NPR .. Will now be "Fair to the Truth vs Fair to Competing Sides''

[Ichingcarpenter]

Much of what’s in the handbook is Journalism 101. Much of it resembles an earlier document, The NPR Code of Ethics and Practices, which I reviewed in the writing of this post. (The new handbook replaces that earlier code.) But there are some crucial differences, and some of them speak directly to earlier posts at PressThink about the troubles at NPR. #

In my view the most important changes are these passages:

In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth.

and….

At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly.



http://pressthink.org/index.html

WE SHALL SEE

[dimbear]

1. NPR. Not hot tea, not ice tea. Lukewarm tea. Always. n/t

[truedelphi]

4. Beautifully done. How I would like to believe

That the Public Radio people were really about us the listeners, but we all know a leopard can't change its spots.

I last listened to them way back when Kerry was running against Bush. They had a "debate" which had 2 Republicans, 2 "Democrats" and an independent. And all of the debaters said the only person to consider voting for was Bush, since the war in Iraq was hot and heavy.

The only person who said the voters should consider Kerry was the one independent.

[Lasher]

7. And yet the war in Iraq was probably the biggest single reason NOT to vote for Bush.

[Ron Green]

2. How are they gonna treat the big corporations

that write their paychecks?

[Warpy]

3. That'll be a real change.

I stopped listening in early 2005 when Stupid was doing his Potemkin town meetings trying to drum up support for gutting Social Security. I woke up unpleasantly to 4 consecutive wingnuts ending with the greasy Ken Mehlman all talking up the scam to destroy Social Security with nary an opposition voice around. That did it. My clock radio is set to a classical station and I can stand the brokerage and Porsche ads a lot better than I could back to back GOP propaganda.

I had already given up on broadcast news. Losing NPR was my last tie to the world of "news" as the corporations want to define it.

If this change actually happens (if they kick Stupid's wingnuts off the board), then maybe I'll turn the dial back to the left.

Probably not.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. I listen to WNYC online Public Radio but they use the BBC

for most of their news. I really like 'The Leonard Lopate show he has great guests, interviews and is thought provoking.

NPR news still sucks but I thought the title was worthy of discussion

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Interesting. Only NPR is to be held to standards? Many years ago...

in a journalism course I was taught by a retired editor that ALL news is biased-- you just have to understand the biases. Since diehard liberals consider NPR to the right of Attila and conservatives consider it zombie communism, I'm guessing it's doing a fair job of reporting and analyzing. I listen to it a lot, and have rarely found any major fault with its reporting. Alas, I suffer from the major fault of admitting nothing is perfect and forgive the small stuff.

Considering the complexities of modern society and the conflicting views on many issues, just how is any news organization supposed to be completely unbiased even if they intend to be? These fairly regular pronouncements by NPR sound more like appeasement to rabid Republican congresscritters who hate it more than actual statements of intent.

BTW, if NPR has its feet held to the fire, does that also mean that, say, Rachel Maddow should be required to give equal time to all sides of the arguments?

[Lasher]

8. I would be pleased to see Rachel give equal time to all sides.

If Morning Joe and Faux Noise were required to do the same.

[Lasher]

9. Sounds great.

Now show me.

[Owlet]

10. I often listen to NPR and generally like what I hear,

with the notable exception of Steve Inskeep on Morning Edition who is openly biased against progressives, is a lousy interviewer and has the most annoying laugh - more like a bray - of any broadcaster in my listening area. Replacing him with, say, David Green would go a long way toward validating the lofty goals in the Handbook, IMHO.

BTW, I'd never hear of Pressthink before your post. Great site! thanks for the link.