Now will NPR call it a lie?

A weary and frustrated audience is demanding that NPR be less measured [View this email online]( [NPR Public Editor by Poynter's Kelly McBride]( As we ride the roller coaster into the presidential election, a vocal group of NPR listeners and readers want NPR to stop treating absurd political rhetoric and behavior as if it were normal. When audience members express their frustrations on this topic, they often challenge the story frames NPR journalists choose. The frame is the question the story aims to answer, or the journalistic purpose for the reporting. In recent weeks, we’ve received several challenges to the way stories are framed, and we will address three in this newsletter. Does a story that explores the legality of armed citizen militias actually grant them legitimacy, just by asking the question? When we ask Bob Woodward why he waited so long to reveal what President Donald Trump was saying in private about the pandemic, does it miss the fact that Trump was clearly lying? Does listening to voters who are decidedly against Trump, yet so disappointed by Joe Biden that they may not vote for him or vote at all, disregard the larger crises of voter apathy or disenfranchisement? These are the signs of a weary and frustrated audience. Of course, it’s not just the NPR audience asking these questions. James Fallows captured this sentiment in an essay this week for The Atlantic, titled [The Media Learned Nothing]( from 2016. Fallows argues that as journalists cover politics, their commitment to measured observations and balanced criticism is naive, given the level of egregious disinformation and distraction coming disproportionately from one side. When the journalism community answers these questions, we generally divide into two camps. The first group is right there with Fallows and the vocal critics writing to the Public Editor. They believe that politics has fundamentally and permanently changed, and that journalism needs to respond. The second group believes that our current experience is particular to the Trump presidency, that American politics will eventually regain equilibrium, and that journalism’s attachment to neutrality should remain consistent in order to remain effective over the long run. Where do I stand? I’ve been a journalist for three decades, and a close observer of and adviser on journalism standards and ethics for most of that time. I know for certain that our ethical standards are evolving. We in journalism lose credibility, reach and opportunity when we resist change. The central question I see facing NPR and most other newsrooms isn’t whether it will change how it covers politics and social tension, but how. That’s the frame that I bring to my work as the Public Editor. From the Inbox Here are a few quotes from the Public Editor's inbox that resonated with us. You can share your questions and concerns with us through the [NPR Contact page](. Do Woodward’s revelations mean the president lied? Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images Christopher Mascis writes: Your lead story is about whether or not Woodward should have disclosed what he knew earlier. It’s not that the President lied about a pandemic. This strange sense of news priorities is why Donald Trump is President and why he’s still getting away with chaos. It would be nice if you had a better sense of what the important story is. The interview with BW was, as expected, Woodward effectively parrying the ineffective questions. Your inside the beltway focus is hurting the country. Bob Woodward’s taped conversations with President Trump certainly give journalists the evidence they need to declare that Trump lied, at least when he was telling the public what he knew about the coronavirus. Many other listeners wanted to hear this definitive headline among NPR’s coverage. Instead, NPR opted for context and letting the audience reach their own conclusions. That decision wasn’t prompted by a Beltway-insider viewpoint. Instead, it is NPR’s attachment to an incremental and measured approach to political revelations as well as an institutional aversion to breathless proclamations. Across all of NPR, Trump’s pandemic failures and false statements have been documented. It’s critical to view the Woodward revelations in this context. Consider this: - Since April, NPR has maintained a [running graphic]( documenting the president’s statements in light of other pandemic developments. The significant declarations Trump made on Woodward’s tapes have been added to this timeline. - Twice White House Correspondent Tamara Keith provided [context]( and [analysis]( in the days after the Washington Post published its first [story](. - Ron Elving did a [book review](. - [NPR Politics Podcast]( devoted significant time to the revelations. - All Things Considered host Mary Louise Kelly’s interview with Woodward ran in two parts, over 15 minutes. Here’s [part one]( and [part two](. “If I’d been questioning the President, I’d have pushed him hard on what he knew and when,” Kelly said in an email to us. “But this was an interview with Bob Woodward, who has himself come under a firestorm of criticism, including from [colleagues at the Wash Post]( over whether he put his book above the public’s right to know — and whether that cost American lives. It’s not an inside the Beltway question.” Kelly said Trump has an open invitation to come on NPR. She added that she has personally been engaged in interviews with Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as well as what she calls a [“deep dive on how wrong the messaging from the top was.”]( To be clear, it would be accurate and journalistically justified to say “the president lied” when he spoke to the American public about the growing threat of the coronavirus. Woodward’s tapes provide that evidence. To the staff inside NPR working most closely on these stories, the question seems superfluous, because all along NPR has been documenting that the president was ignoring and distorting science, floating bizarre theories and clearly misleading the public. But to members of the audience wondering when NPR will state the obvious out loud, that the president lied, it is frustrating to keep waiting. — Kelly McBride Should we stop calling them militias? C. Martin writes: [The story]( was about the violence in Portland, Ore. and Kenosha, Wisc.. I object to the careless use of words & terms to describe various groups involved. These words have associations that can imply validation or a lack of validity. I was very disturbed to hear Michel Martin validate the right-wing and white-supremacist armed mobs coming into those cities by calling them 'militia'. Militia implies a validation not present. Militia gives the mobs a cachet and constitutional reference they do not deserve. I don't think it's valid even if they call themselves that. This interview with a law professor was about the very question you are asking: Are citizen militias legal? While the first definition in most dictionaries of the word “militia” is of a force organized and sanctioned by the government, the second definition is “a body of citizens organized for military service.” The definition of a militia does not hang on who does the organizing. Lane Crothers, a political science professor at Illinois State University, told us in an interview that when defining any political movement, he looks at two things: how the group defines itself, and what terms are common enough that people understand them. Some of the armed groups who showed up in Kenosha and Portland identified themselves as militias. Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old shooter in Kenosha, intended to [join]( a local militia. Crothers agreed that groups like this often brand themselves this way to paint their actions as patriotism, even though many groups lack legal status or even ideology that is solidly rooted in the Constitution. NPR has explored the tension between how these groups define themselves and how they are defined by the law. [This story]( from National Security Correspondent Hannah Allam is a primer on how experts define and study these paramilitary groups. Does that mean that the term militia stands, without additional context? In most cases, no. By describing how the group is organized, what its relationship is to law enforcement and whether its actions are legal, journalists add the proper context to stories that use the term “militia.” Doing so, Crothers said, is critical to allowing the public to understand who the groups really are, no matter what they call themselves. “Without that context — the powers that be are very good at framing things to their advantage,” he said. “And when you let them, that serves the interests of the powerful and not the interests of the people.” NPR does use “militia” frequently. In July and August, 48 NPR digital and audio stories contained the term. But in the case of this story, Martin and her guest contextualize the term “militia” by noting that they were self-appointed, untrained and unaccountable, and by describing their backgrounds. Journalist Bill Morlin, who has reported on extremist groups for several decades, said it would be misleading to describe these paramilitary forces as simply “men with guns.” The term “militia” describes an organized force, often dressed in military-style clothing and carrying military-grade weapons, he said. “If [people] at a protest are in fact members, or hanging out with, or a part of a militia group, it's perfectly fair and accurate to use the word militia,” he said. “I don't think there should be any hesitancy.” Crothers noted a good maxim for journalists to remember when reporting on armed groups — and in all their reporting. “It may be the fifteenth time you've said it in the article, but it may be the first time somebody else read it,” he said. — Meredith Roaten Undecided voters irk this listener Martin Sensiper writes: I am a long-time public radio supporter/listener. I'm liberal, I like hearing lots of opinions. BUT, I just listened to Mary Louise Kelly [interview several "undecided" voters]( ending with a young (black?) woman who stated (and I maybe missed something but...) "Maybe we should go to the streets. The ONLY people doing any work are young black queer activist!!" Like I said, a variety of opinions is great but why go for the weird? That was just silly and no one learned anything about how someone could be undecided at this moment in time. Thanks for listening. I just had to get that off my chest. All Things Considered would be pretty boring if no one ever disagreed with the guests interviewed on the show, Kelly said in an interview. “Part of what we're doing is trying to get people with views all over the map and put them out there, and if sometimes that makes you mad to listen to because you disagree so strongly with them, that's part of the process,” she said. The goal of getting these three voters of color together was to explore why some voters have doubts about Joe Biden, Kelly said. These voters are not representative of any group, instead, Kelly said, her purpose was to elevate the discussion some people are having right now. The trend of apathetic Joe Biden supporters didn’t come out of nowhere. A July Associated Press poll [showed]( that Biden supporters surveyed were less excited about voting for him than the Trump supporters. These episodes of [Code Switch]( and [It’s Been a Minute with Sam Sanders]( explore the strain within the Democratic Party. Kelly tries to get to the root of these voters’ beliefs on behalf of her audience in this interview. She doesn’t allow them to broadcast their views entirely unchallenged, asking follow-up questions about the Black Lives Matter movement and allowing one guest to put her own questions to the other guests. Understanding why voters are unenthusiastic or cautious gives listeners a snapshot of what could happen in November. Perhaps the most refreshing exchange in this segment comes when one of the voters gently chastises the others, saying, “I think it's crucial for us to vote, especially if we're in a battleground state — Pennsylvania — that we vote for Biden. And I honestly believe that if Trump wins, our democracy will fail. Fascism will be the way of life.” NPR gives a platform to many politicians and powerful people who are all-in for Biden or Trump. Hearing from these voters may help us clarify our own views, or at the very least, understand those with different views. — Meredith Roaten Spotlight on The Public Editor spends a lot of time examining moments where NPR fell short. Yet we also learn a lot about NPR by looking at work that we find to be compelling and excellent journalism. Here we share a line or two about the pieces where NPR shines. Visualizing nuclear ghost towns Claire Harbage/NPR NPR VISUALS [The Ghost Towns Behind The Gates]( The region surrounding the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima, Japan, looks like a science fiction novel come to life. Shuttered businesses and abandoned houses fill the communities destroyed by the radioactive fallout of a tsunami nearly a decade ago. Earlier this year, NPR sent reporter Kat Lonsdorf and photographer Claire Harbage to [document]( how one town tries to reopen and get a fresh start. This beautifully designed audio and [visual project]( draws a timeline of the natural disaster and the recovery process. Graphs, pictures and maps are carefully interwoven between stories from the region’s residents who long to go home. The radio stories that ran are slices of life, and just as captivating. A karaoke bar brings [night noises]( back to the former ghost town of Namie, Japan (listen for a joyful rendition of ABBA’s “Dancing Queen”). Monkeys [took over]( homes as humans disappeared in the area. The popularity of renewable energy [took off]( in Fukushima, but the rest of Japan is getting left behind. This in-depth international reporting was sponsored by the [John Alexander Project]( which supports NPR foreign reporting in undercovered parts of the world. [John Alexander]( was a talented young journalist who died on assignment in China. It’s a testament to the effort NPR puts into bringing stories from around the world home. — Meredith Roaten Taking care of our own Malaka Gharib/NPR MORNING EDITION [How To Care For Older People In The Pandemic (And A Printable Guide!)]( This week, I want to shout out Morning Edition for a story on [how to care for older people in the pandemic](. The piece features Malaka Gharib, deputy editor and digital strategist on Goats and Soda (NPR's global health and development team), who has worried about her 92-year-old grandmother, Felisa Mercene. Since March, Mercene has been isolated from most of her family in Southern California after having to leave home — and her beloved garden — to live with one of Gharib’s uncles. Meanwhile, Gharib was thousands of miles away in Washington, D.C., and kept wondering if her Filipino American immigrant grandmother, who she calls “Nanay” (Tagalog for “mother”), was happy, lonely, safe? Gharib turned to experts, who helped walk her through the many questions we should really be asking the older people in our lives. Some of the takeaways: Ask them what they want, and dig deep to find out how they’re really feeling. The online version of the story has a bonus question and, to my delight, a printable guide with some of the experts’ advice. Gharib illustrated the colorful guide, which features her bespectacled Nanay in different scenarios. Many of us are stressed about the physical and emotional well-being of the older people in our lives, and maybe some of us have wondered how we can be a better advocate for them. In eight colorful pages, Gharib gives us a great head start. — Amaris Castillo Behind the Scenes This is how the news gets made. We want your ideas for how we can do it better. Two podcasts about big ideas pivot for the pandemic By Meredith Roaten J.C. Howard pulls double duty as assistant producer for How I Built This and TED Radio Hour, and the pandemic made his workload to get even bigger. Both shows prioritize big, in-depth ideas over more timely news. But with a pandemic bringing uncertainty about the future, both have shifted gears, he said. How I Built This created a new series, and a new host started at TED Radio Hour in the last six months. Howard said the teams for both shows have adapted, though they still miss collaborating in person. Here’s how he produces the two shows from his home in Washington, D.C. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. J.C. Howard works from his home in Washington, D.C. What’s the biggest challenge for you adjusting to remote work? I find myself not able to dillydally, so to speak, as much, and I guess it's both a good and a bad thing. In the before times, I would show up to work and look around at my desk or talk to someone in the office or something like that. But now it's pretty much I walk the five yards from my bed to my desk and sit down and kind of start working. My walk to the office used to be kind of a portal for getting into and out of the headspace of being at work. I would kind psych myself up. OK, here are the things I have to get done today, My editor is going to be asking me questions about this, or executive producers are going to want me to master that. And I'm going to have to cut this or that interview that I've been thinking about on the way to work, whereas now I just don't have that commute anymore to get into that space. What challenges has your team faced while trying to create these two shows during a pandemic? The biggest challenge is kind of a social challenge, because our teams are very close-knit. We have a kind of one-big-happy-family quality. But we were uniquely positioned to handle a lot of these technical issues. Because both of our hosts are remote, Guy Raz in the Bay Area and Manoush Zomorodi in New York, we already had Slack channels set up that we would use to communicate with them, and we already had some of that technical stuff kind of worked out, of course, there were a few bumps, with all of us having to take our laptops out, and make sure that we know how to get audio into and out of Newflex [NPR’s newsroom management system] and how to get projects into and out of Newsflex. Those challenges did exist, but I would say the biggest challenge really was like the social distance How has the pandemic changed your approach to HIBT? It's a show about massive companies and the failures they've encountered on the road to success. It usually begins with, and now the company is worth X million dollars or sold for a billion dollars, or something like that. So the question we were asking is, how do you keep telling those stories in a moment where economic growth is not the story. But we realized that people, perhaps maybe even now more than ever, people need these stories of success and to know that this economic moment is just that. It is a moment. Right now, it's all a roller coaster. So one thing our team and the events team did is, we introduced the How I Built Resilience series, a Facebook Live kind of event that happens twice weekly. We talked to previous guests, some of whom have businesses that are not going to be booming. We've told your story about hope, but how are you going to deal with this moment? How are you going to stay afloat? To TED Radio Hour? I think we're starting to hit a stride, but to start off it was rough, because literally the first week with our new host, Manoush Zomorodi, was the week that NPR went remote. It's a show that's not explicitly about the moment. This is TED Radio. It's about big ideas and big thinkers, who are trying to help us forge ahead and forge a path to the future. The question becomes, how do we talk about these ideas and talk about the future when there's a huge lack of clarity about the present? We still are having conversations about how we respond to this moment, but staying true to the show, talking about big ideas that rise above the moment. So for example, my colleagues Christina Cala and Maria Paz Gutierrez worked to [produce an episode with Clint Smith]( who is a great speaker and writer and he talks about race. Right after George Floyd and in the wake of Breanna Taylor, we talked to him. And it was a moment where we realized that there was some possibility to talk about all of it — big ideas that are responsive to the moment. What are the episodes that you are most proud of for each show? For TED, most episodes have four or five segments usually, and each producer produces one of those segments. So for the TED Radio Hour we recently produced a show about our relationship with water, and I [produced a segment with a climate activist and lawyer who lives on the Gulf Coas](. She lost her family home during Katrina, and she's one of the climate activists trying to figure out how to get native and poor folks in the Gulf and all over the country to get involved in the climate movement, and how to prepare for the climate migration we're going to see across the country, across the world, as climate change worsens.The fact that she lived in the Gulf Coast and she really embodies her heritage, it enabled me to do some really fun and cool sound design with the kind of stories that she was telling. She is a great speaker and a powerful speaker, so that was something that I enjoyed doing. For How I Built This, I produced an episode with [Jo Malone, a perfume brand](. Her story was just incredible. It sounded like it's like something out of a kind of a magic realism novel. It doesn't seem real. Her father was a magician and her mother worked for this mysterious countess in Britain. There were all kinds of crazy twists and turns in her story. And it was one of the first episodes that we did as a three-part episode, this epic tale of this woman who had a hell of a journey. How do you de-stress during this time? I've been doing two things. One of them is to try to, as much as possible — I'll admit that it's only sometimes effective — is to mimic or emulate my old commute. When I'm finished with work, I leave the house and walk around the block at least once or twice to mimic that feeling of “OK, I'm done with work, I'm leaving work and I'm like walking around and I’m coming home.” Once the weather starts to get really bad, that's a time where I'll probably lean into the second thing that I'm doing, which is to watch (or re-watch) some of my favorite television programs. I feel kind of silly saying it now, but I finished my third watch of Game of Thrones. I'm also currently rewatching the medical drama House, which is one of my favorite shows from about 10 years ago. And in some ways, it holds up. In some ways, it doesn't. I can't go anywhere, but I’ve got to turn off my brain somehow. I can't go hang out with friends or anything like that, so the closest I have to friends is these old friends, these old characters that I’ve spent a lot of time with. The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Researchers Amaris Castillo and Meredith Roaten make this newsletter possible. We are still reading all of your messages on [Facebook]( [Twitter]( and [from our inbox](. As always, keep them coming. Kelly McBride NPR Public Editor Chair, [Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute]( Meredith Roaten, National Public Radio Kelly McBride, Public Editor Amaris Castillo, Poynter Institute The Public Editor stands as a source of independent accountability. Created by NPR's board of directors, the Public Editor serves as a bridge between the newsroom and the audience, striving to both listen to the audience's concerns and explain the newsroom's work and ambitions. The office ensures NPR remains steadfast in its mission to present fair, accurate and comprehensive information in service of democracy. [Read more]( from the NPR Public Editor, [contact us]( or follow us on [Twitter](. You received this message because you're subscribed to Public Editor emails. This email was sent by National Public Radio, Inc., 1111 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20002 [Unsubscribe]( | [Privacy Policy]( [NPR logo]