Adam Davidson
Even if you’re not an expert in media ethics, you’d probably agree that a show about finance and business exclusively sponsored by one giant bank has an obvious conflict. The fact that the show is on public radio might make such an arrangement all the more curious. And the fact that the host of the show also makes money giving speeches to the financial institutions he covers…. Well, now, that’s not how things are supposed to work.
But that’s precisely how things work for Adam Davidson, the host of NPR‘s Planet Money. His program’s exclusive underwriter is Ally Bank, a subsidiary of the company formerly known as GMAC, which was a major player in the mortgage fraud scandals. Davidson’s ethical problems have been documented by a journalistic group called the SHAME Project, which wondered how NPR squares these conflicts with its own ethical standards. NPR eventually issued a statement (New York Observer, 8/9/12) saying that Davidson’s speaking gigs are discussed with his editors.
The thing about ethics policies is that they’re supposed to be, at the very least, consistent. Which is why it might make sense to compare the Davidson case to that of journalist Lisa Simeone. After discovering that she participated in some Occupy DC activism, she was removed as the host of the public radio show Soundprint. NPR says it had nothing to do with that decision; the show said it was applying the NPR ethics code.
The sign that got Caitlin Curran fired from public radio.
Simeone also hosted a public radio opera program; the station that produced it decided that her political activities would not inhibit her ability to impartially tell listeners what music they were about to hear. NPR then promptly stopped distributing the program.
Or consider freelance producer Caitlin Curran, who lost a job at station WNYC and the Public Radio International show The Takeaway after she was photographed holding up a sign denouncing Wall Street mortgage shenanigans.
So protesting Wall Street is definitely not OK. But getting big bucks for giving speeches to the bankers you cover on a show paid for by a big bank—well, that’s apparently just fine in big-time public radio.
The NPR ombud’s website is here.
UPDATE: Corrected the spelling of Curran’s name.
The Simeone case is patently horseshit, but Currin’s firing raises an important question:
What precisely is “bias”?
Why does her protesting against an acknowledged unethical, illegal and harmful act by banksters preclude her from “objectively” covering the issue?
If a journalist professes her abhorrence of, say, rape, does that mean she won’t be allowed to report on such a case? Beyond that, should she be fired for expressing her views?
Peter, I’d be interested in your, and others’, take on the question.
No double-standards. Disclosure above all.
I appreciate objectivity and I like to know the facts surrounding the opinion and/or analysis I’m getting. Most of all I want the sources clearly indicated and mapped so I can verify/confirm them for myself, including any additionally related sources that may have been omitted, especially where they were not considered relative or complementary to the desired audience reaction. Because objectivity is probably the hardest goal to achieve.
Disclosure should also be broad enough in terms of the media platform; public vs private media so that public and private contributors, donors and advertisers know what they are getting for their dollars and the audience knows whose dollars they are getting the benefit of, or not.
Of course with all that awareness upfront, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could believe that Davidson could be anything close to objective, making his broadcast more of an infomercial than anything resembling news, opinion or analysis. And therefore rather useless and unnecessary.
You would also think that NPR would be at least a little embarrassed by that notion.
Clearly another shill for the banksters. NPR is owned by Wall St.
And so what does everyone here think of the fact that ProPublica is funded by the Sandlers, who INVENTED the Adjustible Rate Mortgage which was one of the most destructive weapons in the subprime crisis? Oh, and the Pulitzer-winning Magnetar fund conveniently ignored the huge role that ARMs played in initiating the crisis. In short, the Magnetar story was BS. It was just smart traders calling out ARM-filled securities as worthless. How convenient for ProPublica’s funders!
Is there anyone out there who won’t sell their souls to the devil for a few bucks? We are hypothetically a “religious” country–wouldn’t that mean a moral, ethical country–guess not.
When I first heard an NPR person say “NPR has no corporate sponsors to pander to, only our listeners” (paraphrased) my BS meter went of the gauge. When Caitlin Currin was fired for telling the absolute truth my suspicions were verified. NPR has lost it’s way and corruption wins another soul.
FAIR should also consider NPR and its impact on the arts. For example it is the largest media source that gives all good reviews to all music and books reviewed. US magazine is tougher journalism when it comes to music and book reviews. Then too it has an ongoing problem of sponsor ads on the same page as articles about those musicians, refusal to talk about book pricing scandal, blocking any discussion of revenue sharing deals (payola) and more.
NPR is Fox News for people who can read.
Well when Bill Clinton got out of the white house he was about 20 million in the hole.Al Gore about 10 million ahead.Within 8 years Bill was worth 100 million plus.Mostly for giving speeches.Now if you dug into conflict of interests ,and ties to white house love fests with certain interests that paid off after the fact,your eyes would shoot blood.
Al Gore was worth hundreds of millions 8 years later.Obama will soon be lining his pockets to the tune of a hundred mil I am sure.You call it Bias, i call it conflicts.
. . . and that has absolutely nothing to do with the story above. Jesus! Unintelligible gibberish, as usual.
Off top troll is off topic…..
I have urged everyone I know who contributes to NPR to stop. I can’t even listen to that station anymore without wanting to vomit. Everything and everyone (Click and Clack excluded) I hear on there sound so smug and self righteous. I just want to give them the finger and blow a great big raspberry in their faces. What is happening to this country???
It seems that the whole nation is in the throws of one great big ethical crisis and all the elites are complicit so nobody wants to talk or do anything about it…
The point is my pointy headed little drolls- is that the LEADERS on your side play this game to its fullest rewards.Bitching about journalists far down the food chain doing it is actually funny.
Joel Roache says:
“NPR is Fox News for people who can read.’
Bravo! So true.
And PBS is TV for upper-class right-wingers who want to pretend they’re liberal!
ddb9000
I gotta ask….What is your definition of an “upper class right winger”.
Michael E, you really are a partisan in the worst sense. You seem to get a kick out of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Even in an open and shut case like this, you still found a way to disagree (by changing the subject). Your thinking probably goes like this: “Here’s a bunch of liberals. Liberals are so wrong. I have to constantly tell liberals how wrong they are.” And if you come across an instance where they just may have a point, well then you have to tell them how wrong they are about something else. Maybe you should try taking off your partisan hat once in a while. You might learn something new.
Isn’t it true that NPR dropped everything but the acronym? So technically they aren’t “public” anymore, despite the fact that their brand name, behavior and complete silence on the subject leads others to construe them that way. They should be forced to make a complete name change, “NPR” is deceptive. Here’s another person agreeing that their ethics practices are so obviously manipulated as to be embarrassing, and that the problem presents itself in their reporting on a daily basis.
See EFK i see it exactly the opposite.I think you on the left see everything through the corporate boogie man colored glassed.For the most part I do not believe in “him”.So when your side spits out the term corporate,and all of you nod in unison as if that term is understood as the curse word it is…….I gotta speak up for the other side of the coin that is saying ,what are they on about now?
I know. What are they on about now? “The Left”. Really! Corporate media indeed. Just because – what is it now? – three giant conglomerates own every media outlet in the country doesn’t mean you are not getting your daily dose of fair and balanced news. “The Left”. Please. Just lie back and think of England.
Does one have to file a “public records request” to discover just how many corporate sponsors NPR has along with how much they donate per corporation?
I’ve tried everything to have revealed this info; all for not.