Covering for Cuomo? Pumping up Florida?

When you want more of one story and less of another, you will suspect bias [View this email online]( [NPR Public Editor by Poynter's Kelly McBride]( Should we slow the news down or speed it up? We received letters this week that asked for both. And, honestly, that’s what great news programming does: It takes a slow-moving story and speeds it up, so citizens can see a vast amount of information at the same time. But sometimes, news must slow down — or even stop for a moment — and look at just one thing, ask just one question. A recent Morning Edition story comparing the COVID-19 outcomes in California and Florida gave us a moment to pause and examine how each state performed. It brought in a vast amount of data so that we could compare how citizens fared under dramatically different government responses. After all, it was quintessentially American when 50 states went in 50 different public policy directions in response to COVID-19. Although the analysis stopped short of declaring a winner, at least one listener didn’t appreciate the implied conclusion. Another listener was anxious to see more stories about the allegations surrounding New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, including claims that he sexually harassed women on his staff. NPR was not producing stories fast enough. Within a few days, there would be too many stories to keep up with. But at that moment, there had been just one story on the website. When NPR’s pace doesn’t match a news consumer’s expectation, the consumer often sees overt prejudice or suspects unconscious bias. For instance: “NPR slowed that story down to make Florida’s hands-off policies look good.” Or: “NPR is dragging its feet on the Cuomo story because it supports the NY governor as a foe of Trump.” But when we investigate, we often find something different. [A health care worker (left) administers a coronavirus test at a mobile walk-up testing site at Crandon Park in Miami last month.]( A health care worker administers a coronavirus test at a mobile walk-up testing site at Crandon Park in Miami last month. Lynne Sladky/AP 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](. Florida vs. California? Which state won? April Ribbons writes: I [heard your story]( this morning comparing California's approach to the pandemic to Florida's approach to the pandemic. And I want to know what "numbers" you were using? Because it seems like Florida was releasing manipulated numbers — Didn't they even fire and then charge a public health official who designed their dashboard because she kept releasing the real numbers? I think that was a very klugy story. Furthermore, it told all of us who are wearing masks, socially distancing, staying away from our family and friends, that we were stupid and shouldn't have been doing it for the last year. I expect more from your reporting. In December, NPR had a helpful guide into [how each state]( (and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) was responding to COVID-19, broken down into four regions: Northeast, Midwest, South and West. Comparing and contrasting dramatically different approaches by different states is a valid way of helping citizens participate in the debate about public policy. And, state-vs.-state comparisons are a sticky endeavor. This piece did not concretely conclude that California was wrong and Florida was right. It did point out that Florida imposed far fewer state restrictions, while California imposed an extensive lockdown. The story also correctly stated that the per capita infection rate was higher in California, but the per capita death rate was higher in Florida. The package did not imply that Florida won this contest. As for the Florida data, [the controversy was]( when the first cases were detected in the state, not overall infection or death rates. Instead, reporters in both states explained the different political and philosophical foundations their respective governors tapped into. Host Noel King poses a question that many have been asking but can’t fully be answered: “Which approach works?” I reached out to PolitiFact Managing Editor Katie Sanders, who listened to the full segment before sharing her thoughts. PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that has also [completed a comparison]( of Florida and California. In an email, Sanders told me that she believes journalists have an obligation to explore and explain state-by-state approaches. “The NPR reporters were smart to stay away from a conclusive answer while giving listeners context and background about the strategies,” she said. “When [Noel] King said, ‘So it sounds like it’s not that simple to just say, lockdowns work and save lives, or they don’t work and people will die anyway,’ I was nodding my head. That’s consistent with our fact-checking.” Sanders told me comparisons of state lockdown policies, even if you can’t make conclusions about who fared better, help to keep public officials in check. “Pundits and politicians like to use them as examples of the other side’s dysfunction. In the case of [Florida] Gov. Ron DeSantis, they sometimes throw out sweeping claims about the effect of lockdowns without reliable data,” she said. Should journalists avoid asking questions like “Which approach works?” that can’t fully be answered? No. It’s important that journalists weigh in, especially when it’s a question that many others are asking and answering, sometimes in an incomplete or dishonest way. This group of NPR journalists could have more explicitly stated that there are so many variables, it may be impossible to definitively answer the question everyone is asking. Other than that, this segment achieved something that’s hard to do: It made a complicated comparison accurate and accessible to a broad audience. — Kelly McBride and Amaris Castillo Why say Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.? A journalist from the Wall Street Journal who asked to not be named wrote: Referring to my company as "Rupert Murdoch's News Corp" is at least misleading. News Corp is a publicly traded company and yes Murdoch has controlling shares. Yet in routine news stories NPR doesn't say "Sulzberger's New York Times," or when the Washington Post was publicly traded, and Don Graham was the controlling shareholder, NPR didn't day "Don Graham's Washington Post." (Indeed, NPR doesn't always say "Jeff Bezos' Washington Post," though that is far more accurate than "Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.") Many companies have controlling shareholders. Seems to me that when NPR reporters dislike the controlling shareholder, NPR is more inclined to name the owner. Many people don't like Murdoch's politics, but the suggestion is that my journalism, and the journalism of my colleagues, is dictated by the owner. It is not. David Folkenflik is fair, accurate and complete in his reporting in this regard, but other reporters seem less rigorous in how they report these facts. It is misleading to the listener and there should be some standards and guidelines about when it is appropriate and relevant to refer to it as "Rupert Murdoch's News Corp." Technically you are correct, and Poynter Institute journalism business expert Rick Edmonds confirms for me that the structure of both Fox and The New York Times are similar enough that it is a fair comparison. But there are some pretty big differences between Murdoch and Sulzberger that you have overlooked. It’s [well documented]( that Murdoch has accumulated news properties throughout Australia, Britain and the U.S. for the specific purpose of influencing and wielding political power. His news companies have influenced the outcome of democratic elections in all three countries. When it comes to Fox News, Murdoch isn’t just the controlling owner of Fox’s shares, he’s the architect (with help from his hired executives). A [quick search]( suggests there’s even a difference in NPR’s coverage. Murdoch is more often connected to Fox than he is to the WSJ. While Murdoch’s ownership of the Journal is not completely hands-off, his influence there is [more subtle]( than at Fox, where there is a [track record]( of falsehoods perpetuated ([birtherism]( false assertions of a [stolen election]( claims about [Seth Rich’s death]( with political purpose. More than being a disagreement about Murdoch’s politics, the connection of his name to his corporation is an accountability measure for his influence over democracy in the U.S. and on two other continents. Should NPR explicitly connect Murdoch to News Corp. in every single story? Not always. But when the story is about a News Corp. newsroom engaged in political influence, then the connection between the company and it’s biggest shareholder is appropriate. If anything, I wish NPR’s audience heard a deeper explanation, like the one that appeared in [this recent]( Weekend Edition Saturday conversation about the new Australian law requiring tech companies to pay news companies for their content. (Murdoch is closely allied with the current Australian government and was in support of the new law.) Or [this 2019 story]( about a former News Corp. lawyer who quit because he was alarmed by the anti-Muslim rhetoric on Fox, at a time when similar statements were coming out of former President Donald Trump’s White House. It may look like NPR has a double standard when we compare the coverage of News Corp. with that of other media companies. But in every NPR story that mentions Murdoch by name that I examined (those that appeared in the last two years), it was relevant to remind the audience of the man behind the company. — Kelly McBride Where are all the Cuomo stories? Gary Owen writes: How come there are no news stories on NPR regarding NY Governor Cuomo about the Sexual Allegations from staffers or the threats or allegations of Covid 19 Deaths in Nursing Homes. No requests for comments from Prominent Democratic women. NPR covered the "Me Too" movement, why not a Democratic Politician caught in the same scandal allegations. If you are going to a balance in the news casts it would be appropriate to consider doing a story on this topic. NPR is not ignoring either Cuomo story. The newsroom has been reporting on the nursing home story — here is [one story]( and [another]( in case you missed them. The NPR newsroom has also reported on the allegations of sexual harassment. We received your note on Feb. 25, one day after the first woman who had worked with Cuomo published [an essay]( describing the harassment she endured. By that time, NPR had published [this digital story](. Right after that, I reached out to Terence Samuel, managing editor at NPR News, to ask what the plans were and he wrote back, “As always, we are chasing the story aggressively and will broadcast and publish when [we] have reporting that adds value. I expect some of that will happen as soon as today.” Since then, -NPR’s Sally Herships on Friday, Feb. 26, walked NPR listeners through the mounting criticisms against Cuomo on [All Things Considered](. -NPR published this Feb. 28 national story about Cuomo’s [apology](. -NPR’s Joel Rose [spoke to Weekend Edition Sunday host]( Lulu Garcia-Navarro about the mounting allegations. That segment aired on Sunday, Feb. 28. -Monday saw a healthy amount of coverage: The story was one of the headline stories on [Up First]( part of [Morning Edition]( leading news brief, and a stand-alone [segment]( featuring New York State Public Radio reporter Karen DeWitt. Sally Herships also appeared on [Here & Now]( that day. -[This Monday story]( last updated on Tuesday, focuses on the governor’s office authorizing an investigation into the allegations. -And NPR did request comment from a prominent Democratic woman. Here’s an [All Things Considered segment]( from Monday with Democratic New York State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi. -On Wednesday, NPR’s Noel King spoke to WMHT-TV reporter Dan Clark for [Morning Edition]( about New York lawmakers’ move to strip Cuomo of his emergency powers. By the time you read this, there will be more, but we have to stop counting and get the newsletter produced. — Amaris Castillo 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. The vision of Octavia Butler [Octavia Butler illustration]( Joelle Avelino THROUGHLINE [How Octavia Butler's Sci-Fi Dystopia Became A Constant In A Man's Evolution]( If you are a fan of NPR, you probably understand that stories are a device that humans rely on to make sense of the world. Octavia Butler’s stories have changed lives. That’s the crux of [a Throughline episode]( centered on the impact of the writer’s life and work. The podcast and complementary Web piece are personal explorations of the deep resonance Butler’s visionary science fiction books carry. This is a must-listen and -read on the essential nature of storytelling, and the message that “the only lasting truth is change.” — Kayla Randall A focus on firefighters [Members of the Napa County Fire Rescue Team participate in training in Yountville. Demand is growing for post-traumatic retreats for firefighters and first responders as awareness of mental health issues grows and fires worsen.]( Talia Herman for NPR ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY COLLABORATIVE [As Fires Worsen, A Mental Health Crisis For Those Battling Them]( On the tail end of last year’s massive wildfires, NPR’s Nathan Rott recently brought [Morning Edition]( listeners an in-depth look at a growing mental-health crisis firefighters face in both California and Australia. The 6-minute segment (which was later followed by a [text story with striking visuals]( details how the warming world is causing wildfires to burn more frequently, and the growing burden that creates for individuals who risk their lives to put out the flames. — Amaris Castillo NPR goes both wide and deep on voting changes [People wait in line on the first day of early voting for the 2020 general election on Oct. 12 in Atlanta.]( Jessica McGowan/Getty Images MORNING EDITION [Why Republicans Are Moving To Fix Elections That Weren't Broken]( Morning Edition aired a comprehensive package on Monday examining the widespread efforts of state-level Republican officials to [restrict voting]( in a number of different ways — requiring IDs, limiting who can vote by mail, shortening the time period in which people can vote. The story does three things: looks across the entire country to identify a widespread trend; documents the continued attempts by some politicians to spread false information that American elections aren’t secure (they are, and Republicans fared well on the November ballot); and connects the dots between the proposed changes in voting laws to the impact on Black communities. This piece has host Steve Inskeep’s byline, taglines for producers Bo Hamby and Scott Saloway and Georgia Public Broadcasting Reporter Stephen Fowler, and the DNA of NPR’s extensive election and politics team. — Kelly McBride The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Researchers Amaris Castillo and Kayla Randall 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]( Kelly McBride, Public Editor Kayla Randall, NPR 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]