NPR Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos (who teaches here at Columbia) takes a look at the network’s poor showing with manufacturing sources over the last few weeks.
I wrote about this last Tuesday, noting how a couple of small businessmen, including a New Jersey printer named Joe Olivo, show up frequently in news stories that don’t disclose their ties to lobbying groups.
Schumacher-Matos.
(Joe) Olivo shouldn’t have been interviewed at all.
He is quoted so much as a typical small businessperson that it rightly raises the sorts of suspicions and questions it has about why. Those questions undermine otherwise good reporting. Turning too often to the same source, moreover, makes a story look old and tired, and hardly reflects well on a reporter’s initiative.
That much we agree on, and it’s good to see that someone at NPR does too, including one of the reporters and its managing editor. But I don’t agree with Schumacher-Matos that NPR shouldn’t have identified Olivo’s connection to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a right-wing group that lobbies against stuff like unions, environmental regulation, and raising the minimum wage.
First, he’s presented as a random businessman off the street, when he’s not. It’s not even like this he’s even some random member of NFIB, one among hundreds of thousands of dues payers. Olivo was vice chairman of the powerful lobby’s New Jersey Leadership Council, appeared in promo videos for the national group, and worked hand in hand with lobbyists to advocate political issues before legislatures and Congress. That crosses over into political activism—even a “voluntary advisory panel”—and it needs to be disclosed.
Put another way: Let’s say a local resident who is opposing a new factory because of pollution concerns is as active in Greenpeace as Olivo is in the NFIB. Don’t mention it?
It’s true that the line can be fuzzy, but that’s why folks like Olivo are so valuable to groups like NFIB and why it’s worth leaning toward abstention from rent-a-quotes and at least disclosing their ties if those deadline and/or balance pressures are too much.
Let’s face it: Nobody trusts what some paid-to-say-it lobbyist thinks. The press knows it and the lobbyists for sure know it, which is why they seek to cloak their messages in the authenticity of the man on the street. The operating assumption should be that a lobby will only sends reporters to quote someone who’ll reliably say most of the same things it would say. You wouldn’t quote a spokesperson from an activist group without noting their affiliation. These lobbyist-supplied sources are proxy spokespeople.
It very well may be that these folks believe, on a personal level, the lobby-backed quotes they provide to the press or in testimony to Congress. But on a bigger level, lobbying groups are inserting their views into the news stream without accountability.
That’s insidious, and when it’s exposed as it has been in the last few weeks, listeners and readers have one more good reason to distrust how the news is made: Is this journalism? Or is it guerrilla marketing? These anecdotes are presented to listeners and readers as if they popped out of nowhere or were at least dug up by the reporters. False.
Without the NFIB, you can be quite sure that the same small businessman from New Jersey wouldn’t have appeared on NBC Nightly News, Fox News, and NPR in the span of eight days to discuss his views on Obama’s health care law. The silly thing about it is that there are plenty of small businesspeople out there who would be glad to tell you how Obamacare will affect their companies and who aren’t activists for the plaintiff in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court case that nearly overturned the landmark health-care law.
Next time, find them yourself.
Never mind your own link:
"Olivo is an active member and a favorite recommendation of the NFIB for interviews, but he is neither an official nor a spokesperson of the organization.
"As Kevan Chapman, a real NFIB spokesperson, explained: 'Joe is a member of the NFIB Leadership Council in New Jersey, which is a volunteer panel of small business owners who meet regularly to discuss issues affecting their business and report to the state office their concerns. And vice-versa, the state office will brief them on legislative issues. The Leadership Council has absolutely no authority over setting NFIB policy positions, budget, personnel, or any other official activity – it is strictly a voluntary advisory panel operating outside of NFIB's official capacity.
"'The NFIB frequently refers members of our organization to media outlets for interviews, but it has always been our policy that they speak for themselves and not the organization. We have many members who are passionate and unafraid of speaking publicly about issues affecting their business, but when we refer one of our members to a journalist it is under the mutual understanding that the views they express are their own.'
"Accepting Chapman's description—and I have no reason not to—there is usually no reason for NPR or the news media to cite the NFIB relationship in such cases." [bold mine]
Bottom line: Olivo's activism does not weaken his position. The only real issue, if any, is the high frequency at which he is cited in stories. Call it lack of "diversity."
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 18 Jul 2012 at 09:17 PM
Thanks for the followup, @Ryan. I'm glad you are writing about this.
And grateful that the NPR ombud didn't duck and hide or get all defensive and snotty about the complaint. They usually are very condescending and dismissive to regular people who bring this stuff to their attention. I guess it helps that you have some clout.
Something else interesting about the ombud's piece: The reporter Guy Raz gave some details on how he came to quote Olivo -- "Our producer spent days looking for small business owners who could speak to how an increase in the minimum wage might affect their bottom line."
Interesting that they had such a hard time finding a "regular business owner" with that particular POV isn't it? Perhaps that view isn't as widely held as we think it is. They have no trouble finding any number of people who would benefit from an increase in minimum wage, but can't dig out a small business owner who is against it -- has to find one through a rightwing organization with exactly that agenda? And they finally unearth someone and he gets equal time with the much more prevalent view in favor of raising the minimum wage.
So I disagree with the ombud that it was not a biased story. It was a piece that was biased in favor of the National Federation of Independent Business view. Well, at least NPR addressed the problem, which is more than any of the other Olivo-quoters did.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 18 Jul 2012 at 09:22 PM
What's this again? From the article:
'he is neither an official nor a spokesperson of the organization.'
but "Joe is a member of the NFIB Leadership Council in New Jersey."
Now if you had a church who spoke in support of black liberation theology and an NPR reporter interviewed the pastor of the church, then the NPR reporter mentioned he needed a 'person on the street' interview on black liberation issues and the church gave a name to talk to, and this named person sat on the leadership council of the church and never disclosed that connection while talking about the transformation of his neighborhood since the black liberation movement moved in, would you have no problem with the church's or the reporter's conduct, Dan? Really?
Because, again, you guys have been upset lately when an economist did not disclose her political donations. You guys were upset by the vegan who showed up on 350.org and NPR. You can't get testy about minor connections like that and then make like membership on the right wing business group's leadership council is no big deal, not worth disclosure.
And, if you do think it's not worth disclosure, then Dan Korman merits an apology.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 03:22 AM
NPR Ombudsman responds:
I guess that I am not explaining myself very well. I don't think Olivo should be passed off as a "typical" small-business person. He should be labeled. I mention three possible options in my column, two of which tie him to the NFIB. I myself call him their "poster child" in my lead. But I don't think that tying him to the NFIB is the only way to label him. We can disagree on that. I also think that whatever label you pick is a secondary issue to whether you should pick Olivo at all. You shouldn't. I also find no evidence of a rightward tilt in the stories, even with an un-labeled Olivo in them. And this is what is most important to consider and what listeners, correctly, were most worried about. The NFIB is prominently mentioned in both stories. "Typical" people and experts with opposing views are prominently interviewed, too. In sum, focusing on the failure to label Olivo is justified, but is a side show, unless you want to use this issue to beat up on the NFIB. Whether to do that, however, is outside my purview.
#4 Posted by Edward Schumacher-Matos, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 05:39 PM
Too, too funny!
When NPR propped up a liberal activist and misrepresented the press release as a "man on the street" interview...
Trudy Lieberman couldn't even get an email reply from the "professional journalist" who concocted the story. The issue would have blown over had not a commenter here busted NPR. And, surprisingly enough, the NPR ombudsman was nowhere to be found then..
But let a small business owner who happens to belong to a conservative organization have a say.... And just look at what happens!...
Go figure...
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 06:34 PM
Thank you for covering this Mr. Chittum. You have managed to succinctly and eloquently cover many of the points that members of the audience also brought up in comments. The public's representative to NPR has ignored all of the points until you brought the weight of your voice to the topic. Mr. ESM now backtracks from his earlier apologia.
BTW, this is the same ombudsman who feels that funders who are subjects of stories also do not need to be identified.
This is what the Columbia School of Journalism professor says in his comment above:
"I guess that I am not explaining myself very well. ...He should be labeled."
And here's what he said int the original column:
"So, what of how Olivo should be identified? This is a gray area that is a judgment call. Olivo is an active member and a favorite recommendation of the NFIB for interviews, but he is neither an official nor a spokesperson of the organization…Accepting Chapman's description—and I have no reason not to—there is usually no reason for NPR or the news media to cite the NFIB relationship in such cases."
Here are the three choices the professor gives us."Is that reason enough to give him some sort of identifier, say as a "publicly outspoken small businessman"? "A poster child for the NFIB's point of view." Or in reverse, "an outspoken proponent within the NFIB"? One assumes, after all, that the organization reflects the views of a majority of its members. Any of these make sense to me."
That's it. No "He should have been labeled X." No "He should have been labeled." at all.
Here is what the professor claims above:
"I don't think Olivo should be passed off as a "typical" small-business person."
Here is what he said in his interview on the topic on On the Media:
" The issue is, is he representative or not. And I think he IS representative.of a large number if not a majority of small businesses. That's the number one issue: Is he representative, and he is. Is he someone that they like to trot out a lot?: Yes."
Be forewarned. At this point Mr. ESM usually tries to tell us that he meant something different when he said "representative: and when he said "typical"
The professor again tells us:
"But I don't think that tying him to the NFIB is the only way to label him."
The customary straw man trotted out by Mr. ESM. No one claimed that it was the only way to label him. They only wanted for such an important connection to be revealed.
And "We can disagree on that."
No if we purport to practice journalism.
And "I also think that whatever label you pick is a secondary issue to whether you should pick Olivo at all."
Another straw man. As it turns out, Mr. Olivo WAS picked. So, revealing his affiliation should have been part of due diligence.
He goes on "I also find no evidence of a rightward tilt in the stories, even with an un-labeled Olivo in them. And this is what is most important to consider and what listeners, correctly, were most worried about."
Not surprising that Mr. ESM did not fing a rightward tilt. The claim is that the views of those who lobby against the ACA for small businesses is represented more than those who welcome it. This was supported in comments, but Mr. ESM ignores the comments and sticks to his guns. Specifically, Mr. ESM's favorite example that Mr. Stoffer "jumped up and down" when he heard of it is about a husband who is glad to finally be able to affordably cover himself and his wife as a family, not as a small businessperson.
Finally, he admits for the first time "In sum, focusing on the failure to label Olivo is justified"
But he can't leave us without adding another straw man: "..but is a side show, unless you want to use this issue to beat up on the NFIB. Whether to do that, however, is outside my purview."
Nobody in any of the comments tried "to use this to beat up on NFIB". Listeneres
#6 Posted by Nate Bowman, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 07:36 PM
@ Mr. Schumacher-Matos:
Thank you for responding in comments. I am glad you clarified the points in your column. I don't think there is much disagreement here, except that you seemed to miss the fact that Mr. Olivo testified before Congress on behalf of the NFIB.
By the way, how large is the National Federation of Independent Businesses? How many independent businesses do they represent? What is their funding level? Who funds them? Do they produce publications? Data? Journals? What is the nature of their activities? Do they represent a cross-section ob businesses? There are big pieces of information that your reporter has neglected to provide. Perhaps he didn't bother finding out about those details. Or did he?
I am chagrined that you mischaracterize, rather condescendingly, the objections as trying to "beat up" on the NFIB. This is most assuredly not the issue, and a fair reading of the piece and the comments would not lead you to that conclusion.
Here is why I think the piece is biased (again): You are giving equal weight to a prevalent point of view and a very minority, rare point of view from a powerful lobbying organization. That was revealed in the letter from the reporter about how he searched and searched for someone -- a "typical" businessman -- with that particular point of view. He couldn't fine one and so had to resort to a spokesman from NFIB whom he passed off as an ordinary person.
For example, if your reporter gave equal weight in a story to those who believe the earth is round, and equal time to the wealthy, powerful lobbying organization Association of Square Earthers, using both official spox and also undercover operatives of the organization, then you are biasing your story by giving equal weight to the fringe. Get it?
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 08:39 PM
Thank you, Mr. Chittum, for moving Mr. Schumacher-Matos' feet a little closer to the fire.
I remain distressed that Mr. Schumacher-Matos has not been able to obtain any comment from the reporter, Yuki Noguchi. He hasn't even commented on her refusal to account for herself.
It is also troubling to me that NPR News refused to explain itself when invited by NPR's On the Media.
Why was it so hard for NPR to admit that it was wrong to fail to properly identify Mr. Olivo? Why is it so hard to get NPR to explain how this misbehavior occurred?
#8 Posted by Peter Crowley, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 11:09 PM
"Now if you had a church who spoke in support of black liberation theology and an NPR reporter interviewed the pastor of the church, then the NPR reporter mentioned he needed a 'person on the street' interview on black liberation issues and the church gave a name to talk to, and this named person sat on the leadership council of the church and never disclosed that connection while talking about the transformation of his neighborhood since the black liberation movement moved in, would you have no problem with the church's or the reporter's conduct, Dan? Really?"
I would not have a problem with a reporter merely identifying such a person as a "church-goer" or "Christian" and leaving it at that, so long as the person is a member of a private group and not a govt-connected/govt-funded/public one. On the other hand, if the person is speaking on behalf of her organization, then the reporter should not conceal the fact.
If the person's agenda is taxpayer-funded, then her obvious bias is not enough to know who butters her bread; her group's public (etc.) status should be made clear.
"Because, again, you guys have been upset lately when an economist did not disclose her political donations. You guys were upset by the vegan who showed up on 350.org and NPR. You can't get testy about minor connections like that and then make like membership on the right wing business group's leadership council is no big deal, not worth disclosure."
Who are "you guys"? I don't play the partisan fool's games. But I'm with you on principle: consistency. I will consistently rally for the protection of peaceful, private individuals and voluntary groups, and against coercion and govt secrecy.
#9 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 20 Jul 2012 at 03:42 AM