169
Comment: The relationship between news and underwriters
Marketplace's policy, when an underwriter is the subject of a news report, has been to acknowledge that relationship on-air. We are reconsidering the policy, for this reason: There is no communication between Marketplace's underwriters and Marketplace's newsroom. There is no opportunity for an underwriter to try to influence news reports; a story involving an underwriter is reported in the same way as any other story. And credits throughout each show already identify Marketplace's sponsors that day.
Not everyone agrees. This week several listeners complained when Marketplace aired a report on genetically-modified crops and did not include an acknowledgment that Monsanto, the leading manufacturer of genetically-modified seeds, is an underwriter (A credit identifying Monsanto as a sponsor that day did air during the show).
So we'd like to ask you, as people who rely on Marketplace for news about business and the economy: What do you think? Are these acknowledgments useful? Are they necessary? Or do listeners understand, and are they comfortable with, the "wall" that stands between the business side of news organizations and their newsrooms? Newspapers, for example, rarely acknowledge advertising relationships when they report on an advertiser.
Marketplace, like most public radio programs, has many underwriters. So this question starts with a report involving Monsanto, but applies to a wide range of businesses. Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Update: If the subject of a report is an underwriter of our show, we will mention it on air and on our website.
Pages
Interesting topic. The crucial issue is assuring that sponsorship does not bias news reporting. Monsanto is a lightening rod because of the contraversy about it's role in agriculture (full disclosure, I have little or no problem with genetic engineering per se but I do find it problematic when combined with the profit motive). I am reassured by the "wall" between the news and financial arms of NPR, but not convinced. There is always a risk of avoiding biting the hand that feeds you. In an ideal world, NPR would adopt a policy like Consumer Reports: accepting no money or benefits of any kind from business. I have been distressed over the years by the creeping "ads" on NPR: first just listing the sponsors, then maybe a one liner about the business, now practically a full 30 second spot. As a listener, I increasingly wonder what is the financial arangement here. How much do these "ads" cost? What do the companies involved think they are buying? I see the point that commercial/for profit news outlets accept advertizing, but there are a couple of differences. The cost of advertizing is a matter of published public record for a newspaper and I know that a company has simple bought a certain size and page placement and can put whatever they want there. With NPR I don't know what criteria, if any, the network uses to determine who can say what and at what price. Also, "ad" spots on NPR appear to be a far more limited commodity that ad space in a newspaper or magazine. I assume that print outlets will publish as many ads as they can sell. I assume that NPR strictly limits the number of "ad" slots it will "sell". The result is that I assume that each NPR sponsor forms a far bigger percentage of the total advertizing revenue than each advertizer in a newspaper does. This increases the appearance, at least, of NPR being beholden to its sponsors. Bottom line: I trust NPR implicitly and have never been suspicious that it pulls punches to please its sponsors, but I am troubled by the appearance that it is dependant on its sponsors. I therefor think that it is important when you do a story which directly involves asponsoring company that you include an acknowledgement that there is a potential conflict of interest and a statement explaining to listeners what steps have been taken to assure that the news reporting has not been biased by the sponsorship relationship
By all means continue to acknowledge within your news stories any connection between the subject of your story and any of your "underwriters." Like many others, I am sorry that public radio has turned to these ads by another name, and I have often wondered about the coverage of "underwriter" related stories. These are advertisers, not public-spirited supporters. The solicitations for new "underwriters" feature business owners talking about the select audience they reach; if they were simply public-spirited, they wouldn't need the on-air acknowledgment, any more than I do. They could put up a sign in their places of business saying "We support public radio," which might get people coming into their businesses to listen to public radio, whereas the present arrangement is designed to get listeners to public radio to look favorably upon their businesses. The fact that your listeners wonder about the possibility of influence of advertisers on the news means that it is in our field of awareness. Surely your reporters and editors are similarly aware of the possible connection, so whatever the formal barriers there may be between Marketplace's "underwriters" and Marketplace's newsroom, your news people would have to be pretty vague souls not to know who your "underwriters" are and what their interests are. Like others, I too thought the Monsanto story was particularly weak, almost a puff piece for GMOs and that Monsanto's name was conspicuous to thoughtful listeners by its absence. To address Kai Ryssdal's follow-up question directly: first, as others have said, the issue of advertiser influence is actually an issue for many news outlets in a variety of media, but we want public radio to set the highest standards; second, and not trivially, the voices that tout the underwriters and their sometimes highly disingenuous messages are not strange voices, but the voices of the news reporters themselves. We don't get newspaper editors and reporters putting their by-lines over advertising copy. I'd like to see public radio establish a practice of putting half of all "underwriter" revenue into an endowment until the endowment was big enough to go without "underwriters." P.S. Regards to Sean Cole.
My immediate response to your on-air question, Kai, was that you definitely should mention the sponsorship for a story. After some consideration, I still feel that way.
The fact that other news outlets don't do it is not a reason to discontinue the practice. I think Marketplace holds and should continue to hold itself to a higher standard. I appreciate it when Marketplace and some other shows acknowledge relationships which may look potentially conflicting. You may not need to take the time to voice "Full disclosure: Monstanto is a sponsor of Marketplace, but that will not affect our treatment of this story," but a mention is important.
Thanks for the continued excellent coverage of all things business.
The NPR I used to know wouldn't have to ask the question at all... of course this matters and is wholly unacceptable without transparency. But the real crux of the thing is that it is Monsanto--the epitome of a dangerous corporate poser... Have you done your homework?
To me, it's not that you identify the underwriters which may be involved in your news stories, but that you mention from time to time that there IS an absolute wall between your underwriters and your newsroom. Knowing, and believing that, is sufficient for me. As a long-time listener to public radio, I trust you. Please don't ever give me a reason to doubt that trust.
Kai, it is simple. After 30 years in city management and teaching public admistration and thinking "public service" was noble I finally understand the passion of the Tea Party Sarah Palin people whose intilect I dispise. But they are correct. They are fed up with being kept in the dark and being fed manuer by in this case the media - it's a great way to raise mushrooms, but not good for our nation or the world. Thus we who think ourselves "smart" hold on to NPR stations (we belong to two) need to know that your are "pure." We have to trust you to not BS us. It's that simple. Be like BBC or we will turn you off just as if you were just another FOX NEWS...hardly fair and hardly unbiased. You choose. We can choose too...it's all in the wrist...we can "flip you off" (our grandchildren say that has a second meaning.
The fact that Marketplace takes money from corporation on which it reports is by definition a conflict of interest, and it is the main reason I no longer support public radio. This forum has been co-opted by corporate money just as the mainstream media has, and the fact that you do a story about GMOs without addressing the dangers which are ignored by our own government is evidence enough for me that money from Monsanto has its influence on public media.
You have a responsibility to disclose such contributions because, unfortunately, I am forced to underwrite your commercial support of Monsanto by way of my tax dollars.
It is my deep regret that public media is no longer supported as it once was by public funds, because now you have gone astray of the original mission - unbiased reporting covering subjects ignored by the mainstream media.
A former supporter.
1.Because you are on public radio, you have a responsibility to notify the listening public of sponsors and underwriters. This helps to keep transparency and prevent future potential blurring of the necessary separation between the newsroom and the underwriting staff. 2. I would be much happier if public radio didn't accept funds from Monsanto or its subsidiaries at all. I cringe every time I hear that their money has been used to fund public radio. Their international policies of trying to control the world's food crops are a disaster waiting to happen -- because of the copyrighted control of seed stocks, the demand for polluting fertilizers they create, and the way GMO crops spread, etc.
Pages
