Facts redux
(Cross-posting between the In Box and All In blogs 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.
What is an example of a “fact-based analysis”? Has someone in the past posted an article that achieves what you’re looking for in your content?
Do other local NPR affiliates have this same issue to contend with? What did they have to say?
I’d be interested in specifically knowing I’d the recent Adirondack Life article is something you consider analysis or opinion (or a mix of both)
It’s James O’Keefe’s world. The rest of us just cower in it.
Oops, I of course meant to say: “I’d be interested in specifically knowing IF the recent Adirondack Life article…”
Apple auto-correct is not so correct sometimes.
I still think there is no difference between opinion and “fact-based analysis.” In the ideal, at least, one’s opinions have a basis in facts just as “fact-based analysis.”
I mean, as much as one may dress it up as analysis, when a journalist says, “Candidate X has no chance of winning,” that is not a fact or a fact-based analysis. It is the journalist’s opinion.
Both analysis and opinion are (in theory) interpretations of the facts. The only difference is that one is a little stronger and more overt than the other.
“I’d be interested in specifically knowing I’d the recent Adirondack Life article is something you consider analysis or opinion (or a mix of both)”
I would say clearly a mix of both. A very good article.
This is a mix of both. What is done here is to “report”on other peoples opinions as part of the story:
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/139972333/can-romney-stay-the-course-as-the-ceo-candidate
“…when a journalist says, “Candidate X has no chance of winning,” that is not a fact or a fact-based analysis. It is the journalist’s opinion.”
So instead say ‘based on the polls it does not appear that candidate X has any chance of winning’. Instead of opinion it is now speculation and you have put the burden of the speculation on the poll to boot.
Still think that any requirement that NCPR staff cannot express their opinion even in other unrelated media is just silly. As a state worker in supervisory capacity I avoided joining a political party but anyone who knows me knows my opinions and on occasion I wrote (and still write) both my legislators and letters to the editor. I just kept my job out of it.
Also I note that Ed Murrow, considered by many to be the standard bearer of quality journalism, had opinions and they were what drove his reporting on McCarthy.
What I think has become evident is that is no more one common American “group-think” where one can claim to have the “default” view on an issue.
By design, American has become more diverse, and so have the number of views on any given issue.
It is no longer necessary, nor is it possible, to claim to have the “default” view on an issue.
Rather, each news agency becomes known for its take on an issue, and generally gathers like-minded people to listen to it.
I was in Boston this week listening to public radio there and they were discussing this same topic.
Personally I think you guys have done a pretty good job of keeping your personal opinions about hot button issues to yourselves. I have seen comments questioning the objectivity of coverage of the Big Tupper project and there were probably people who questioned the WalMart coverage (or Lowes). But much of that is people being upset that the story wasn’t covered the way they wanted it to be covered (as public relations for their position).
As many have pointed out, deciding what to cover or not cover is also a journalistic judgement that is subject to bias criticism. That isn’t a real problem at the local level.
I think the difference between analysis and opinion is what we’re trying to clarify. We may stumble from time to time, but that’s the line we hope to bring into focus.
Yes, Brian’s piece in Adirondack Life crossed the line between opinion and analysis. But, we had not had any formal conversations about the subject at the time he submitted it. We all can see ways that the piece could have been tempered to eliminate opinion (and calls to action) and still serve as a terrific starting point for a regional conversation on the subject.
Quickly:
We have not given up on the notion of striving for non-partisan news coverage, in spite of the trend in other news organizations. All of us at NCPR believe that balance and breadth of coverage is more important than ever.
While I appreciate that state workers are supposed to refrain from proactive partisan activities in the work place and outright lobbying, on their own time they can do as they please. We are NOT state workers. We are journalists. It is a given that when you work for a news organization you lose certain “free speech” rights. Most journalists worth their salt understand this trade off.