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
Maybe they get no plug at all. But how many sponsors would fall away? Most sponsors want a bang for their buck. How much is Monsanto paying for the sponsorship? Would NPR membership be willing to make up the difference?
A very difficult dilemma when NPR depends on "public" funding to operate. I'd like to call it Corporate Social Responsibility for NPR to be more discerning about who tries to get to your audience with their pr spins. Monsanto has been able to buy silence and governments for years..but that is nothing new is it? That's capitalism. If Hitler were alive, would you allow him to sponsor NPR? I know corporations have powerful pr companies/budgets and for you to allow Monsanto to weasel it's way into NPR and its listeners with a "we're really good guys" message is less than ethical on your part.- and by the very nature of NPR it smells like you endorse them (sorry but that is a fact)
As I said, a dilemma - you need the money, they have it, you take it...I think a little more discernment and responsibility would go a long way if NPR could be more morally, socially and listener sensitive. But then...there's Archer Daniels Midland...so where does one draw the line?
Applaud you for opening this up for comments.
I have reservations about NPR (and PBS) having any commercial sponsors. I wish they had none, but it may be a necessary evil at this time.
The ads, unlike commercial radio and TV, tend to be short and not intrusive or loud; I am hardly aware of them. Therefore, I am often surprised when a news item is followed by an annoucement such as "Monsanto is a sponsor". I do expect a higher level of transparency from my public radio and TV, and therefore encourage you to continue a policy of explicitly declaring sponsors related to a news story.
It's true that the NYTimes does not do this, but the comparison is not complete. First, the NYTimes is a for-profit operations. Secondly, the ads in the NYTimes are more obvious to their readers.
Over two decades ago, I began subscribing to a local NPR/PRI affiliate pleased to pay NOT TO HEAR advertising no matter how softly delivered and no matter for what product or service. This is like subscribing to a specialty magazine--we pay for the content and very little page space is wasted on ads for stuff we revile. General circulation newspapers/magazines are a different deal. We ignore the ads and expect the content for free (via the web--I don't pay for dead tree delivery.) I stopped subscribing when NPR accepted money from WalMart. I despise the turn NPR, PRI APM have taken--they should be prevented from hustling for subscriber donations as long as the ads continue.
Now as to the detail involving Monsanto. They are using Marketplace just as Alcoa used CBS See it Now after being convicted on anti-trust charges--trying to regain a clean image. In Monsanto's case, NO AMOUNT of money channeled to public radio can clean them until they surrender ALL of their GMO seed patents, refund fines/legal costs levied against farmers, and publicly apologise for their immoral behavior. As to Marketplace, yes the announcement should be made until you stop accepting the dirty money.
In general, I would agree that it is not necessary to mention that specific companies or individuals are sponsors.
However, in this particular case, it was exceptionally suspicious that Monsanto was not mentioned by name in the story. It is hard to imagine doing a story about a particular type of product and not mention the industry leaders and even harder to imagine mentioning a specific product(in this case Round-up -- a Monsanto product) and not mention a producer. It would be like doing a story on the IPad and omitting the name "Apple" from the story completely.
When I heard the announcement tonight requesting feedback, I was very surprised to hear the defense that newspapers don't point out who there advertisers are when they write stories about them. First, that's arguable. I have on rare occasion seen stories that point out advertising relationships. Moreover, newspapers, especially financially vulnerable local ones, are often accused of AVOIDING tough coverage of big advertisers. It's a leading complaint about many smaller papers -- so perhaps they should have a tougher and more transparent policy about relationships with advertisers.
But more to the point ... this is public radio and these are not supposed to be advertisers. And certainly Monsanto and others don't expect big advertising gains from the brief announcements that usually mention them. They count on real advertisements for that and hopefully sponsor such shows out of public goodwill.
Rather, they are major financial backers of an important public institution. Such backers serve a similar function to stockholders -- who certainly can affect a publicly owned company. And many newspapers most certainly make a point -- and should -- when their major investors or directors are mentioned. You see this quite often in the Washington Post when they mention Warren Buffett, who is on their board. There is not supposed to be any contact between the Post newsroom and folks such as Buffett on editorial issues and he presumably does not try.
The key point is that announcements of such connections, as another commenter wrote, demonstrate that the mere appearance of a possible conflict of interest is in the uppermost group editorial mind. On top of being good policy and public relations with your audience, I believe this also imposes a kind of discipline that requires you to bend over backwards to avoid any appearance of favortism. Removing that requirement would remove an important part of the editorial process that helps avoid intentional or unintentional bias. Afterall, sometimes the decision to cover or not cover something --or how you cover something -- is almost unconscious. Pointing out such ties is just another form of insurance against common human frailty.
Transparency let's the audience know of the possibility and provide the opportunity to look at or listen to a story about that business or group a little more critically.
Two last points:
-- Being a business program has nothing to do with it, one possibility raised by Kai (sp?). The same discipline should be, and I believe is, applied to charitable and non-profit foundations and their interests and issues by all public radio outlets. As Kai acknowledged, many people are unhappy about sponsorships by Monsanto. Likewise, many people may not care for the priorities and agendas of particular non-profit sponsors. Knowing the connection to a given story is their chance to exercise their skepticism and vet stories for bias.
-- Second, how much is Monsanto threatening to withhold if you keep mentioning them in this way? Just kidding ... but honestly, in a period where public cynicism runs so high that the most preposterous of conspiracy theories (by those on the left and right) gain rapid currency and are spread as gospel, how on earth could you think this is a good time to consider such a change.
It may be a niggling and annoying chore ... but paying attention to small and even annoying details are crucial to carrying out most important work successfully. Like they say, "For the want of a nail ... a kingdom was lost."
Disclosure is a must whether its about program sponsors or the individuals which are interviewed for a story. This must be the standard for all journalistic stories on all media: print, television or radio.
For example, on the recent health care debate. Many people for or against should have provided background on whether they have insurance? Who pays the insurance? Are they sponsored or paid by an organization/company for or against the issue?
Another example: Before and during the early days of the Iraq war, some so- called military analyst were paid by the pentagon to advocate for the war. Unfortunately, news organizations didn't require disclosure. Therefore, the public was misinformed.
The public is hoping for a balance story but without full disclosure they cannot evaluate the accuracy or spin they hear.
Your own reporting just proved your bias from advertising and you have to know it. The first things people think of when we hear "Monsanto" is recklessness, manipulation, irresponsibility.
Your story is evidence of biased reporting by failing to tell the whole story about the endangerment of the world's food supply by Monsanto and their diabolical legal practices of suing innocent farmers whose crops are contaminated with Monsanto's mutated GE seeds by wind & animals.
I agree with another listener: "you can never have too much transparency." Disclose and disclaim everything. It is your duty and obligation as journalists.
There is nothing more evil and anti-humanity than contaminating our food supply. You fail to report fairly on Monsanto's history of callous disregard for life: PCBs, Dioxin, Agent Orange, rBGH/rBST (posilac), falsified FDA reports & fraudulent clinical trials, connection to the recent story of GE employees suing them for endangerment, poisoning the environment.
Few companies can only be called evil. Monsanto is one.
And nothing can be more absurd than Monsanto's PR advertising slogan on NPR: "Monsanto supports sustainable agriculture." Nothing could be further from the truth.
An acknowledgement of underwriters for your program is necessary and useful. It's called being transparent and honest. It's required for any journalistic medium, especially for public radio, which, ostensibly, doesn't take ads. But how is underwriting different?? They give you money. YOu are supposedly free to report on them both pro and con. If you don't report the honest relationship with the station, how is that good reporting?
I enjoy Marketplace and frankly, I'm surprised that you are even asking why you need to identify underwriters. The answer is obvious, and it is "yes."
The magical "wall" between editorial and advertisement in newspapers and TV has been disintegrating for years, especially on TV and now in newspapers. TV news has become "infotainment," while newspapers, suffering from lack of ad revenue, ignore the wall more and more.
Pages
