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
Trust must be earned....and maintained. It can be lost and.....it can be regained. Further, it is an not all or nothing thing. Everything you can do to improve the quality and bi-directional respect in your relationship with us, your listeners, should be done.
Although you say that sponsors don't have any editorial input, it is difficult to believe that there is no corporate impact overall. Since NPR, PBS, etc. have sought and received corporate sponsorships, I can't trust you as much as I once did. I certainly don't trust Monsanto. The fact that NPR news shows take money from corporations on which they report is by definition a conflict of interest, and it is the main reason I no longer support public radio financially. Public Broadcasting has been co-opted by corporate money just as the mainstream media and the all of the branches of the government have. That you do a story about GMOs without addressing the dangers (also ignored by our government) is evidence enough for me that money from Monsanto had some influence.
I urge you to disclose these types of potential conflicts. Not only do they help me known more, but by making the disclosure, you are also implying that you've tried to be as balanced as possible.
Although it is subtle, I like to think there is a difference between "sponsorship" of public services and "advertising". One difference is that the language of the sponsor's message can be regulated by the recipient. From the first time I heard Monsanto usurping the use of the "committed to sustainable agriculture" this has bothered me on a daily basis. It is just not true. Monsanto is committed to making money - not a better world.
As to the story in question, it was dangerously "breezy" without the careful journalism I have come to expect from public radio.
Find Instant Medical Insurance coverage for you at http://bit.ly/dqJw9Z
Please understand that this is more than just an issue about citing your advertisements as underwriters. This is a public outcry to prevent Monsanto ads specifically. Not just one, but two advertisements for Monsanto aired within 30 minutes on Tuesday, April 13. My immediate reaction was absolutely disgust with NPR for its assumed association with Monsanto. I now understand that 'nobody is at fault because it was an ad placed by an underwritten sponsor.' It doesn't take away from the fact I am disappointed with American Public Media – Marketplace. There are several problems here that I hope to address, but I have a question to the power's that be:
What do we need to do in order to prevent Monsanto ads from airing on 90.1 FM and 91.7 AM in the future?????? I don't want Monsanto endorsements in my ears any more!! Please inform all of us where we can go and write our letters to every 90.1 FM and 91.7 FM representative to prevent Monsanto ads on these stations in the future......
Monsanto is a despicable agricultural monopoly. They rely upon the ignorance of the general public for its continued success. My guess is Monsanto has not been making it's quota recently, and because of other competing pesticide brands coming in from China, they are advertising their GMO's to help increase their revenues. Looks like the over-use of Round Up has created SUPER WEEDS on large farms in the South. This has forced farmers to pour even more chemicals on our food. None of them worked on the weeds, so the farmers are stuck with the added expense of having to hand-weed their fields.
Underwriter or not, I think there should be reasonable standards put in place to keep the large 'unrepeatable' or 'controversial' companies from contributing to media station sponsors for the sake of objective, unbiased reporting. I understand and appreciate that there's a 'wall' between the Marketplace reporters and the underwriters, but isn't that irrelevant? We, the listener, immediately associate Monsanto's terrible reputation with both Marketplace and NPR upon hearing an ad for them. This is the issue that has so many people seeing red.
The controversy over the Monsanto ad, as I see it, is equivalent to advertising a specific cigarette brand as being good for you. You may not realize how such an outrageous advertisement for Monsanto reflects upon you. I don't enjoy being spoon-fed propaganda for a company that I despise; especially when that propaganda is coming from a station that I trust!
I'm forced to question the motives of Monsanto and fear how this monstrous company could use its power to possibly persuade the media stations. You've just communicated to the Monsanto-informed public that you may be in Monsanto's pocket. This is only an assumption of course, but a definite fear nonetheless. American Public Media, the producer of Marketplace, has a good reputation for keeping it's listeners informed with complete unbiased information. Whether or not Monsanto is directly associated with your reports, you are still receiving sponsorship from them and grossly misleading the general public with the Monsanto ads. People turn to your station because they seek honest and fair information. Monsanto hopes to advertise on Marketplace because they lack the integrity and good reputation that your broadcast provides. I deeply fear that your future broadcasts are potentially filtered, because 'you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you'.
P.S.
In case you are unaware, NPR is currently dealing with the consequences of your business fraternization's. They are doing damage control to protect their name by explaining to everyone that they are not receiving sponsorship from Monsanto and directing everyone to voice their opinions on this site. Monsanto is bad business, in more ways than one!!
"Do you need to speak to anyone in editorial?" Over a decade in marketing, I lost track of how many times I was asked that question when purchasing advertising. Policies such as yours keep people honest. You need to continue to make those disclaimers in the spirit of transparency and to prevent the appearance of impropriety if not impropriety itself. My trust in your reporting would be seriously diminished if you change this policy.
I know when you asked for our input on this question, you wanted us to keep the question generic since Monsanto is a current financial contributor of the show and it's important to create a forum that will not lead to sponsor bashing. Fair enough. You are a business program so let's discuss it on a business level.
When you take on a sponsor whose business practices are creating more than a little controversy both domestically and internationally, you should not be surprised if your audience becomes uncomfortable. This is understood by all businesses but especially true of programming that is distributed on public radio. That's a risk you take when taking money from a polarizing sponsor. Money and sponsors are tight, your audience gets that.
Now when that same company is featured in one of your programs and your listeners interpret the piece to be compromised by that sponsorship, then the reality of it becomes secondary to trust your audience has in your program and your ability to sell it. Any time you include a sponsor, that polarizing or not, in a feature, you better disclose it every time. And then you better make sure your feature withstands the heat it's likely to generate.
I'm glad you asked your audience to respond and in doing so you acknowledge that more than a few of them called in to share their thoughts on the subject already. Frankly, I didn't care for the piece and I get why your audience was unhappy with it. I'm not one to call or write in when I don't like or agree with a piece but it did make me question why I was listening to your program for the very first time. Asking for our input today saved me as a member of your audience and probably more than a few others. Smart business choice on your part! Choose your sponsors carefully and if you make the choice to feature them, do so with full disclosure and keep it real or your listeners will call you on it.
Thanks and best wishes.
I think that you should follow the example of the PBS News Hour (formerly the News Hour with Jim Leher). They always something like "By the way, Toyota is a News Hour underwriter." And of course, they've had to say it frequently recently with Toyota in the news! But Bank of America is another of their underwriters and they always mention it if they have a story about Bank of America.
Pages
