important to know when a company is screwing us over somehow than it is to know when a company is being a good corporate citizen. That's because companies have money, and presumably will toot their own horn, and presumably a company wouldn't pay a news outlet for negative coverage. What makes it necessary that NPR should have disclosed the relationship with 5-Hour Energy in this piece is precisely because NPR was tooting 5-Hour Energy's horn for it, or at least proving a high fidelity recording of the Forbes reporter tooting 5-Hour Energy's horn.

[marginlized]

3. Why does this make headlines? NPR lost it's independence years ago.

Who listens to them?

Or I should say the only reason I listen to them is that NPR is piped through a tax payer subsidized network of college and community based radio stations everywhere I travel. Its practically ubiquitous.

America's media is in a sad, sad state with the loss of so many independent radio stations and then the take over of nationally subsidized media resources like NPR, like college radio stations as conduits for corporate interests.

[TheKentuckian]

4. I don't know but I'm glad it did because it might wake up a few more of the painfully unaware

that thinks NPR is something other than one of the most dangerous arms of the corporate propaganda network.

[salvorhardin]

7. It didn't make headlines

I'm relaying my frustration with NPR's ombudsman. Like I said below, NPR is the best we've got right now, but it could be so much better. To the extent that they're a publicly funded entity, if we value independent and factual news coverage, then we have an obligation to both support and criticize NPR where it's called for. I'm a member, volunteer and, until last month, community advisory board member of my local station. In the past two years that I served on the CAB, we saw a substantial improvement in the local news coverage of our station, and the development of several new locally produced programs highlighting the area music scene. Obviously, we don't have as much influence over NPR national, so I can at least complain.

Besides, it's an interesting case of journalistic ethics. When should a journalist disclose sponsorship? Obviously, if it's straight reporting of stock prices, or new strategies (e.g. "WidgetCo's stock fell 3 points today," "WidgetCo believes its new stainless steel widgets can win it new customers.&quot then I don't think it's necessary. However, in this case, it was a near fawning profile of 5-Hour Energy's parent company. That I believe requires disclosure. Another area might be where a company did something bad, and the news outlet is providing supportive coverage (e.g. "Allegations that WidgetCo's stainless steel widgets are actually chrome plated depleted uranium scraps appear to be unfounded.&quot

[PSPS]

5. I still listen to NPR.

Let's face it. In a sea of mediocrity and worse, it is about the best we've got. The bar could hardly be lower these days. And ever since NPR's Anne Garrels imparted what I and others consider an endorsement of torture, I've stopped trusting the reportage on NPR.

[salvorhardin]

6. That's the way I feel too

Like it or not, the sad truth is that NPR is the best we've got. That's why I complain about it, because it could be so much better.