How Public is Public Radio?

A number of listeners have drawn our attention to a new study from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) analyzing in depth one month of reporting in NPR national news programs. The study criticizes NPR in a number of areas--including overreliance on government and think-tank sources, scarcity of women's voices, and an increasingly conservative cast to its use of partisan and expert sources. An abstract of the study and a link to the full report follows below.

The NPR Ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, made an official response to the FAIR Study. It is followed by further comment from one of the authors of the FAIR study, Steven Rendell.

In Dvorkin's latest column, PEW Study: Journalists and Liberal Bias, he responds to different study from the Pew Center for the Public and the Press that looked at the state of journalism, journalists and journalistic attitudes. Among other issues, it looked at the alleged liberal bias of the press in general, and public broadcasting in particular. Read the complete PEW study.

Since this discussion goes to the heart of what we do at North Country Public Radio, we invite listeners to join in this debate by using the comment form at the top of the right-hand column. Listener submissions will be added to the bottom of this page as they are received.

Dale Hobson, NCPR Online

---

NEW FAIR STUDY:
How Public Is Public Radio?

FAIR study finds NPR's guestlist favors elites, Republicans, men

National Public Radio, though founded as an alternative media outlet that would "speak with many voices," relies on largely the same range of sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, a new FAIR study has found. Characterized by conservative critics as "liberal" radio, NPR has more Republican than Democratic voices, and male sources outnumber female sources by nearly four to one.

Nine of the top 10 most-frequently used sources on NPR were white male government officials. (Secretary of State Colin Powell was the one exception.) The top seven sources were all Republicans.

FAIR's study looked at every on-air source quoted in June 2003 on NPR's four main news shows: All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday and Weekend Edition Sunday. Think tank sources and regular commentators were analyzed over a four-month period. Results were compared to those from a 1993 FAIR study of NPR sources.

• PUBLIC VS. ELITE SOURCES: Elite sources-- including government officials, professional experts and corporate representatives-- accounted for 64 percent of all sources. Non-elite sources-- including public interest voices, workers and members of the general public-- made up 31 percent, up from 17 percent in 1993. But more than two-thirds of the non-elite sources were "people on the street," often anonymous sources who tended to be quoted in one-sentence soundbites. Only 7 percent of all sources represented public interest groups, organized citizens groups who articulate a broad range of public viewpoints.
  
  
• WOMEN SCARCE: Women made up only 21 percent of all sources--only 2 percentage points more than found in 1993. Women were underrepresented in most subcategories; for example, they made up only 17 percent of journalists interviewed by NPR.
  
  
• REPUBLICANS AMPLIFIED: Comparing partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than three to two (61 percent to 38 percent). Even when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in FAIR's 1993 study, Republicans outnumbered Democrats 57 to 42 percent.
  
  
• THINK TANK SOURCES SKEW RIGHT: Representatives of think tanks to the right of center outnumbered those to the left of center by more than four to one, 62 appearances to 15. Centrist think tanks made 56 appearances.
  
  
• COMMENTATOR DIVERSITY IMPROVED: In 1993, all but one of 27 regular commentators were white, and only 15 percent were women. This year, 20 percent were people of color and 24 percent were women. Still, 60 percent of regular commentators were white men, and only one out of 46 (2 percent) was Latino, despite the fact that Latinos make up 13 percent of the U.S. population.

The complete 8-page report can be accessed online at: http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html

---

Listener Comments:

NPR Should Resist Pressure to "Simplify" 6/11/04
It has been my considered opinion, reached over years of thinking about the issue, that the assertion that there is "liberal bias" in the journalistic community, and for that matter in the academic community, is simply the result of advanced education and scholarship. Journalists are students of the subjects they write about. And the fact is that the more one studies problems, as journalists and academics do, the more one comes to realize that there are seldom simple answers to things, that issues often present themselves in shades of grey, rather than the simpler black and white which many (though not all) political and social conservatives seem to prefer. Thus, to most conservatives, the journalist students of complex political, social and public policy issues appear to be "liberal" in that they come to know too much about the subject to present simple answers. Sorry folks, but many things are much more complex and difficult to comprehend than simplistic ideolog ies would like.
    I hasten to add that there are sophisticated, knowledgeable conservatives to be found, in the general public, in journalism and in academia, but one usually finds they tend to work more strongly from an ideological base, a moralistic base often, which may govern their conclusions in the face of many of the complex issues which we face in a pluralistic and increasingly international world. I think the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is in their thinking methodology. Liberals tend to be empirical, building ther conclusions from observed and collected facts (inductive thinkers if you will). Conservatives usually work downward from first principles, fitting facts as they find them into a previously established and often fervently held principle or attitude.
    The current presidential administration in its considerations and actions on foreign policy issues proceeds in just such a way. The press, empirically inclined often objects, calling these policy makers on what seems to the journalistic mind decision making which flies in the face of well known facts, or too quickly in the face of profound complexities. Such journalists cry foul when they see that ideology will govern despite inconvenient information to the contrary.
    On social issues like gay marriage or abortion, again the conservative approaching the issue from a moral perspective may be deeply upset the the journalist (or academic) who points out that there may be other perspectives on the issue based on their observations of social realities which may not fit into an ideal picture which one might prefer. Abortion can be seen as murder, but in some cases other realities intrude, like pregnancies resulting from war rapes, or pregnancies which will proceed (based on medical evidence) to threaten the life of the mother. Obviously abortion is a complex issue, and the decisions we sometimes have to make are often not as clear cut as we fervently would like.
    Gay marriage is another social issue which escapes straightforward understanding. Homosexuality is a social reality, and apparently always has been, though managed in different societies and times in different ways. In our society at this time gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people exist with varying degrees of social acceptance. Their social and sexual needs and preferences are just as real as those of the "straight" community, and would seem under our civic sense of law to have equal rights. If marriage is seen as both a civil as well as a religious role in our society, why isn't it under our republican system of government to be available to all citizens?
    Thank you for this opportunity. I have often felt that thoughtful journalism needs to have a place within the spectrum of available media choices. Certainly the conservative has ample media sourcs to read, listen and watch. Let us remember to keep the channels open to thorough, thoughtful and detailed news coverage. Call it liberal if you will, but also call it responsible.
    NPR has provided for the last thirty five or so years a clarion voice on the radio which delves into issues with appropriate depth and consideration. This is a necessary alternative if we are to continue a society free in our thinking as well as in other ways. NPR should resist the pressures, funding and otherwise, that would have them trim their wicks and modify their conclusions to more closely accord with established social and governmental entities which see open thinking as threatening to society.
Richard Lunt, Potsdam, NY

NPR " losing its critical perspective" 6/11/04
When you can hear on Public Radio that Ronald Reagan was "the most popular president of the modern era," which is simply not true, you begin to suspect that Public Radio is these days less & less public and more & more corporate. (According to the polls, Bill Clinton was the most popular president of the modern era, but you'd never know that from the recent coverage in the media, including NPR.
     Commercial media is saturated with right-of-center political views. I don't expect NPR to take on the task of counterbalancing this rightward tilt, I'd like to be able to expect real balance. The Pew study suggests that NPR has been co-opted by the dominant political paradigm.
     We have a situation where the most extreme right-wing views can be presented as falling within the mainstream, while at the same time the mildest liberal views are cast as radical, anti-American, etc. Though I am a decades-long financial supporter of NPR, I am increasingly tuning out. I get most of my political news & commentary from the internet these days.
     Now, NCPR's local programming is just fine. The station serves its diverse communities very well, I think. Less & less of what comes from the national network, though, is distinguishable from the media haze that comes through television & commercial radio. NPR is quickly losing its critical perspective.
Joseph Duemer, South Colton

Where the Fairness Doctrine Went 6/6/04
I don't know if this qualifies as a post, but as it relates to the Fairness Doctrine and the recent passing of Ronald Reagan, I quote William Rivers Pitt from a recent editorial:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060704A.shtml
Planet Reagan
    By William Rivers Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

  "  ...Mainstream media journalism today is a shameful joke because of Reagan's deregulation policies. Once upon a time, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that the information we receive - information vital to the ability of the people to govern in the manner intended - came from a wide variety of sources and perspectives. Reagan's policies annihilated the Fairness Doctrine, opening the door for a few mega-corporations to gather journalism unto themselves. Today, Reagan's old bosses at General Electric own three of the most-watched news channels. This company profits from every war we fight, but somehow is trusted to tell the truths of war. Thus, the myths are sold to us.
    The deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan did not just deliver journalism to these massive corporations, but handed virtually every facet of our lives into the hands of this privileged few. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat are all tainted because Reagan battered down every environmental regulation he came across so corporations could improve their bottom line. Our leaders are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporations that were made all-powerful by Reagan's deregulation craze..."
Jason King, Medford, MA

NPR: Liberal But Never Biased 6/6/04
I believe public radio tends to be very public. I realize that is not specific, so let me clarify. Public radio seems to appeal to a range of people and they seem often to be active in a variety of ways. I find public radio avoids the mainstream and I think that is good. I don't want to hear the newest rock song on public radio, instead I want to hear a Bach aria or a Etta James blues song. I think that the elitisst moniker comes from the constant admonition to think seriously about the music or commentary you hear on NPR. And yes, I think NPR is liberal but never biased. ATC constantly makes me think. Maybe if we hear Rush Limbough on NPR, that would cure NPR of its leftist leanings. But the great thing about NPR is that there is a place for him on NPR. So that possibly is my point, NPR is as inclusive as our society. With all its warts and blemishes, with all its flowers and beautiful sunrises, NPR is America. This is more meaningful because I listen from
Japan. God(dess) bless the U.S.A. and keep NPR broadcasting!
Kenneth Knodle, Potsdam (via Okinawa)

Plea for Better Balance 6/6/04
I certainly have no use for the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but find that NPR does tend to have a definite tilt to the left. The Connection, and All Things Considered/Morning Edition both look this way from my point of view.
    I am not a Pollyanna, and realize that we have serious issues with which to deal. At the same time, I do not think it appropriate to focus so completely on the negative side of events. Is there a radio counterpart to people like George Will?
    As one simple example, the frequent association made between the present adminikstration and its refusal to endorse the Kyoto Treaty seldom, if ever, mentions that the treaty was negotiated during the previous administration, and was rejected 95-0 by the senate. Air pollution and greenhouse gases are an important issue, but not necessarily a partisan one. And, the third world pays little attention to such issues. We need to do our part, but so does everyone else.
    My plea is for better balance.
Ed Milner, Olmstedville, NY

Responding to Dvorkin: Media Bias Liberal, But Not Leftist 6/5/04
Come on Jeff. What NPR calls left is liberal on social issues, conservative on economic--although I'll admit that's an opinion I picked up on NPR, so it's not a firewall. I ask, why don't we hear from Noam Chomsky, for example? Maybe he's too abrasive, but you know, there are lots of real lefties that aren't. The laudable goals might really be laudable if you were to expand the "whole country" to the "whole world," and I think anyone would say your broadcast content would change a lot. I know your job is to take on all comers, but you don't want to slide too far from ombudsman to apologist. NPR takes up a space similar to the Democrats, the platform doesn't stand alone. It's only value is rooted in contrast to Republicans.
   Having said that, I think that yes, media in general has a liberal bias, but not a left bias. Liberals believe that we can regulate capitalism into something that won't destroy all we hold dear. Personally, I believe that running out of oil will have a much more positive effect than any political move the majority of our culture could ever codify. To many self interested porkers at the trough. It's going to be a hard wave to stay on, but the post petroleum beach could be very beautiful for the ones who make it.
Mike Owen, Pierrepont

FCC Should Reinstate Fairness Doctrine 6/3/04
The basic problem is not whether this or that radio source (including NPR) is conservative or liberal. It is that, taken overall, radio does not provide politically-balanced information, and it currently has an overwhelming conservative bias. The root of this difficulty can be traced back to the demise of the so-called fairness doctrine, which required provision of equal air time for responsible proponents of opposing views. The FCC needs to reinstate this doctrine for both radio & television.
David N. Carson, Long Lake

Hopes NPR Will Live Up to Goals 6/3/04
Thanks for posting this issue on your site. It would certainly have been easier to let it exist elsewhere in cyber space and say nothing here. While the results of the study are discouraging, still public radio has a unique mission to serve the citizens of this country that for-profit media conglomerates do not. For that reason, it's my hope that NPR will diligently live up to its goals.
Jason King, Medford, MA

NPR Still Better than Most Media Outlets 6/3/04
Yes, you skew to the male perspective, and no, you do not cover enough international news. But compared to most American commercial radio, television, and print media, NPR still provides a relatively thorough and thoughtful news coverage & commentary as befits a "responsible media." And good jazz as well ;)
Xu Xi, Morrisonville, NY

NPR Needs More Liberal Voices to Balance Other Media 6/3/04
In general, NPR is less right wing than the networks. However, NPR, especially on the issue of SSM (same-sex marriage, ed.), adhers down the line, to the right-wing perspective. NPR needs many more liberal viewpoints to serve as a counter to the unremitting stream of conservative voices found in other broadcast media.
Barry Bley, Macomb