Issues, We Have Issues!

1. Issues, We Have Issues! 1.Anonymity 2. “Balance” 3. “Correct” grammar 4. Correcting mistakes 5.Expressing opinion, or ‘what about my free speech? 6. Labels 7. Loaded language 8. Offensive language/images 9. Social Media 10. Taking down stories

2. A small disclaimer • Note: This package was created for a PRINDI webinar. It’s a bit like a blog and a bit like notes for discussion. Suggestion: treat each topic as a starting point for conversations. There’s much more that could be said about each point. • Also: If you see some typos, please forgive me. I didn’t run this through a copy desk. • Mark Memmott

3. Anonymity • It comes up most often when we’re dealing with government officials. • "U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the transfer mission was underway, said the five were first flown from the base in a C-17 Monday but the pilot circled back about 90 minutes later because of mechanical problems." (The Two-Way) • “DzhokharTsarnaev, who reportedly had been communicating mostly through written notes because his injuries make talking difficult or nearly impossible, immediately stopped [cooperating] after a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office entered his hospital room and gave him his Miranda warning, according to four officials of both political parties briefed on the interrogation. They insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private.” (The Two-Way) • Those are relatively easy to arbitrate: Is the information essential? Does the speaker have an agenda? How reliable is the source? Do we have other confirmation? • But increasingly, the issue comes up because of privacy concerns and the reality that once something is posted on the Web, it's there forever. • Health issues are often involved, as are minors. Safety can be a consideration, particularly when dealing with very vulnerable individuals as we were: • Here, with how to ID a woman who had been the target of domestic abuse. • Here, with how to ID a woman who cannot feel fear. • It is always advisable to give listeners and readers a good explanation for why someone is not being fully identified, as Invisibilia did: • "In a sea of emotions, her brain had subtracted just one, which brings me to the reason why we are using SM instead of the woman's real name because, as you might imagine, being without fear is dangerous.“ • Our guidance: • Reminder: Whether To Go With ‘First-Name-Only’ Needs To Be Discussed And Explained • Our Word Is Binding • Fairness • Transparency

4. “Balance” • An issue most associated with our political coverage, where we aim to reflect the other side's view. • Where it gets sticky is when "balance" could actually skew a story. • For instance, should every report about climate change include a lengthy discussion of skeptics' views even though the vast majority of scientists agree and the data continue to accumulate? No. In fact, it's our job to make sense of the evidence, as we did here: • Get This: Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow • A key point from our guidance: • "When we say our reporting is complete, it means we understand the bigger picture of a story – which facts are most important and how they relate to one another. It’s unrealistic to expect that every story should represent every perspective on an issue. But in our reporting, we must do our best to be aware of all perspectives, the facts supporting or opposing each, and the different groups of stakeholders affected by the issue. Only then can we determine what’s best to include in the time and space we have."

5. “Correct” grammar • Speaking of balance, we aim to be clear, concise and accurate. Those goals mean we must choose the right words and then use them correctly. • But we also want to "sound like America," be conversational and not seem stodgy. That's where the issue of balance comes in. • Planet Money, obviously, doesn't sound or read like the "typical" NPR show. • Neither does Invisibilia. • We do get some complaints about usages by those platforms and others that strike listeners as too "common." For: • Starting sentences with "so.” • Or perhaps for leaning on "imagined elegance." • But we hear even more often about our grammatical mistakes, such as confusing “lay” and “lie.” • The best guidance: Be clear, be imaginative, but be correct. • See: Dan Charles' "Of Carrots And Kids: Healthy School Lunches That Don't Get Tossed."

6. Correcting mistakes • We work hard to get things right the first time. But everyone makes mistakes. We owe it to listeners and readers to correct factual errors and clarify significant misimpressions. • A read through our corrections page reveals a lot about the kinds of mistakes we make and our commitment to correcting them. • There is a tension, of course, between journalists' pride in their work and their willingness to admit when they're wrong. Newsroom managers face a tricky issue: How to both discourage mistakes and encourage staffers to admit to them when they happen. • Our view: Mistakes are bad. Not acknowledging them is even worse. We post about errors that may even be "arguable": • "Latino" vs. "latina." • "Eucharistic minister," not "deacon." • And of course we post about the things that are obviously wrong: • China's population isn’t 1.4 million. • It was Mario, not Andrew Cuomo. • Related point: Accuracy checklists are a good idea. We’re in the process of updating our own. Meanwhile, here’s our guidance on their value and some of the key points that should be on them.

7. Expressing opinion, or ‘what about my free speech?’ • Can I go to the march/put up a sign/slap on a bumper sticker/sign a petition? • Reminder: We Can Observe, But We Don’t Participate In Rallies • Our specific guidance is here, and the key point is this: • "We refrain from actively participating in marches, rallies or public events involving political issues or partisan causes that our organization covers or may cover. Of course, the distinction between being a participant and being an observer can be subtle. But waving a picket sign or joining along in a cheer would be inappropriate. Again, we rely on your good judgment. Since the nature of each event differs, it’s wise to discuss these matters ahead of time with supervisors to figure out where ethical pressure points may exist or emerge. If attending such an event as an observer, take care in behavior, comments, attire and physical location not to reflect a participatory role." • It’s often a good idea to apply the "would you say it on the air?" test: • "In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, we should not express views we would not air in our roles as NPR journalists. We avoid participating in shows, forums, or other venues that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.“ • Another way to sum it all up: • Don’t sign, don’t advocate, don’t donate.

8. Labels • This is coming up more and more often, often in ways we don’t anticipate. • People with various medical conditions, their families and friends take offense at being labeled. Instead of being referred to as an "autistic child," for example, they ask that the phrase "child with autism" be used. People with schizophrenia object to being called schizophrenics (side note: they are also sensitive about use of the word schizophrenic in other contexts). "She is being treated for anorexia" is preferred over "she's an anorexic." "He is diabetic" is favored over "he is a diabetic.“ • The issue is this: People get insulted if you reduce them to one label. They say "I'm not just a diabetic. I am a father/mother, brother/sister, teacher/lawyer, etc. You've labeled me." • That's why we recommend using action words. • What’s more, in news reports labels can be misleading -- even when the words are grammatically correct. For example, we advised against referring to Michael Brown simply as a "teenager." • Yes, he was 18 and that word ends with "teen." But, like the AP, we believe that 18-year-olds in America have entered adulthood. They can vote. They can join the military. They can drive. They can live on their own. The word "teenager," in many listeners and readers minds, brings up the image of someone younger. • The better practice, again, is to avoid the label. Just simply say he was "18-year-old Michael Brown" or "Michael Brown, 18.“ • This came up just this week with a question about whether we should avoid saying "same-sex marriage" because some who have been advocating for that right believe there's only "marriage," same-sex or otherwise. They see "same-sex" as a label being attached to "marriage." Here, the issue of avoiding labels comes up against making sure the listeners understand what you're talking about. The phrase may still need to be used -- though it also may be just as easy in many cases to refer to "marriages by same-sex couples" or other more active language.

9. Loaded language • This is something of a cousin to the "labels" issue. Loaded language is a recurring problem. • Advocates on one side want the news media to use phrases such as "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens." Advocates on the other side want us to say "undocumented immigrants" or "unauthorized immigrants." • "Enhanced interrogation methods" or "torture?" That debate has been raging for a decade. • One person's "reform" is another's "disaster." • Our thinking begins with the premise that when language is "politicized," we look for "neutral words that foster understanding." • We aim to "take the time to explain to our audience how certain words or phrases have taken on politically loaded meanings" and use a few more words -- again, we're talking about "action" words vs. labels -- to make things clear. That's why we say "clinics that perform abortions" instead of "abortion clinics."

10. Offensive language/images • Why You’re Not Seeing Those ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Cartoons • A Word About The Name Of Washington’s Football Team • NPR’s Policy On Use Of Potentially Offensive Languagebegins with this: • “NPR has always set a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to our audience. Use of such language on the air has been strictly limited to situations where it is absolutely integral to the meaning and spirit of the story being told.”

11. Social media • Our guiding principle: • “The Internet and the social media communities it encompasses can be incredible resources. They offer both a remarkably robust amount of historical material and an incredible amount of “real-time” reporting from people at the scenes of breaking news events. But they also present new and unfamiliar challenges, and they tend to amplify the effects of any ethical misjudgments you might make. So tread carefully. Conduct yourself online just as you would in any other public circumstances as an NPR journalist. Treat those you encounter online with fairness, honesty and respect, just as you would offline. Verify information before passing it along. Be honest about your intent when reporting. Avoid actions that might discredit your professional impartiality. And always remember, you represent NPR.” • Bottomline: Think before you tweet. • Also, use social media to share information – not just your opinions. We want people to trust NPR to give them the information they need, no matter what platform.

12. Taking down stories • How to explain why we don't: • “We are guided by a newsroom policy that says it is inappropriate to remove content from our Website. If a report is inaccurate, we will correct it and state why it has been altered. If relevant new information emerges, we will update or do a follow-up story. But our content is a matter of public record and is part of our contract with our audience. To simply remove it from the archive diminishes transparency and trust and, in effect, erases history. This is not a practice engaged in by credible news organizations or in line with ethical journalism.” • We also have guidance from correspondents on what to say to people before we interview them in order to cut down on the chances for “take-down” requests later. The most important thing to tell them is that what they tell us won’t just be on the radio once and then go off into the ether. Stories live on the Web and can trail them for years or decades. Might that scare some people and make them less likely to speak with us? Yes. But we respect the people we encounter. We owe them that explanation.

13. Contact: • Mark Memmott • NPR Standards & Practices editor • 202-513-3554 • mmemmott@npr.org • On Facebook: if you’re interested, there’s an “NPR standards and practices” closed group. It’s for NPR member station news directors and journalists to share thoughts and information.