Candid CAMERA
Joel Kaplan
November 9, 2011
For the past several years, CAMERA — the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America — has repeatedly complained about "anti-Israel bias in (NPR) reporting of Arab-Israeli news." CAMERA has filed numerous complaints both with NPR and with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The central theme of those complaints is that the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 requires CPB to facilitate programming "with strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." The anti-Israel bias shows how NPR has failed to abide by the law, CAMERA alleges.
CPB originally reacted to many of these complaints of bias by appointing two ombudsmen, with the idea that one of the ombudsmen would be right-leaning and the other would be left-leaning. Given that the role of an ombudsman is to be neither left- nor right-leaning but rather, a neutral representative of the viewer and listener, this did not work out. CPB also commissioned a series of white papers conducted by journalism experts on the issue of objectivity and balance.
Following those white papers, CPB then revised its charter for the appointment of one independent ombudsman; advertised the position; and appointed me last June to become the single ombudsman designed to investigate complaints about bias by public media, with the understanding that NPR and PBS each have their own ombudsmen to investigate complaints in their specific areas.
However, last month Eric Rozenman, Washington Director of CAMERA, wrote to CPB Chair Bruce Ramer to say that the appointment of an ombudsman is not sufficient.
"The ombudsman is an outside contractor authorized to act on his or her own discretion and not given specific guidelines for substantive reviews of substantive complaints," Mr. Rozenman wrote. "Therefore, CAMERA must point out that the office—regardless of the diligence its occupant displays—does not enable CPB to finally begin meeting its legal requirement to ensure 'strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.'"
Mr. Rozenman goes on to say that seven years ago CAMERA first recommended that the CPB board appoint a staff member or members to conduct those reviews according to specified, traditional journalism standards and goes on to repeat that request.
I contacted Mr. Rozenman via email in hopes that he would elaborate on this criticism as well as to give him a chance to offer specific complaints of bias, particularly given that NPR has its own ombudsman. In fact, the previous three NPR ombudsmen — Alicia Shepard, Jeffrey Dvorkin and Bill Marimow, have all addressed complaints by CAMERA during their tenure. In previous interviews with them, as well as PBS ombudsman Michael Getler and former CPB ombudsman Ken Bode, I found unanimous exasperation with groups like CAMERA and FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) for what they see as constant criticisms of lack of balance. While sometimes the complaints are legitimate, more often than not these groups are not being genuine critics interested in a dialogue but instead, act like pressure groups trying to get NPR to adopt their specific language to describe the struggles in the Middle East. "The pressure on NPR from these groups can constitute a form of journalistic McCarthyism," wrote Mr. Dvorkin in one of his columns.
Mr. Rozenman said he sent Edward Schumacher-Matos, who began his term as NPR's latest ombudsman June 1, a congratulatory letter and packet of CAMERA material on the network's Arab-Israeli coverage. Mr. Schumacher-Matos is not aware that CAMERA has filed a complaint during his tenure.
In his follow-up response to me, Mr. Rozenman had this to say:
"Our view is that the ombudsman, an independent contractor in an advisory role with wide discretion about what complaints to consider and by what guidelines, cannot relieve the corporation of its congressionally-mandated obligation. We welcomed creation of the ombudsman as a specific address for complaints about publicly-funded programming that appeared to violate the objectivity and balance statute — something CPB had lacked — but have never seen it as the necessary enforcement mechanism. Our own experience with filing a complaint regarding a specific National Public Radio segment of Arab-Israeli coverage tended to confirm our concerns about the office from a structural point. This was apart from our disappointment with the substance, or lack of it, in the ombudsman's review.
"Here is a link to a criticism of a two-part NPR series this summer, posted at our Web site, www.camera.org:
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/07/npr_counterterrorism_series_om.html.
"Here's a link to criticism of a Diane Rehm program from this spring:
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/04/unbalanced_npr_panel_obfuscate.html.
"It illustrates a common, chronic problem with NPR's news and commentary on Arab-Israeli matters - 'stacking the deck.'
"And from last winter, an example of 'stacking the deck' in news coverage, not commentary:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=1981.
"The volume of NPR violations of the objectivity and balance standard ebbs and flows, but the trend has been constant for several decades, as the items archived on our Web site demonstrate."
I am happy to give Mr. Rozenman and CAMERA the opportunity to make their case and let the reader determine how valid their critiques are, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that not only has NPR hired its own ombudsman to look at these types of complaints, the public broadcaster has also hired an additional monitor just to examine the coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
That monitor is John Felton, whom NPR pays to independently conduct quarterly reviews of NPR's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Felton, a former foreign editor for NPR as well as Congressional Quarterly, has covered international affairs and U.S. foreign policy for more than 30 years. His quarterly reports can be found here:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/statements/
Mr. Felton, who has been writing the quarterly reports on NPR's Middle Eastern coverage since 2003, says he is not the appropriate person to address CAMERA's criticism's of NPR since he is not involved in the network's editorial decision-making.
However, he is in a position to discuss the monthly reports he authors:
"Since 2008, the reports have been posted on the NPR web site under my name, with an explicit agreement that NPR will not change anything of substance without my approval. The ombudsman's office copy edits the reports, but NPR has not attempted to change anything of substance. Further, I have no knowledge of what happens to my reports internally at NPR. I have been told that senior editorial managers receive them, but to maintain my independence I have stayed clear of any internal discussions of this issue.
"I do stand by my reports, including my general finding that NPR's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has tended to be accurate, fair and balanced, and has met NPR's journalistic standards.
"Over the years, however, I have faulted NPR for many specific failings, most of them involving individual stories or interviews that failed the fairness-balance test or that failed to give the audience enough information to understand the issue at hand. Also, I have routinely criticized NPR for failing to tell listeners enough about the people quoted on air and for not presenting a diverse range of viewpoints from both sides.
"Could NPR do a better job of covering this issue? Absolutely it could, and my reports have noted numerous cases in which I think NPR could and should have given its audience better or more extensive coverage.
"One specific note: Many of CAMERA's complaints over the years (and several of those cited in the e-mails to you) have concerned shows that are distributed by but not produced by NPR, or that are aired on public radio stations affiliated with NPR, notably The Diane Rehm Show and Tom Ashbrook's On Point.
"I review the work only of NPR-produced shows (Morning Edition, Tell Me More, Talk of the Nation, and All Things Considered), and (since last year) the NPR web site. I am fully aware that listeners tend not to make distinctions between what is an NPR product and what isn't — but my mandate is to review only the work for which NPR is fully responsible.
"Also, I review only those stories and interviews that directly concern or touch on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (plus related events in Lebanon). Among other things, this means that I have not reviewed NPR's coverage this year of the so-called Arab Spring except those cases relating to Israel and/or the Palestinians; one for example is the talk in Egypt about the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
"As for CAMERA and its complaints about NPR and the news media generally, I will limit myself to noting what you undoubtedly already know: CAMERA is an aggressive pressure group with a very specific agenda and definitely is not a genuinely disinterested center for media analysis."
I agree that CAMERA does itself a disservice by acting as a pressure group rather than an honest media critic. I also disagree with CAMERA on a specific journalistic point: CAMERA is of the belief that every single story that involves the Middle East should be objective and balanced. So if an NPR correspondent in Gaza is reporting a story about a family that was killed because of a bombing of their house, CAMERA would expect that same story to discuss an atrocity in Israel. Not only is that not possible, it is not good journalism. What is possible is that an NPR correspondent in Tel Aviv could report on what happened there. That report might come a day later or a week later, but over time, the coverage would be objective and balanced.
Mr. Rozenman rejects that position.
"I trust that, as CPB ombudsman, you will reconsider the view you presented to the corporation board last year in discussion of the White Papers regarding objectivity and balance best practices," Mr. Rozenman says. "That view was that NPR's Arab-Israeli coverage is balanced over time. CAMERA believes that a) we have shown repeatedly this is not the case and b) 'balance over time' would not, even if it existed, meet the legal requirement that each program or series of programs meet the standard of strict adherence to objectivity and balance."
I believe that Mr. Rozenman is wrong. It is not standard journalism. If NPR were to profile Herman Cain, the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, one would not demand that they also profile the remaining candidates at that same time and on that program. What one would expect is that — over time — NPR would also profile the remaining candidates.
And that is where the beauty of digital media comes in. Now NPR can post its profile of Mr. Cain as well as all the other candidates as they occur.
Likewise, NPR can post its report from its correspondent in Gaza just as easily as it posts its report from its Tel Aviv reporter and the listener/reader can go to NPR's website and listen to all the reports at one sitting — as well as read Mr. Felton's quarterly reports.
Mr. Rozenman has submitted a follow-up report for me that details what CAMERA sees as bias in the coverage of Israel and its Arab neighbors. His follow-up report can be downloaded here as a PDF.
There is no question that coverage of such a controversial area as the Middle East leads to high emotions on both sides. As I prepared this report, I ran across a blog post by Stephen Lendman, a talk-show host on the Progressive Radio Network.
Mr. Lendman wrote, "Overall, NPR represents dominant state and monied interests like commercial media. Voices aired are conservative, pro-business, pro-war, pro-Israel and anti-populist."
It is for this reason that NPR has its own ombudsman to dig through the complaints coming from all sides. And NPR should also be credited with hiring someone of the caliber of John Felton to focus specifically on the coverage of Israel and the Palestinians.
