Each time I mention a verifiable instance of deception or bias by Faux News, my mother-in-law responds (defensively) that MSNBC does the same thing. People who trust Faux really do believe that MSNBC is its liberal analogue. For that reason, I’m not sure a distinction between news and incite-tainment is possible. Were there some authoritative voice or body to make the distinction, there would be reflexive distrust of that body. One weakness of incite-tainment and its fans is their inability to engage with the central issues in a discussion, instead hiding behind cherry-picked examples and outright lies.

I’m disappointed as well, but not just in NPR–I’m disappointed that all news outlets taking pride in their journalistic integrity do not collectively shun those outlets failing to meet accepted standards. The Economist, The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, PBS, NPR, and scores more do the global public a disservice and jeopardize their own reputation and future when they fail to expose violation of the accepted norms of journalism, among them full disclosure, named sources where possible, and, above all, honesty and integrity.
.-= Joseph Logan´s last blog ..Walt Disney’s org chart =-.

Just so I’m clear, “News” in in quotes, b/c it isn’t an actual news organization.

Glad that you agree that both the organization and the journalists are responsible and able to fix the conflict… I just wish that I’d included Fox “News” as a culpable agent rather than only as a beneficiary of the conflict.

Don’t you think that, if we make a distinction between news and incite-tainment, then NPR journalists could appear alongside Wall Street Journal Journalists– oh wait, let’s make that journalists from the Tribune — on Sunday morning news shows that are actually about news, without creating a conflict? I think it is more the context that is “Faux News” than it is the act of appearing on another news program, that causes the real problem here.

But all this to say, it really really does disappoint me, and so many other NPR listeners, to see NPR continue with this self-deception. They aren’t fooling listeners, and even worse they are bowing to the pressure of the bullies at Fox.
cv

I suppose Williams and Liasson should be held to the same standards of affiliation as representatives of CBS, ABC, BBC, and whomever else might appear on the network, but let’s be clear: they aren’t even held to the same standards as each other. Is it because Williams, who has been at this longer, is a partisan hack, while Liasson, the relative newcomer, is perceived as a more legitimate journalist? Is it because one of them has a “Y” chromosome? I don’t know. What I do know is that it’s a sorry mess. Here’s an idea–why don’t we figure out what Fox’s policy would be if Glenn Beck started appearing on al Jazeera, then do that?

To the question of where the responsibility lies in all this, it absolutely starts with Williams and Liasson. Full disclosure is a tenet of responsible journalism, and they should absolutely state at each appearance that they do not speak for NPR. The fact that anyone from any outlet should have to say so on any other outlet, though, indicates how much Fox News has fouled the water for everyone else.

NPR also has responsibility here, primarily for maintaining its own standards. I believe the journalists are both under contract to Fox as well as NPR. NPR should protect its name by forcing a choice. Unfortunately, that probably pulls NPR people off of shows like Meet the Press and Face the Nation, but NPR can’t wait for Fox to do the right thing. There’s a reason Woodward and Bernstein wrote for the Washington Post and not Teen Beat.
.-= Joseph Logan´s last blog ..Walt Disney’s org chart =-.