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
Bottom line: Monsanto reeks, Marketplace takes dirty money from them and reeks too. Why aren't you covering what is really going on here. Where the heck is the Media? GMO are killing us slowly and killing the insects and birds faster. When will you take notice? Monsanto brought us DDT, Agent Orange, 500+ dead in Texas that never made it into the school books. Today is the anniversary of that day. Do the right thing. RIP all those people.
Sadly: Perception is Reality (for most people).
"Public Broadcasting" (in all its many venues) is generally perceived by its community as being more independent and unbiased than "commercial broadcasters", and therefore more trustworthy. Thus the slightest indication that this implied "trust" has been breached - creates an negative and immediate backlash (by some people).
to wit: "Caesar's Wife (after all) must be above suspicion" - Plutarch (?)
It should be noted that NPR/PBS are very receptive to corrections as well as identifying their errors and omissions; thus acting to restore their trustworthiness in a timely and effective manner.
I tend to view such matters with a wider scope of time, perspective and a "grain of salt".
"Don't jump to conclusions; you never know where you might land" - Anon.
I think the big problem with the story was that it sounded biased in favor of Monsanto's products, even if that bias may have had nothing to do with Monsanto being one of your sponsors. If I recall correctly, the story applauded the benefits of Monsanto's genetically engineered bt crops (which grow foods that contain a pesticide that comes from bacillus thuringiensis), without mentioning that bt crops create an environmental pressure that causes pests to quickly develop a resistance to that pesticide. Since organic farmers occassionally use this naturally occurring pesticide to control pests, the resistance developed in response to Monsanto's genetically engineered crops not only builds pesticides into our foods, but reduces the tools available to organic farmers in doing their jobs.
One rule of thumb that should be applied here is, if you have a conflict of interest, be extra sure sure that your story does not display bias.
yes, you need to mention the underwriters. when i saw this link, my first reaction was to comment on the ge crop-monsanto story you did this week ( I am glad you have already heard from other listeners). This story lacked depth and did not confirm to marketplace's usual standards. This slip will seem less suspicious if you had mentioned that monsanto is an underwriter.
Marketplace should always note when a story involves a sponsor. Respecting the integrity of your reporters, we are all more human than otherwise and given to possible bias. Your listeners have a right to know about potential conflict.
Let me begin by saying I enjoy your show and respect that it has to be paid for somehow. /however, what is it with your show and Big Ag? It used to be ADM and now it's Monsanto, do you have a predilection to snuggling up with reviled companies? Maybe Goldman Sachs can be next. Personally, I'd prefer you took money from Tobacco companies than from these agricultural villains, smoke up Johnny.
As someone who regularly comments here, seeing an abundance of comments here is pretty, well, amazing. Where are these people most days?
For my money, once you've fully announced underwriting credits at the top or bottom of any show, adequate disclosure has been made. If I'm too lazy to notice then, that's my bad not yours.
Any further jabber is overkill, in my book, with this notable exception: If the name or names of the underwriter isn't completely transparent or if the connection of one underwriter to a company discussed in a story deserves elaboration.
An example of this muddled picture might be, say, if some nefarious business at Wachovia were a topic of discussion and if Wells Fargo, which just gobbled-up Wachovia, were a sponsor in some capacity. That sort of extended disclosure would seem appropriate and necessary.
I agree with previous posters. We expect a high standard of journalistic integrity and transparency from American Public Media. Even if sponsors do not influence content, listeners are accustomed to hearing the names of sponsors when they are the subject of (or indirectly related to) a story.
Please continue to disclose the names of sponsors. It doesn't take up all that much air-time, and it goes a long way to maintain trust with your listeners.
Pages
