Oy. I should be writing a book right now and not responding to the zillionth linkless attack on the ills of the blogosphere, this time from NPR's outgoing ombuds, Alicia Shepard, who blames the "dark side" and "lousy job" of the blogosphere for NPR's own admittedly unclear (not to mention wrong-headed, in my view) memo forbidding staff from so much as stepping near the Jon Stewart Restoring Sanity rally. She does so without linking to a single blog ... except mine. Sorry, blogosphere, I guess I've single-handedly lowered your standards.
Shepard acknowledges that management's memo failed to say that NPR would cover the rally and then she gets all high and haughty that people wondered whether it would. That fails a pretty basic test of journalism: does the story answer the obvious questions? And if it doesn't, who's to blame for confusion, pray tell?
She includes in her litany of blog dastardliness my argument that NPR is forbidding journalistic curiosity. She doesn't attribute or link to that opinion, nor to any of the other probably equally out-of-context smears she alleges. In our low standards of the blogosphere, we think that's a sin for it robs the reader of the chance to judge for herself.
Shepard doesn't really address the many other quite legitimate questions NPR's Papal bull also raises in the fetid mind of the blogosphere. The fact that NPR felt obliged to put Stewart's rally off limits to its staff but didn't feel it necessary to issue such an order for Glenn Beck's rally does obviously raise the presumption that NPR staffers would be interested in the former and not the later -- ergo, NPR staffers are liberally inclined. (I have no problem with that, only that it is masked under NPR's Shroud of Turin Objectivity.) Shepard merely repeats and accepts the company line without real discussion of it. She doesn't deal with the journalistic questions I raised, only repeats the cant of freshman journalism seminars about objectivity:
But at the end of the day, they have to be professional - and that means avoiding actions that create the perception that they are taking sides in political controversies, including elections.
If you really mean that, then you should follow Washington Post ex-editor Leonard Downie's vow of voting chastity and order that staff may not cast ballots. For that is taking sides. Except it's done in private. So it doesn't create perceptions. That, then, is what this entire episode is really about: perceptions, the PR in NPR.
"She sees her job as explaining NPR to listeners, and listeners to NPR," says Shepard's network bio. I'd say she does the former and not the latter. Shepard's term is about to end (note my restraint, please, in making further comment on that event). NPR: I'll repeat: Love ya. But please, please this time give the public a representative who sees it as her job to represent the public, not management and the Priesthood of The Way It Has Always Been Done, Amen.
Follow Jeff Jarvis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffjarvis
Lisa Solod Warren: What the Rally for Sanity and Obama Have in Common and It's Not Politics
Interestingly, this was smack in the middle of one of their pledge drives. Did they really think the people who believe whatever Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity tell them were going to contribute? In the context of their recent actions, those self-congratulatory "pledge breaks" were insulting.
Apparently most American journalists believe the they can never get in trouble for leaning to the right, so they bend over backwards to keep in that center-right niche most of the time, maybe just to stay clear of the Hippie/Communist taint.
The fact that Mara Liasson is still an NPR commentator, even though she works for Fox News, gives a pretty good idea of how safe NPR feels when clinging to the right.
The new media ethic:
You can be a toady or a phony but you can't be yourself. Some important people might think you are biased or unethical.
Bob Edwards??, Scott Simon?? Daniel Schorr?? Hello?? Anyone?? Hello??
*sigh*
I stopped contributing and listening when you became another mouthpiece for the ultra-conservatives.
I am not going to pay to listen to economic "experts" from CATO, AEI and Heritage and other conservative and ultraconservative think tanks.
They already have FAUX news for their lies.
The other day someone visiting me turned your show on and was treated to a virtual write of of the Democratic Party in the November 2 elections.
Time for you to go.
You are right. Especially if it is to produce the zillionth pointless attack of the MSM.
Yeah.
Worst. Ombudsman. Ever.
The HP post on that memo was totally irresponsible and exceedingly sensationalistic. If you read the memo it does strongly imply that NPR will be covering the rally, something many of us pointed out in the comments section. In fact I would go so far as to claim that with the clear implication in the memo, it would be difficult to interpret the memo any other way, unless you have a sensationalistic axe to grind. Finally, if the blogger in question finds the memo "unclear", shouldn't they work to verify their interpretation of the "unclear" memo? Isn't that what journalist types are supposed to do? I know Faux would never call anyone to verify a story but isn't that why they are not good?
HP's ridiculous headline and poor reporting is the real story.
THe US is about a 'blame game' it is always someone elses fault!
There is no way that NPR can enforce what their employees do in their off time. if they try it will make a great test case. Non story.