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
YES..., Tell us just before or just after when you are reporting on a underwriter. Just like you, when we hear a report, we want to know why the story takes a turn one way and not another. The question we both ask is who has what to gain for the story as told. None of that would matters, of course, if Marketplace is striving to become another FOX NEWS.....Good luck with that....
Transparency is like chocolate — I'm not sure there's such a thing as too much.
I appreciate when Marketplace and other public radio programs do this service for their listeners. As a former journalist, I believe more media outlets should be as forthcoming with their sponsors, advertisers, and underwriters. It's not because I assume there is some malevolent force at play; I'm quite familiar with the distance between the business operations and the editorial operations, as I think most mature and knowledgeable adults are. I simply believe full disclosure demonstrates a respect for readers, listeners, or watchers — not to mention, when you do something that could be even innocuously construed as suspicious, it's likelier to rouse grumbles than when you do what you can to avert it.
Yes I think you should acknowledge underwiters. The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour on PBS mentioned Toyota as underwriters while covering the news on accelerating gas pedals.
If Toyota would have pulled out as underwriters, we would know why.
Advertisers do seem to influence the mainstream network news. The advertisers simply have to pull their ads from ABC, NBC, and CBS if they do not like how the networks are covering the news.
I firmly believe mainstream network editorial decisions are based on how the mainstream networks feel the advertisers will react.
Please keep Markepplace transparent by mentioning if the topic of the story you are covering is an underwriter.
One other reason you may have had such several response on Monsanto might be because of how they were portrayed in the Academy Award nominated film, Food, Inc. Monsanto was not painted in a good light.
Respectfully,
Mary Cuevas
Tucson, AZ
I believe GMO food is a poison to the body, and its ramifications have not yet been fully understood (or purposely hidden form the public). I also believe Monsanto is an evil company that is only interested in dominating agriculture, and making farmers depend on their seeds. I don't think you should accept them as a sponsor. I cringe every time I hear them mentioned as a sponsor. I think you should choose your sponsors carefully, and choosing them gives them legitimacy among your listeners.
Unfortunately the FDA is too corrupt (by the likes of Monsanto) to tell us the truth about GMO food.
The openness which the acknowledgment shows is the fundamental difference between public radio and commercial stations. The 'wall' might be strong but by being open it reminds everyone to be careful of the conflict of interest that might arise - wouldn't it be nice to have similar acknowledgements when political issue advertisements air and they are simply sponsored by a front committee that was formed purely for the purpose.
I love marketplace and would give your reporters an "A". I also donate to my public radio station and rely on it for fact based and some unbiased reporting. To be honest, I heard the original GMO story and was baffled since the negatives of GMO were not presented. Now I hear Monsanto is an NPR supporter. Should this have been disclosed? I would certainly hope you do so in the future in these days of money=bias.
This shouldn't even be a question. Doing the right thing to me is a no brainer.
Yes, I find the acknowledgement useful and for me, necessary. It reminds me of why I listen to Public Radio and Marketplace. With other media outlets I do not trust that the "wall" between the business side of news organization and their newsrooms truely exists. When I hear the acknowledgments it re-enforces my trust and confidence in Public Redio and reminds me that I need to donate so NPR does not need to rely on corporate sponsors so much.
Pages
