Do pressure or write-in campaigns work? Do news organizations in general, and NPR in particular, respond to pressure from advocacy groups? Should NPR respond? And if NPR responds, does that indicate that it has “caved,” or does it make NPR more open to and respectful of public opinion?
Recently I wrote about pressure from partisans in the Middle East conflict. Their goal is to make NPR cover the story from their perspective. NPR’s reporting on this issue — like the conflict itself — may never be seen to be fair by everyone.
But another recent pressure campaign illustrates yet another journalistic dilemma — wanting to do the right thing, but not being able to do it.
Anthrax and Christian Conservatives
This campaign involved the anthrax investigation. Reporter David Kestenbaum asked the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative Christian lobby group, if it was under investigation by the FBI. The TVC has been active in their opposition to Senators Leahy and Daschle over their efforts to remove the phrase “So Help Me God” from the oath used by the senators in their official duties. Senators Leahy and Daschle also received anthrax letters. Kestenbaum wondered if, in this case, two plus two made four. The Coalition denied that it had been questioned by the FBI and was outraged that Kestenbaum even asked the question in the pre-broadcast process of gathering information.
Kestenbaum included that denial in his report on Jan. 22:
Two of the anthrax letters were sent to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, both Democrats. One group who had a gripe with Daschle and Leahy is the Traditional Values Coalition, which before the attacks, had issued a press release criticizing the senators for trying to remove the phrase “so help me God” from the oath. The Traditional Values Coalition, however, told me the FBI had not contacted them and then issued a press release saying NPR was in the pocket of the Democrats and trying to frame them. But investigators are thinking along these lines…
The Coalition responded by denouncing NPR and launched a vigorous campaign, which at last tally was around 200 e-mails received here. More details can be found at the Traditional Values Coalition Web site.
NPR responded by airing the following statement, read by Bob Edwards on Morning Edition on Wednesday, January 30:
And a story last week about the ongoing anthrax investigation mentioned the Traditional Values Coalition. Reporter David Kestenbaum contacted that group to ask if it had been contacted by the FBI. The TVC said it had not, since there is no evidence that it was or should be investigated. The TVC said it was inappropriate for it to be named on the air. The NPR editors agree.
Andrea Lafferty is the spokesperson for TVC. In an interview with UPI she was not mollified:
That’s not an apology and our lawyer says it’s not a retraction. Since the correction aired, we have heard from NPR … they seem to be very scared and they should be. We are still proceeding with legal action because, they are not sorry and we will not allow them to do this to someone else.
NPR management says it has attempted to contact the Traditional Values Coalition to work out a mutually satisfactory statement for broadcast, but so far, the TVC has not responded.
This tactic of non-response might allow the TVC to further its own goals by using NPR as a convenient scapegoat.
Many letters written to the ombudsman would indicate that tactic is working:
Your reporter, David Kestenbaum has issued a story that has no facts — just innuendos — trying to link Traditional Values Coalition with the anthrax letters sent to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The story was without foundation and should never have been run in the first place. I understand that your organization, however, has refused to issue a retraction or apology.
Denny Eyberg
And from Barry Mann:
Where is the apology? You really should apologize for your irresponsible reporting. I’m tired of defending NPR from the barbs of conservative friends.
In my opinion, the statement was a correction but in the form of a clarification. But while Kestenbaum was right to ask a strong reportorial question in the process of gathering information, the denial should have been enough. There was no journalistic reason for including it in the report.
NPR is known for its vigorous editing to keep the story strong and on point. In this case, the editing process seems to have failed to do its job.
The statement read by Edwards was less than it should have been. NPR still needs to be more nimble and more open about admitting its errors. In the case of the allegations, there should be a time and place where the concerns of the listeners can be addressed. The NPR Web site would be a good starting point.
