Anyone who has been paying attention knows that journalism is in a bit of a crisis right now, when it comes to keeping the public’s trust.
Truth be told, the public is part of the problem (in my humble opinion).
While many citizens insist that they crave balanced, accurate reporting — in keeping with the “American” model of the press — it’s been impossible for news executives not to notice the rising numbers for fiercely partisan semi-news personalities on cable, such as the Bill O’Reilly and Rachel Maddow. It seems that many news consumers talk “American,” but walk “European,” favoring advocacy journalism sites that pretty much tell them what they want to hear.
At the same time, a growing number of journalists are slip-sliding into postmodernity by saying that, since personal objectivity is impossible, there’s no need for news organizations to honor the kinds of professional standards that help journalists produce work that is as accurate and balanced as possible.
This is not a religion-beat issue, per se. I know that.
However, anyone who follows media-bias research closely knows that some of the news topics that trouble journalists the most are those that mix religion, politics and culture — such as abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, religious liberty, etc., etc. I mean, religious issues even dominated the crucial, concluding sections of the famous New York Times self study and editor Bill Keller’s “Assuring Our Credibility” response. Check it out. Again.
So now, it seems that the well-known journalism professor Jay Rosen of New York University and the ombudsman at National Public Radio are engaged in an interesting debate on a hot-button issue that is closely related to this subject. Here’s the question they are hashing out: Is NPR being too balanced and too fair in its daily news coverage of the strict new regulations proposed for abortion clinics in Kansas?
Here’s the opening of the Edward Schumacher-Matos piece defending NPR:
When Morning Edition reported last week on a hearing in Kansas to impose stricter regulations over abortion clinics, New York University professor Jay Rosen objected on his popular blog that it was “he said, she said” reporting and “one of the lowest forms of journalism in existence.”
The regulations, currently held up by a lawsuit, do things such as control operating room size and temperature and could cause two of the state’s three abortion clinics to close. Abortion rights opponents justify the rules for what they say is patient safety. Abortion-rights advocates say the regulations aren’t necessary and amount to harassment.
“According to this report, NPR has no idea who is right. It cannot provide listeners with any help in sorting through such a dramatic conflict in truth claims,” Rosen wrote. “It is obvious to me that there’s something else going on here. NPR has, in this case, allowed its desire to escape criticism to overwhelm its journalistic imagination. ‘He said, she said’ does not serve listeners. It tries to shield NPR from another round of bias attacks.”
Reporter Kathy Lohr responded to Rosen thusly:
“I’ve covered the abortion issue for 20 years. My goal is to be fair and accurate.
“It would be inappropriate to take a position on an issue I’m covering. So, I don’t do that, with abortion or other issues.”
It’s clear that politics is involved in all of this, of course.
Rosen is right that people who oppose abortion are using these kinds of laws as a way of using laws to attack or harass abortion providers — one step in the ultimate goal of legal protection for the unborn.
In journalism terms, however, that fact is almost beside the point. The larger question is whether harassment is the only purpose of these regulations.
For mainstream journalists, the other side of this story is the question of whether some or even many of these clinics are dangerous and could be made safer if their operators were forced to observe the kinds of strict medical regulations that apply to other medical facilities.
Schumacher-Matos went on to note:
… (While) Lohr’s report is not an example of the “lowest form of journalism,” I would like to see NPR directly tackle the claims of operating room safety, instead of leaving the matter only to the courts. Such claims are apparently hard to measure, even though the Kansas abortion opponents say they have 2,500 pages of documentation supporting their claims. …
So to some extent I agree with Rosen. Such a report, however, requires a lengthy investigation. Who knows? It might find that there are indeed safety problems in some abortion clinics. A report earlier this year by Lohr found sordid conditions in a Philadelphia clinic, for example. Or the investigation might find that might find that the 2,500 pages of “proof” contain little of substance and that the safety requirements are silly.
Until then, Lohr’s everyday news story is enough to hold us.
Please click here to read Rosen’s response at PressThink. I hesitate to cut one chunk of it out of context.
As I read these exchanges, I hear Rosen insisting that he is not opposed to the balanced, accurate reporting — he simply wanted NPR to get on with the process, gather more facts and then draw logical conclusions. He is also offended by what he sees as NPR’s attempts to placate its critics on the moral and cultural right by turning this daily story into an effort at 50-50, balanced, “lower” form of journalism. He wants conclusions, right now.
This troubles me. Why? When talking to conservative critics of the mainstream press, I always emphasize that they cannot judge a media outlet by one story, in isolation from others before and after.
Balance and fairness are best judged as part of a process over a week, month or even a year — depending on how quickly a story develops. In this case, Rosen is upset about one daily story. Schumacher-Matos is saying, in effect, judge NPR after there has been time to gather the facts on both sides.
As someone who has followed debates about abortion coverage (and media-bias research linked to it) for 30-plus years, here’s the bottom line on this skirmish.
Yes, opponents of legalized abortion hope that these regulations make life more difficult for abortion providers.
However, yes, it has been shown that hellish conditions exist in some abortion facilities, conditions that risk the lives of women. The question is whether these abuses are so widespread that state action, via these regulations, is justified. Does anyone doubt that NPR will need to quote experts on both sides during that debate? Does anyone expect conflict to vanish on the interpretation of the evidence gathered during that debate?
Please allow me to mention one more journalistic question that NPR might want to ask, one inspired by exposure to the arguments of groups such as Feminists for Life and Democrats for Life. Here it is: Can anyone imagine state governments allowing clinics to operate under regulations far weaker than those guiding ordinary health facilities if one of the primary functions of these clinics was to perform such a dangerous procedure on men?
The factual question to pursue, since Rosen wants NPR to seek hardcore facts, is whether abortions are performed in clinics guided by weaker regulations than those that govern the work of facilities that perform similar surgeries on men. Similar surgeries? OK, let’s say surgeries that, when they go wrong, can cause severe bleeding, infertility and even the death of the adult undergoing the procedure.
Now, when you have gathered your facts about this question — which is essentially a question about sexism — will news organizations such as NPR need to quote voices on both sides of the resulting debate? Simply stated: Yes.
IMAGE: The back of a Feminists for Life coffee cup.
 | Posted at 8:40 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (14) |
September 17, 2011, at 1:28 am
Side note: he said he did not say “lowest”:
http://jayrosen.tumblr.com/post/9958251666/journalists-washing-their-hands-of-the-truth
And reading the comments, it’s clear that he’s not saying to present all sides of an issue but he’s railing against superficial journalism where a story only presents what two opposing sides claim without an investigation to determine where the facts lie.
There’s a statement that goes: “there are three sides to every story: yours, mine and the truth”. I take his comments as pointing out the need for investigative journalism to determine what the actual facts are.
And he’s also stating that journalists should have courage and not kow-tow to invalid complaints from special interest groups.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
September 17, 2011, at 1:45 am
I’m not so much concerned about reporters having personal opinions, as long as they acknowledge that they do have personal opinions that influence their coverage.
Unfortunately, I think it’s often a case of “I’m right-thinking, you’re partisan, he’s biased” when it comes to stories, particularly hot-button topics like this one.
For example, granted that the nit-picking regulations by the anti-abortion groups are attempting to use the law to restrict and even close abortion clinics, is this in any way a response to the move by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups to shut down crisis pregnancy centres by getting similiar nit-picking regulations passed into law?
I’m also amused by the contrast you draw between “American” and “European” models of newspapers; are you really telling me that, for instance, the Hearst group of newspapers didn’t push the publisher’s agenda at all? I’m not saying that over here we don’t have papers that certain sections read in contrast to others, or that there aren’t categories (such as “The Daily Mail” being right-wing and “The Guardian” being left-wing), but I don’t know if I buy the notion of the Edenic innocence of the American press of yore where nobody at all, from the printers’ devils up to the boardroom, was less than 100% pure and free of any tinge of opinion creeping into their publishing
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
September 17, 2011, at 9:48 am
Tmatt asks: “Can anyone imagine state governments allowing clinics to operate under regulations far weaker than those guiding ordinary health facilities if one of the primary functions of these clinics was to perform such a dangerous procedure on men?”
Hmmm… are there facts to back this up? Or is it argument by innuendo? There is a lot of coverage of women’s health issues, which is no doubt a good thing. But is there really more coverage of men’s health issues? Are there more laws proposed to benefit men’s health? Does prostate cancer have a ribbon? When is the next race for the cure for that? I am not belittling efforts on behalf of women. Granted that prostate cancer is generally a disease of older men, and a young woman with breast cancer is far more tragic. I just wonder if the underlying assumption about callous disregard for the wellness of women is factual. All too often, women’s health is a euphemism for abortion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
2
September 17, 2011, at 10:02 am
So at some point is some journalist going to read that 2500 pages of “proof”? If it’s junk, that’s a story; if it’s really proof, that’s a story.
A few years ago, a friend gave me a copy of Lime 5, which purported to expose malpractice in the abortion industry. I thought it’s claims poorly documented and didn’t finish it, but the fact is, documentation is available. State inspections are public record. I assume procedures in abortion clinics are subject to standard peer review. At least some level of those records should be public. I said that documentation is available, but if it isn’t, wouldn’t that be a story?
A lot of people believe the abortion industry is getting a free pass on standards because it’s business is politically protected. Is that true?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
September 17, 2011, at 10:04 am
Bill and I cross-posted. What he said.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
September 17, 2011, at 11:37 am
MARTHA:
Heart is from the era in which the American model developed and he certainly did reject it. In his whole chain, however, things were a bit more complex.
Here is the question you must ask: Do you want a news marketplace in which no one is even trying to be balanced and fair. No one. All niche news echo chambers. There is no Associated Press. If a nuke reactor melts down in China, you get your news about it from the Chinese gov’t.
Right now, in the WWW age, we already have more and more people doing commentary about the news (which is cheap) and fewer people attempting to report new information (which is expensive and time consuming). I am trying to make a case for the American model even staying ALIVE at this point.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
0
September 17, 2011, at 11:41 am
BILL:
You totally missed my point. Maybe read it again?
Here is the best comparison I can think of (having spent the summer in a kidney stone siege): Try to imagine the state allowing serious kidney stone procedures to take place in settings under clinic regulations rather than hospital regulations.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
September 17, 2011, at 11:44 am
JERRY:
How about kow-towing to totally VALID complaints as those documented in the famous Los Angeles Times A1 series on media bias in abortion coverage?
Investigate the harassment. Investigate the clinic conditions — talking to qualified voices on both sides of the argument. Print the results and let the public hear from both sides. What is wrong with that model?
And along the way, please read this memo:
http://www.laobserved.com/carrollmemo.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
September 17, 2011, at 1:05 pm
I fear Tmatt’s remedy is a worse act of journalism. Ferreting out the pet theories of fringe groups with limitted influence seems irresponsible for the mainstream press. Looking into the central theory—that clinics are unsafe and would be made safer by the regulations— is much more worthwhile.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
September 17, 2011, at 7:53 pm
Thanks for your post. Very interesting.
About this part…
No. I’m not upset about one story. I am using this one story to critique a pervasive style at NPR. Any regular listener can recognize that style and how routine it is. Also, at the end of my post I offer another example of “we have no idea who’s right, so you figure it out” journalism.
Not one story. The House Style at NPR.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
September 17, 2011, at 10:32 pm
Tmatt wrote #7: You totally missed my point. Maybe read it again?
I cringe as I think of your kidney stones ordeal. That is painful!
But abortion is a much more politically charged procedure than treating kidney stones. If abortions are allowed to be performed in clinics, while procedures with similar levels of risk are required to be performed in hospitals, it is because of politics, not sexism.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
1
September 17, 2011, at 11:47 pm
This leaps out at me: you refer to abortion as “such a dangerous procedure.
This indicates to me an unconscious acceptance on the writer’s part of years of anti-abortion propaganda.
Abortion is not, repeat, not a dangerous procedure.
That’s why, in part, it has been performed in separate clinics since it became legal. It is even safer today than it was at that time.
You, the writer, need to re-examine your unconscious assumptions and start there.
And yes, it is clear to me as an NPR listener for more than 20 years, that Jay Rosen was using this story as an example of a habit way of reporting that has become way too common at NPR. So common the reporters and the ombudsman no longer even recognize it.
But we, the listeners and supporters, recognize it and it makes us crazy.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
8
September 18, 2011, at 12:14 am
Terry, I guess you ignore political reporting. You clearly missed the right wing attempt do kill NPR funding based on the Vivian Schiller and Juan Williams incidents which led to NPR being a hotbed of political correctness. The article was clearly in response to that charge but it refers to NPR now going out of its way to avoid the appearance of liberal bias.
Responding to a valid charge is not kow-towing, grovelling, but acknowledging a fault which is something quite different.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
September 18, 2011, at 9:53 am
tejanarusa wrote #12: “Abortion is not, repeat, not a dangerous procedure…
“You, the writer, need to re-examine your unconscious assumptions and start there.”
You mean the “assumption” that there is more than one life involved in abortion? From the point of view of the baby, abortion is very risky. One hundred percent fatal. It’s the only medical procedure designed to be.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
10