Facts redux

(Cross-posting between All In and The In Box, again, because this entry continues the discussion started in the earlier entry cited below. –ER)

Thanks to everyone who weighed in on the facts vs. analysis vs. opinion entry. We’ve heard from many of you–of course, in the comment section, but I’ve also received a number of private emails and I’ve talked to people on the phone and, yes, in the grocery store.

Here at the station, we’ve been talking about your opinions and suggestions. Very helpful in clarifying our thinking. We will develop a written policy or code of ethics for staff and share that with you once it’s done.

I think Dale and Brian did a good job of clearing up some apparent misunderstandings about NCPR’s relationship with NPR, about how station policies are made, and about what we mean when we say “news” or “analysis” or “opinion.”

It may be that I’m perceived as the voice of authority in this discussion. Yes, I’m the station manager, but developing policy on this issue is simply not a top-down process. Not by a long shot.

I’d like to add these thoughts to the conversation so far.

Asking news staff and management personnel to refrain from publicly expressing personal opinions on controversial or political topics is not intended to suppress interesting or lively conversation. Indeed, the intention is the opposite.

We are not a privately owned media company. This has important implications for us.

While the NY Times, let’s say, may be a good standard to look at—for examples of news reporting, analysis columns, public opinion (think Op Ed)—we are in a different situation when we consider editorials (staff opinion). Why? The Times is a privately owned company. For the news staff or management at a non-profit public media entity such as NCPR to use its “power” to express personal opinion seems antithetical to the public nature of our station and to our role as stewards of a public resource. Frankly, to me, it seems like an abuse of that power.

Our role is one of convening and curation, beyond straight reporting. In the case of our blog columns, Brian or Martha or I or any other staff member may write something that includes facts as well as fact-based analysis to open up a space for public conversation. Why give extra weight to my opinion or Brian’s over yours? Yes, we want to hear Brian’s analysis of an issue he’s been closely covering for years, but we do not need his opinion. We want to be part of how you stay informed and we want to provide a space for your opinions, perhaps based in part on information you acquired through NCPR—information you can trust is opinion free (or know that that is the standard we’re striving for even if we don’t always quite attain it).

I understand that the line between analysis and opinion is hard to focus in on sometimes. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to sharpen that focus. And, if you go back through Brian’s blog entries over the past few years, many dealt with controversial or at least “up for discussion” topics–many of these drew fervent comments from you, and most of Brian’s entries do not contain his opinion. Yes, he has occasionally crossed the line between analysis and opinion, but not as a rule. You have responded  if the subject was of interest and important to you, whether or not Brian expressed an opinion.

What drives our work, what keeps us going and makes us try harder, is a belief that NCPR at its best is about respect and trust between staff and the public. Most important: it works in both directions. We work to deserve your respect and trust and—back at you—we respect and trust you. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if we didn’t respect and trust you.

Again, thanks to all who have added to the conversation.