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
First off, for a long time I have been greatly disappointed that "Public" radio/Public Television require "underwriters" in the first place. He who pays the piper, calls the tune is a cliche that I think is appropriate in this discussion. I understand that the staff at Marketplace and many other public radio programs/public television programs feel they sufficently seperate their editiorial content from their underwriters, but I feel this is a specious argument. The fact that an underwriter has a commercial with it's slogan or point of view before every program is more powerful than any story that is reported every once in a while. As it pertains to stories about underwriters the absolute least one can do is report within the context of the story that the program is underwritten by that business. As it pertains to Monsanto, my opinion is that they're a bunch of evil m----r f-----rs that should never be covered in a positive fashion because they are simple bad for our world.
You absolutely must divulge the information. There is no possibility that your reportage can not impact the company giving you money, and I find your argument in favor of not divulging so specious that I already wonder at your motivations. While you're at it, why don't you divulge to NPR listeners your salaries, which largely come from those same sources, during the week you are seeking contributions from listeners?
MarketPlace and its listeners would be misleading ourselves if we accepted that corporate sponsorship has no impact on MarketPlace's reporting. I think the following disclosures would be helpful.
A full disclosure of the OMISSIONS of reporting would be great! Such as, "MarketPlace has not reported on the devasting human impact of aerial fumigation of coca in South America/Colombia with Monsanto products, and in the interest of full disclosure, we disclose that Monsanto is a sponsor of our program."
Another important disclosure is when there is a link between selection of EXPERTS by Marketplace and sponsorship. Most notable in my recollection is when MarketPlace reported that the American Enterprise Institute offered funding for researchers that sought to prove that global warming does not exist. In this report, MarketPlace disclosed that AEI is funded in part by Exxon-Mobil. On the very next day, MarketPlace, almost as a mea culpa or retraction, declared that it too is sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. Is there a connection between sponsorship and the identification of EXPERTS?
As a regular listener - and member of both my local Public Radio stations - I was AGHAST the first time I heard the announcement of Monsanto's sponsorship of Marketplace! I immediately picked up the phone and called to complain. I've been calling and writing APM, NPR and my local Public Radio stations ever since! I've withheld some of my contributions in protest. I've been amazed to speak to people about this issue at APM, KCRW and KPCC who are clueless as to why I'm so appalled! I've had to explain many times that allowing Monsanto to underwrite ANYTHING on Public Radio lends this abhorrent company a veneer of respectability, credibility and validation they most certainly don't merit in any way, shape or form - period, end of story!
Marketplace really needs to be INVESTIGATING AND REPORTING on Monsanto instead of taking handouts from them. If APM thoroughly vetted them, they'd never want a penny from them! Think how it would sound to announce Bernie Madoff is sponsoring Marketplace? Or how about Goldman-Sachs? What about the Aryan Brotherhood? There should be the same appalled, outraged and horrified reaction to Monsanto's sponsorship! That there isn't testifies to how good they are at flying under the radar. The public - and Public Radio, it appears - is not well informed about Monsanto...and that's just the way they like it. If the public really knew what Monsanto's been, and IS currently up to, there'd be a deafening uproar, a hue and cry against them and their thoroughly repugnant, despicable and abominable practices!
The DVDs, "The Future of Food" and "Food, Inc." are must-watch documentaries...and they're just the tip of the iceberg about Monsanto!
Marketplace, most definitely, must identify sponsors when reporting on their products! The New York Times is not the same as Public Radio. I, myself, hold my Public Radio stations to a much higher standard. As far as I'm concerned, it is completely unacceptable for Public Radio to be in bed with a company like Monsanto! Here's what I had to say to everyone I spoke with or wrote to: "Monsanto?"Â "Not on MY public radio!"
I believe you should highlight the fact that you are about to report on a company who sponsors your show. There is so much biased news reporting in the market these days; it's important that we know this information, almost as a subconcious check to see that you are approaching the situation with a balanced view. If we feel that you are defending the subject of your story and the sponsor of your show in a biased manner, we will call you out on it. I have yet to feel this way with any of the stories that involved your sponsor. In fact, this is the first time I've sent a comment to you, but I feel strongly that your current approach is the right one.
Recognizing Marketplace & public radio's general need for underwriting support, corporate sponsorships must be a necessary evil. I'm specifically concerned about Monsanto. They are well positioned at the governmental level and have manuevered themselves into a dangerously dominant position in American farming, food and chemical production. If media influence is their objective, they will eventually win it.
As a long time listener I'm concerned about a company like Monsanto having any affect on what Marketplace would or would not cover. Has Marketplace even done a story on the dastardly policies and dominance Monsanto has gained in Soybean production in America?, or how they are putting longtime farmers who won't do it Monsanto's way out of business through blacklist and bullying tactics. They are crushing the independent farmer who won't play their game. God only knows what else they are positioning themselves for.
Yes, It is important that NPR reveal sponsors that may be related to stories. The Monsanto article appeared to be slanted toward the value of bio-tech. There are numerous reliable sources that could have given an alternative view of the impact of bio-tech. I rely on PBS for unbiased news, please continue that standard.
I will never support WNYC as long as Monsanto is a sponsor. It manufactured Agent Orange, and now makes genetically engineered "food" products, which are extremely dangerous. By pressuring Congress, it avoids labeling products containing GE, and it has ruinously sued innocent farmers whose fields were polluted by GE pollen. This is a horrible company, and you should not accept it as a sponsor.
Pages
