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
I certainly think it doesn't hurt to say "Today this company, who is a sponsor of our show, yadda yadda..." Doesn't hurt. You don't have to go in depth, but that simple quick line makes you appear more credible. Do the regular papers, etc, do that? No. But by the same token, those of us who listen to you usually do, because we happen to think your level of credibility is higher. Much like Toyota should have been proactive in their problems, it just makes us that much more confident in you and your show.
The reason transparency is so important for NPR is that it IS public radio that is supported by many of us. I have little to no confidence in other news sources because of who owns them and what their primary interest is (profit), therefore NPR/PBS are my only media news sources. When you have sponsors that cause me trepidation, I wonder about the effectiveness of my support versus their much greater potential for influence on your programming. Thanks for asking for the feedback, Kai.
I don't believe there is a need for you to clarify that you are supported by someone you are reporting on. We know that you know that a certain corporation or organization sponsors you. You know that we hold you to a standard to keep the news department and the advertising department in separate rooms. The fact that some listeners believe there needs to be explicit mention of this every time you do a story on a company that is also a sponsor, implies that we aren't able to draw such conclusions on our own. We're better than that. I hope.
The relationship should be disclosed in the story. Just because there isn't any communication between the two parties doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potential to influence how Marketplace reports it. When there is money involved, there is always some incentive to "go easy" on a story, even if it isn't done intentionally.
I value and appreciate the fact that Marketplace is up front about these relationships and would like to see it stay that way. We all know Marketplace needs underwriters - but the willingness to be up front about it is what separates Marketplace and NPR from other media outlets.
The weight of private money has an undeniable and largely corrupting influence on public policy and public dialogue. We are all numb to most of it. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of public radio listeners still hold true to principle and demand transparency. Let's not forget that voluntary (read: optional) personal and public contributions to NPR provide financial support for the independence of NPR reporting. Transparency is inextricably linked to this public dialogue.
The research that FAIR and other like organizations have done provide sufficient evidence that advertisers do impact news content. This is the same as the data documenting the medical studies funded by drug companies are flawed. The problem simply is it is not in your best interest to report negative information about an advertiser. If it is reported at all it is more likely to be soft peddled or spun to put the advertiser in as good a light as possible.
There are two simple arguments that we can make to get us to the same conclusion.
1) We know there is someone in your organization whose job it is to close advertising relationship deals with companies. The effort often requires the talent to travel and speak at many locations to a variety of audiences to secure increasing listeners. (Can be documented by your travel records) This listener data is provided to the advertiser to make the purchase decision. If advertisers were beating down your doors you would not require the advertising department.
2) The advertiser is not making an altruistic donation. They choose to advertise on public radio to increase their brand awareness and improve the reputation of their brand by associating their name with public radio. The advertiser is not going to purchase if their brand is not improved and negative information is associated to their brand.
Running a public radio programming is difficult. I wish their could be full government funding of public radio and so I do not begrudge you taking dollars from everyone you can. But for reputation purposes I believe you must notify listeners of the conflict of interest. All news programs should but especially business news programs.
Everyone should receive their news from a variety of sources and make their own decisions with the understand that all news is biased in some way.
Absolutely it should be mentioned! At one time (I forget the sponsor - GE?), I believe it was a common practice on Marketplace - am I remembering correctly?
It's especially important now that, instead of simply saying something simplem, like, "financial support provided by Putnam Investments", the riff goes on to promote the products, providing us with the company's latest soothing marketing promotional phrases and turns into a mini-commercial.
YES! I had actually stopped listening to NPR because of this very issue. There have been many times where I thought there was a conservative bias, especially insensitive & oblivious to working class issues. I was particularly upset that NPR didn't cover anything about slavery issues, (except Haiti--which was a great story) but neglected to mention the horrible west African slavery behind chocolate. I assume becase Archer Danials Midland is a sponsor & they were named in a suit for exactly that, along with Nestle. This is unforgivable!
Thank you NPR and Marketplace for, at the very least (and in response to listener complaints), acknowledging the inherent and obvious conflict of interest regarding your corporate sponsors. To deny a connection between the content of a story and who's underwriting it (or plead ignorance of that connection) is a clearly unacceptable and cynical approach to the vast majority of your audience.
I hold public radio to a higher standard of integrity than the standard held my commercial networks. Plus, because of the perceived liberal bias that most conservatives hold about public radio, it is important to remove any opportunity for an "ah-hah" claim about any of your stories.
Pages
