Search Results for: Memmos
Merriam-Webster’s word-of-the-day is wifty, which it defines as “eccentrically silly, giddy, or inane : ditzy.”
A search indicates we’ve never used the word, even though we’ve covered many wifty stories.
For other weird words we should find uses for, check @HaggardHawks, where the word-of-the-day is bezoardical, an adjective that means “all-curing, antidotal.” They’re also pointing to “driffle,” which is best known as slight rain or snow but also can be “a large quantity of work completed hastily.” Isn’t driffling what we do every day?
(“Memmos;” Nov. 21, 2017)
The Standards & Practices inbox is filling up. Let’s clear some space:
- We’ve used the phrase “shooting spree” to describe what happened Tuesday in Northern California. Let’s not call such an event a “spree,” which Webster’s New World defines as “a lively, noisy frolic … a period of drunkenness … [or] a period of uninhibited activity (a shopping spree).” It was a mass shooting, a rampage or a series of deadly attacks. We need to keep using words and phrases that underscore the severity of what happened.
- Please keep in mind that the accusations against Roy Moore include alleged sexual assaults. To only say he’s accused of “misconduct” or “inappropriate” behavior does not reflect the seriousness of the accusations. Also, we should be clear that his accusers were “girls” at the time if they were under 18, not “women.”
- If you’re tempted to write or say that “even such-and-such now admits” or “so-and-so still hasn’t dropped out” or “despite the latest news …” stop and consider the words “even,” “still” and “despite.” They can come off sounding judgmental — as if you’re trying to say “can you believe that?” Or, maybe, “can you believe this guy?”
- Speaking of “guy,” check out who we’ve referred to as “a guy” in the recent past: Thomas Edison. Donald Trump. Barack Obama. Pope Francis.
guys folks. It’s one thing to want to be conversational, but let’s be careful about who’s a “guy.” Related observation: We don’t seem to use “gals” this way. Would we refer to a “gal named Hillary Clinton?”
- Question: Unless the other person is clearly speaking to us on a telephone, why are we saying they’re “on the line?”
The inbox now has room for more suggested topics. Thanks.
(“Memmos;” Nov. 15, 2017)
Friends and family are asking us about what’s going on at NPR. Like you, I’ve been sharing my anger and frustration. I’ve also been noting that every day I see and hear NPR journalists applying these principles:
- “Our journalists conduct their work with honesty and respect …”
- “We hold those who serve and influence the public to a high standard when we report about their actions. We must ask no less of ourselves.”
- “Journalists who conduct themselves honestly prove themselves worthy of trust.”
- “Everyone affected by our journalism deserves to be treated with decency and compassion. We are civil in our actions and words, avoiding arrogance and hubris. “
- “We will fulfill the high standard we owe the public if we hold true to our principles.”
- “We believe it is our shared responsibility to live up to these principles.”
Many thanks to all who live those ideals.
They’re spelled out, by the way, here.
(“Memmos;” Nov. 6, 2017)
Many thanks to all those who helped entertain and inform the Traveling Memmotts as they put 3,200 miles on the odometer the past two weeks. We didn’t listen to the news every hour (sorry, Korva). But when we did, it was a pleasure to hear your voices and the stories you told.
But — there’s always a “but” — one word that came up a few times didn’t feel quite right: “meddling.” As in “Russian meddling in the 2016 election.” I could imagine George Carlin doing a riff on how soft that sounds. As the Washington Desk advises, meddling is something your nosy neighbor does — not a rival (enemy?) nation that’s trying to sway the results of the U.S. election.
“Interference” is a word that works.
Meanwhile, today’s news has raised the question of whether it’s correct to say an indictment has been “handed down” or “handed up.” You’ll hear it both ways, but there’s a case to be made that indictments are handed “up” to the bench, while verdicts are handed “down.” As often is the case, the best way to go is probably to avoid either phrase. How about “issued?”
(“Memmos;” Oct. 30, 2017)
Today’s release of “updated and expanded social media guidelines” from The New York Times offers this opportunity to plug the updated guidance we issued earlier this year. As I’m sure you know, ours is collected in the “Social Media” section of the Ethics Handbook.
Please reread our version. Compare it to the Times‘ if you wish. The thinking is similar on most points.
As always suggestions are welcome.
(“Memmos;” Oct. 13, 2017)
After mass shootings there are calls for the news media to not report the name of the attacker. As Poynter’s Kelly McBride has written, “it’s easy and convenient for politicians to beat the press up by accusing them of glorifying a bad person.”
We agree with McBride and others that news organizations need to report about the person in order to understand what happened and that the name is an important part of such stories. We have and will continue to report about the man who carried out the attack in Las Vegas and will use his name in our reports.
But Martin Kaste and Steve Inskeep showed this morning that we don’t have to repeat the name in every audio story we do. Listen to their conversation about what investigators have learned concerning the way the gunman prepared for the attack. His name, which had been heard elsewhere in Morning Edition and during our Newscasts, is not said during the conversation. I don’t think anything was lost because of that.
The takeaway is that we can use our judgment. The name does not have to be in every story we broadcast about the killer. We can be respectful of the feelings of those in the audience who find it disturbing to hear the name over and over, and respectful of those who sincerely believe that repeating the name somehow glorifies a horrible person.
Meanwhile, as we’ve been doing, we can tell the stories of the victims — with their names, of course.
(“Memmos;” Oct. 4, 2017)
The people in Puerto Rico who have had their lives turned upside down by the hurricane are U.S. citizens, as we all know and as we’ve been careful to note. That means the word “refugees” can be misleading if it adds to a sense that these are “foreigners” (a word that definitely should not be used) or are in some way “others” who are leaving one country to seek shelter in another. Puerto Ricans who move to Florida are not leaving one country for another.
That said, many are certainly seeking refuge. And people who are now living in shelters on the island are known as “refugiados.”
We don’t need to ban the word refugee from our coverage. Just please watch how it sounds or reads in the context of a story and ask whether it makes it seem as if the people of Puerto Rico are not U.S. citizens.
(“Memmos;” Oct. 3, 2017)
The language we’ve been using about the mass shooting in Las Vegas has been precise and carefully attributed. Thank you.
Please continue to:
- Attribute the death toll and number of injured to police or other credible authorities. As you know, the numbers are expected to change. We need to keep reminding the audience where the figures are coming from and that we will be updating as needed.
- Characterize this as apparently the worst mass shooting in “modern” or “recent” U.S. history. As we’ve unfortunately been reminded in recent years, there were some horrible mass killings in the 1800s:
- Be careful about describing the weapon or weapons. As Steve Inskeep noted this morning, the gunshots sounded as if they came more rapidly than one person could pull a trigger. That could mean it was an automatic weapon or a rifle that was modified to be automatic. But as we’ve also noted before, the weapons used in mass shootings are almost always “semi-automatic.” We should get our guidance from the police and other investigators. Keep in mind, though, that even the authorities sometimes make mistakes in the early hours of investigations.
We should also keep in mind that the guns used in such shootings are sometimes “assault-style,” but almost never “assault” weapons. There’s more guidance about how to describe weapons here: http://ethics.npr.org/?s=assault+rifle
The AP Stylebook has a substantial entry for “weapons” that has good guidance. If you’re on our intranet, you can get to the Stylebook here: http://www.apstylebook.com/npr/
- Here’s An Effective Way To Talk About The Deaths And Injuries
It’s possible that many of the people injured in Las Vegas were hurt not by gunshots, but during the rush to escape the scene. It’s also possible some people died from such injuries. The Two-Way has done a good job describing what is known at this hour and its approach can be adapted for other platforms. It wrote that the gunman:
“Fired down upon thousands of people attending a music festival Sunday night, in a brutal attack blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, some 515 people were injured.”
- On ‘Automatic’ Weapons
While we should NOT say whether the weapons used in Las Vegas were or were not “automatic” because that information has not surfaced yet, we also should be careful NOT to flatly say that automatic weapons are illegal. Their availability is severely restricted, but there are legal ways to obtain such weapons, including in Nevada. Here’s more on that:
(“Memmos;” Oct. 2, 2017)
@NPR FALSE. Under the bill, states must ensure that individuals with pre-existing conditions have access to adequate & affordable insurance.
Steve Mullis suggested NPR should respond. Alison Kodjak, whose story the senator was questioning, and her editors (Gisele Grayson, Nancy Shute, Joe Neel) got to work. The goal would be to respond calmly. The forum would be Twitter, where the senator made his charge. The response and how we got there, is worth revisiting.
Some key points:
- We followed our mantra: “Stand with the Facts.”
- It was known that we might decide not to go ahead if we couldn’t strike the right tone — and that would be OK.
- The teams that knew what to do, from the best way to engage to the best way to explain the story, led the process.
- We moved quickly, but we didn’t hurry. Everyone who needed to weigh in did, but no one held up the process.
You can see the result here.
Or, read through how tweets rolled out:
- Sen @BillCassidy called our reading of his health care bill on pre-existing conditions false. Here’s how we read it: http://n.pr/2fAWevD
- Prior to ACA, insurers routinely excluded care for cancer or mental health or made the coverage so expensive that it was out of reach
- Current law (ACA) guarantees coverage for 10 “essential health benefits”—in every exchange policy in every state http://bit.ly/2wGO8qS
- Those EHBs are central to pre-existing condition protections because they define what an insurance policy is required to cover
- #GrahamCassidy allows states to opt out of EHBs. That cld mean a person with diabetes can be charged extra for a plan with Rx drug coverage
- Allowing states to opt out of EHBs under #GrahamCassidy cld also mean a person w/ depression may not find a plan with mental health coverage
- Sen. @BillCassidy says his bill ensures that people with pre-existing conditions have access to “adequate & affordable” coverage
- With no EHB requirements and no subsidies, “adequate” and “affordable” is left up to states and does not guarantee coverage
Thanks to all involved in crafting this response.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 25, 2017)
Please read and listen to Peter Overby’s story headlined “Who Controls Think Tanks? Shift In Funding Highlights Changes In The Industry.”
As Peter reports, think tanks are being “pulled away from their academic heritage” by several forces — including the pressures that come from being funded by “wealthy business people — in modern jargon, philanthro-capitalists — notably many from the tech industry.”
His story underscores why we’ve previously said that:
(“Memmos;” Sept. 20, 2017)
When credible news organizations are reporting things that we have not confirmed or knocked down and we decide it’s important to let our audience know about those reports, our language has to be precise.
- Clearly attribute the news to those other outlets (or “multiple” news outlets if that’s the case).
- Summarize their sourcing. For example: “intelligence officials with first-hand knowledge.”
- State that NPR has not independently confirmed the reports.
- Make sure in later references that we DO NOT make it sound as if things have been confirmed. A line such as “investigators found the stolen thumb drive in Coleman’s Manhattan pied-à-terre,” sounds like a fact without the additional phrase “according to The Daily Planet’s sources.” In other words, attribute, attribute and attribute again.
As for whether and when we report about other news organizations’ significant scoops, those discussions have to involve, at the least, the DME on duty.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 19, 2017)
The NFL season is under way. Just in case the team from Washington does something that warrants reporting, please remember that we avoid saying its name. Our guidance is here.
Meanwhile, the baseball team from Cleveland is setting records and could end up in the World Series again. We should avoid using photos that include images of the team’s longtime mascot, Chief Wahoo. As we have previously said:
“At NPR, the policy on ‘potentially offensive language’ applies to the images posted online as well. It begins by stating that ‘as a responsible broadcaster, NPR has always set a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to our audience.’”
If you come across other potentially offensive team names or logos, apply the same thinking as we have in these cases.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 14, 2017)
We’ve watched, read and listened with deep respect and appreciation as colleagues have gone into dangerous and difficult situations in Texas and Florida the past two weeks. Meanwhile, others have put in even longer hours than usual to get that fine reporting ready for broadcast and the Web. Many thanks to all.
Embedded within the stories have been key words, well-turned phrases and simple explanations that are worth pointing out. Here are some examples:
- Leila Fadel, using an appropriately sensitive way to describe someone’s medical condition: “They spent the storm in a shelter to make sure they could care for Matthew’s sister, who lives with cerebral palsy.”
- Nate Rott, choosing three words — “still drying out” — that say much more than just “recovering”: “Earlier this week, there were even concerns that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would run out of money just as Irma is forecast to make landfall in South Florida. A $15 billion disaster relief package, passed Friday by Congress and signed by President Trump, has quelled those concerns. But it does little for the on-the-ground crews that are still drying out from a massive response to Hurricane Harvey just a couple of weeks ago.”
- Chris Joyce, explaining in plain English how climate change exacerbates hurricanes: “Heat drives storms. The more heat you have, the bigger storms you have. What happens is hot water creates water vapor. You know, a cup of coffee — it’s got vapor coming off it. So the water vapor rises. You get convection. It creates these circulating winds. And that’s what creates the conditions for a hurricane. … Hurricanes feed off of this fuel. And the hotter the oceans, the more fuel you’ll get for the hurricane.”
- Kirk Siegler, avoiding the almost always misused word “countless”: There are, he said, “an untold number of downed trees and power lines” across the Keys.
- Camila Domonoske, telling readers a lot in just a few words about one elderly man’s feelings about not being able to get home: ” ‘It’s over. We made it out,’ Ward said, with an unhappy laugh that verged on tears. ‘But we can’t get out.’ ”
- Adrian Florido, describing Hurricane Harvey’s impact on one vulnerable community: “Houston is home to some 600,000 immigrants without legal status — 1 in 10 Houstonians does not possess the right to live in the U.S. — and in the storm’s aftermath, many of them now find themselves teetering on the edge of destitution.”
- Melissa Block, using short, declarative sentences to bring home some key points: “Now, as hurricane Irma approaches Florida, the Houstonians are talking with the restaurant community there, sharing what they’ve learned from Harvey. Organize as much as you can ahead of time. Line up kitchens and transport and volunteers. Social media will be your best friend. Above all, don’t wait.”
We could go on, and more examples will turn up in coming days. Thanks.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 12, 2017)
Saying that something’s going on “out west,” “down south,” “up north” or “back east” can make it sound as if we’re peering at the rest of the nation like astronomers, rather than covering the news from where it’s happening. It can also make it seem as if we’re talking about “other” people or places.
Be more specific. Include names of the affected states or regions and avoid words such as “out” or “up” that suggest to the audience that we’re reporting from a fixed point in the mid-Atlantic states.
It remains OK to say that Korva’s dancing is out of this world.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 6, 2017)
We aren’t first responders and we go to dangerous scenes and natural disasters such as the one in Texas to report, not rescue. There are others trained to do that work. We don’t have their skills and we don’t have their equipment.
That said, if we find ourselves in situations where another person is in danger, we can try to help if no one else is there or our assistance would make an important difference.
As Reveal host Al Letson said Monday on All Things Considered about why he jumped in to shield a white nationalist being beaten by anti-fascists:
“I don’t want to be a part of the story, at all. And I believe in all of those journalistic ethics and all of that — but I also think that, before that, I’m a human being.”
It’s worth repeating that we don’t go into situations looking to do the work that first responders are trained to do. We also don’t go looking to insert ourselves into a story.
Again, we go to report about what’s happening and about the people who are directly affected.
But as Letson said, we’re also human beings — who, the Ethics Handbook advises, treat “everyone affected by our journalism … with decency and compassion.” That’s an important principle to keep in mind.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 29, 2017)
Since this is the calm before the storm, it’s time again to rain on everyone’s parade and suggest that we should avoid hurricane-related clichés like the plague.
Please remember that:
- There’s no law requiring that we say a hurricane is “barreling” toward shore.
- Hatches are probably not being battened in many homes.
- Mother Nature isn’t furious.
- Communities that escape serious damage didn’t dodge any bullets.
- Cats and dogs will not be falling from the sky.
- Pounding isn’t the only word to describe what’s going to happen.
- Not that many people peel back sardine cans these days; that’s a reference only grampa may get.
I’ve probably missed the boat and forgotten some. Feel free to stick a fork in any others.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 25, 2017)
The word “iconic” shows up 1,840 times in a search of NPR.org for the past year.
It appears 194 times in a search of just what we’ve broadcast since last Aug. 22.
Movie scenes. Photos. Athletes. Animals. Apps. Godzilla*. We’ve heard and read that all those, and more, are iconic.
It’s been said that iconic is among the English language’s most overused words.
Overuse dilutes the word’s impact. Let’s save it for references to true icons. That is, those people or things that are “revered” or that embody “the essential characteristics of an era, group, etc.” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary)
There are many other words to choose from. Last year, Washingtonian senior editor Bill O’Sullivan suggested these 10: “legendary, pioneering, incomparable, signature, trademark, definitive, unmatched, unforgettable, unparalleled, one-of-a-kind.” (Of course, if you use superlatives such as one-of-a-kind you need to be sure that person or thing really is one-of-a-kind.)
*Save your outrage. I’m not saying Godzilla isn’t iconic.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 22, 2017)
The coverage from and about this weekend’s attack and violence in Charlottesville has been impressive, starting with the breaking news coverage on digital and on-the-air Saturday, right through Sunday’s reports and this morning’s step-backs.
Many thanks to all those involved.
A couple things to note:
We’ve done well on this point, but it’s worth a reminder that (as we said last November) it’s not enough to simply refer to the “alt-right” and then move on. First, that label feels like a euphemism. Second, there’s much more that has to be said about the people who say they’re part of that movement.
Within the ranks of those who call themselves the alt-right there are:
- White supremacists.
- White nationalists.
There are also those who say they are none of those things, but contend that whites are suffering economically because “others” are being given unfair advantages.
Here’s the thing: The positions people hold, the things they do and the politicians they choose to support say a lot — more than labels, it can be argued.
What do we do? As much as possible, we should “show, don’t tell.” For instance, we described what the people at the “unite the right” rally were doing, saying, carrying, throwing, etc. Their words and actions spoke loudly. The descriptions then allowed for later references to “white supremacists,” “white nationalists,” “neo-Nazis” and others as being among those there. “White supremacists and others” is an appropriate catch-all.
The second thing worth noting is that when someone says something that’s clearly not true, we should point that out as soon as possible. Check how it was done, twice, in Brian Mann’s report this morning about a man who supports the way President Trump addressed the violence.
When the man claimed that Black Lives Matter was “another hate group,” Brian came right in to note that “in fact, Black Lives Matter has no history of violence or racial bigotry comparable to America’s far-right militias, neo-Nazis or Klan groups.”
When the man said he never heard President Obama call for unit, Brian immediately pointed out that “in fact, Barack Obama did call for national unity numerous times during his presidency, especially during times of racial conflict and violence.”
Again, good work all around. Thanks.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 14, 2017)
“Attempts to restrict press freedom are becoming, for some, a national sport, but the real battle begins at home — on the local beat with aggressive reporting, progressive editing and united defending of the First Amendment.”
John C. Quinn; Jan. 8, 1973
Wednesday at the Newseum, journalists who worked with John Quinn remembered USA Today’s first editor. He died last month, at the age of 91.
If you were with Gannett in the ’70s, ’80s or ’90s, you knew Quinn — or knew of him. He was the conscience of the newsroom; the editor who set standards and pushed everyone to do their best.
And if you’re among the 1,400 or so journalists who have passed through the Chips Quinn Scholars Program for Diversity in Journalism (named for Quinn’s son), you probably can’t say enough good things about him.
This obituary posted by the Newseum explains his impact.
At Wednesday’s gathering, retired Gannett executive Phil Currie read from some of Quinn’s “Wire Watch” weekly notes that went to all Gannett journalists, not just those at USA Today. The quote at the top of this post is from those notes. It’s as relevant today as it was in 1973; as are the others below. Quinn was talking about newspapers, but the advice applies to all types of news operations:
- “A newspaper must be factual, and the true fact is that our readers face an indulged and difficult life. Like a parent, we must not placate; we must educate. We must reach them by giving them what they need to know in a form they can accept and what they want to know in a manner they can appreciate. We must help them realize that this is all part of our duty to them.” Dec. 3, 1973
- “Responsible news people have come out of the closet with their corrections and clarifications, and they showcase their sins to be as effective as possible in setting the record straight. The best efforts to right a wrong, however, still run a very poor second to avoiding the error in the first place, a goal that no news staffer dares to forget.” April 9, 1978
- “If newspapers cover their entire communities and deal with all of the concerns fully and fairly, then their readers will be reminded that they are indeed fortunate to have a free press, that it is an important part of their freedom, and they will join in the fight for its life. If, on the other hand, newspapers fail to deliver a free press which reflects all quarters of their communities, then they shall forfeit their claims to free press status and shall lose the support of those they should serve. Gannett newspapers and all in their communities must prove to each other daily that we are lucky to have each other.” March 25, 1979
We could change just a couple words, put new dates on those quotes and send them out today.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 10, 2017)
We get it, the rhetoric is hot. Things are heating up. There’s a “war of words” underway.
But let’s can that phrase and other clichés. Our stories don’t need them and there are so many other compelling ways to describe what’s going on.
Also, we’re doing some excellent work. We don’t want yet another clanger of a cliché to be the thing listeners or readers remember.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 10, 2017)
Wednesday marks three years since the shooting death of Michael Brown. In stories about that, he should not be referred to as a “teenager.” Brown was 18 — an adult.
Our guidance from 2014 still applies:
- Cite his age.
- Avoid labels. If you have to use one, “young man” is OK.
Weekend All Things Considered applied the guidance correctly here.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 7, 2017)
Editor’s note: This “Memmo” comes from Ariel Zambelich and Emily Bogle.
As journalists, we sometimes find ourselves in the same room with famous and powerful folks.
However, we ask that you be cautious about taking photos with the subjects of your stories. Posed grip-and-grin portraits and selfies may be OK for your personal collection (we’re looking at all you scrapbookers out there). But we shouldn’t be using them to promote the journalism we do.
Remember: While we’re friendly to those we encounter (whether they’re famous or not) we are not their friends. Our job as journalists is to report the facts, tell important and compelling stories, and remain detached. Posting that photo of yourself with Sen. Soandso, former President Suchandsuch or champion swimmer Flipandkick can make it look as if you’re on their “side” or are so darn thrilled about interviewing them that someone might question your objectivity.
That said, the Visuals team is excited to work with you to create high-quality imagery to accompany your stories online and to add to social promotion. Loop us in early if you have something that could use visuals – it can sometimes take a little bit of prep to figure out the best way to facilitate.
Here are some kinds of images we’re looking for, in order of priority:
- Portraits of interview subjects when they come to HQ (before or after the interview).
- Environmental portraits of the interview subjects in a place that’s relevant to your story.
- Action shots of the interview subjects doing the cool thing you’re featuring.
- Sense of place pictures to show where the story is happening.
- Action shots of the interview happening (in the studio or in the field).
You can take these kinds of shots, too! We’ve got some great resources on the NPR Training website and offer monthly training sessions to help you build up your image-making skills.
So remember: selfies are pictures, too, but they’re not the ideal way to promote your stories.
(“Memmos;” July 31, 2017)
Wright Bryan, Lori Todd and I – with input from others – have updated and reorganized the Social Media section of the Ethics Handbook.
The basic principles remain the same. But there has been a lot of change in the social media world in the five years or so since the handbook was first published. It was time to add some guidance and tweak our thinking in a couple places.
Please read through it. Like the rest of the handbook, it’s more a discussion of how to think things through rather than a set of rigid rules.
As you see, the guidance is attached to the handbook. If you want to compare it to the previous section about social media, that version is archived here.
Related: You’ve heard that Wright is leaving NPR. His last day is Friday.
I’m glad this update comes before Wright departs because it gives us all the chance to thank him for being a wise guide to the social media world. His thinking is woven throughout NPR’s principles.
You might say he’s set us on the Wright path.
(“Memmos;” July 26, 2017)
NPR’s Ethics Handbook is organized around 10 sections that focus on the core principles that drive our journalism. There are discussions and guidance about the role and proper use of social media throughout.
This special section collects the discussions and guidance about social media. It begins with a general discussion about excellence in social media practices, and moves on through important topics such as respect, honesty and accuracy. There is some overlap between sections, which should not be surprising given the way social media have spread through our culture.
INTRODUCTION: The more things change …
In 2012, when the Handbook was published and the special section was created, the rewards and risks associated with social media were called “new and unfamiliar.”
Five years later, NPR journalists are active on social media and those rewards and risks aren’t new or unfamiliar any more. In fact, one unpleasant aspect has become all too familiar: While NPR journalists generally enjoy their interactions with the public on social media, they have also been the targets of abuse on Twitter and other platforms. We’ve added new guidance on how to handle such situations.
But even as new social media tools and challenges pop up, and as old ones evolve, our core principles still drive the way we should conduct ourselves in the digital world.
That’s why we continue to say:
“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.”
Though the core principles haven’t changed, we’ve gone through the entries about social media and updated them where we felt it was necessary. For comparison purposes, the 2012 versions are here.
Because the social media landscape is constantly changing, there will surely be more updates in coming years. We’ll also continue to post guidance in the “Memmos” that are attached to the Ethics Handbook. The posts already there include:
The Ethics Handbook and the social media guidance in it are living documents. We invite suggestions and welcome feedback.
Mark Memmott, Wright Bryan, Lori Todd
Social media platforms are great tools when handled correctly.
Social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter and Slack have become an integral part of everyday life for people around the world. As NPR grows to serve an audience that extends well beyond radio listeners, social media are an increasingly important way of connecting with our audiences. Properly used, social networking sites can be valuable parts of our newsgathering and reporting kits because they can speed research and quickly extend a reporter’s contacts. They are also useful transparency tools — allowing us to open up our reporting and editing processes when appropriate. We encourage our journalists to take advantage of them.
But reporting in social media spaces requires the same diligence we exercise when reporting in other environments. When NPR bloggers post about breaking news, they do not cite anonymous posts on social media sites — though they may use information they find there to guide their reporting. They carefully attribute the information they cite and are clear about what NPR has and has not been able to confirm.
When NPR correspondents go on the air they may mention discussions they’ve seen on social media sites as reflecting in part the tone or mood or general reaction to an event. But they realize that is not the same as a scientific survey of public opinion or a substitute for the kind of in-depth reporting that leads to a deep understanding of a subject.
And all NPR journalists understand that to get the most out of social media we need to understand those communities. So we respect their cultures and treat those we encounter online with the same courtesy and understanding as anyone we deal with in the offline world. We do not impose ourselves on such sites. We are guests and behave as such.
Words matter. Try to strike the right tone.
NPR has always tried to be engaging, entertaining and informative – while being civil. We’ve never shouted at our guests. We seek answers, not confrontations, when we conduct interviews. We are firm when we need to be, but never mean.
We take the same attitude to social media. We shouldn’t SHOUT IN ALL CAPS when we’re angry. We shouldn’t take the bait from trolls and sink to their level. We don’t use foul language. We pause to re-read our responses before hitting “reply.”
As we’ve said before:
“We’re professional communicators at a major news organization. What we say and write in public reflects on NPR. No matter what platform we’re using or where we’re appearing, we should live up to our own standards.”
There is room to be a little looser with our language on social media. There are words and phrases that, if written with the right tone, are OK. Take “badass,” for example. Used as a compliment, it’s a wonderful word.
Tone and intent are critical. Words that cut when used in anger may spark laughs in other contexts – especially when poking fun at ourselves.
How we treat each other.
We sometimes want to write about NPR on social media. Sharing our colleagues’ work is encouraged. Pointing to NPR’s coverage of news events is of course perfectly fine. But when it comes to criticism of the work done by NPR’s journalists, we treat our colleagues as we hope they would treat us. If we have something critical to say, we say it to their face – not on social media.
We also treat each other with respect when using social media platforms such as Slack to communicate internally. When in doubt, it’s always wise to ask a few questions: Would I say that to this person’s face? Would I say that in front of my co-workers? How would I feel if that was said – in public — to me?
How we deal with abusive behavior by others.
Journalists are just like those in other professions. We enjoy being praised when we do good work. But unlike those in occupations that aren’t in the public eye, journalists have to accept that being criticized is part of the job. We know that the words we write and say, the photos and videos we post, the charts we produce and – yes – the things we say in social media may anger others. If we’re willing to report facts that may cast public officials in an unfavorable light and are willing to dig into controversial topics, we have to be willing to put up with some pushback from the public.
We do not, however, have to put up with threatening or abusive communications from those who don’t like our reporting. We do not have to put up being personally attacked because of our gender, race, religion or any other identifying factor.
The guiding principles when such abuse comes in are “don’t feed the trolls” and “don’t respond in kind.” This is a classic example of “easier said than done,” of course. We’re human. We want to fire back.
Here are two other approaches:
If the message is unpleasant but not threatening and is about work you’ve done, try responding with something along these lines – “I appreciate constructive feedback. Can you tell me more about what concerned you?” If the person responds constructively, you’ve got a conversation going. If the person continues to be unpleasant or becomes abusive, do not continue the conversation. Instead, move to our next suggestion.
If a message feels threatening, do not respond to it. Instead, forward it to our internal distribution list “NPRThreats.” It will be read by our Legal, Security and News Operations executives. They will take appropriate actions and keep you updated about what they’re doing.
Social media can be wonderful places to spread our journalism and hear from the public. But it’s become increasingly clear that social media communities are also places were some people’s darker sides emerge. NPR journalists should know that there is support available to them when they come under attack.
We are considerate of community norms.
We know that different communities – online and offline – have their own culture, etiquette, and norms, and that we should be respectful of them. Our ethics don’t change in different circumstances, but our decisions might.
Awareness is critical. Strive to be knowledgeable about each social media platform’s culture, and be attuned to gaps in your understanding. Your colleagues can be a terrific resource to help you get up to speed on unfamiliar settings.
Consider as well how your conduct in a community will affect your reporting. As you adjust behaviors such as language and dress in different situations, think about what might be most helpful or harmful to effective reporting on social media.
Also, appreciate that journalism can be an intrusive act, and conduct yourself as a decent guest of the community where you’re reporting. If it was customary to remove your shoes upon entering a building, you would. It’s appropriate to follow the indigenous customs on social media as well.
Don’t just spread information. Be careful. Be skeptical. Add context.
When determining whether to pass along information being reported on social media sites by other news outlets or individuals, be thoughtful. When we point to what others are saying, in the eyes of many we are effectively reporting that information ourselves. This is true whether the platform is an official NPR social media account or a post to an NPR journalist’s personal account.
Reporting about what’s being posted on social media can give our listeners and readers valuable insights into the day’s news. We encourage you to do it, with these guidelines in mind.
One key is to be transparent about what we’re doing. We tell readers what has and hasn’t been confirmed. Here’s an example of language we use:
“This is a breaking news story. As often happens in situations like these, some information reported earlier may turn out to be inaccurate. We’ll move quickly to correct the record and we’ll only point to the best information we have at the time.”
A Twitter-sized version might read like this:
“We’re following the news from Gotham City. We’ll focus on authoritative sources, update as things change and correct any misinformation.”
If we are retweeting information, it’s because we think it’s of value. We know that doing this can make it look like NPR is vouching for what’s been said. That’s why we use the “quote tweet” function to say more, add context and make clear that we’re pointing to something that’s been posted by another person or news outlet. Keep this in mind: A retweet may be seen as an endorsement; don’t assume it’s not going to be viewed that way.
We challenge those putting information on social media to provide evidence. We raise doubts and ask questions when we have concerns — sometimes “knocking down” rumors is of enormous value to our readers. And we always ask an important question: are we about to spread a thinly-sourced rumor or are we passing on valuable and credible (even if unverified) information in a transparent manner with appropriate caveats?
Above all, proceed with caution, especially when news is breaking and accounts vary widely about what is happening. That means we reach out to other sources for confirmation. And the general standard is simple: We tweet and retweet as if what we’re saying or passing along is information we would put on the air or in a “traditional” NPR.org news story. If it needs context, attribution, clarification or “knocking down,” we provide it.
When in doubt, consult the Engagement Team.
Of course, it’s not always obvious how to apply journalistic principles to the social media arena. One resource available to NPR journalists is our “Engagement Team.” Its members have expertise in collecting information from a variety of sources, in establishing to the best of their ability the credibility of those voices and the information they are posting, and in analyzing the material they use. Always make clear to listeners and readers what has been obtained from our original reporting and what we’ve found posted in social media outlets. And to the greatest practical extent, spell out how the information was checked and why we consider the sources credible. We may also invite our audience to assist in our efforts to monitor and verify what’s being reported on social media. Such crowdsourcing does not determine what NPR journalists report, but it does add to our knowledge. The team can be reached via email (look for “homepageeditors” in the NPR internal email address book).
Follow up offline when appropriate.
It’s not hard to fake an identity online. Tonal or contextual nuances can be lost in online exchanges. So when appropriate, clarify and confirm information collected online through phone and in-person interviews. For example, when a social media posting is itself news, contact the source to confirm the origin of the information and attain a better understanding of its meaning. We must try to be as sophisticated in our use of social media as our audience and users are. The Engagement Team is a key asset in this effort.
Take care in using images that have been posted online.
In considering whether to use photos and video that are being posted online by individuals, do your best to verify their accuracy and when in doubt, do not publish them.
Images can be manipulated. Old video can be reposted and made to appear as if it’s new. Photos or video taken in one part of the world can be repackaged and portrayed as being from somewhere else. Again, when in doubt, leave them out.
As with all information, bring a healthy skepticism to images you encounter, starting from the assumption that all such images or video are not authentic. Then, with guidance from NPR’s Multimedia and Engagement Teams (and if legal issues are involved, NPR’s Legal team as well), work through a series of questions, including:
- When was it posted?
- Do the images or video match what has been distributed by professionals (wire services, news networks, etc.)?
- Is it original work or copies of what others have done?
- Does this person have the legal right to distribute the work and has he made the materials available for others to use?
More resources: The National Press Photographers Association’s code of ethics is posted online.
We are open about who we are.
If as part of our work we are doing anything on social media or other online forums, we do not hide the fact that we work for NPR. We do not use pseudonyms when doing such work.
NPR journalists may, in the course of their work, “follow” or “friend” Twitter accounts, Facebook pages and other social media sites created by political parties and advocacy groups. But we do so to monitor their news feeds, not to become participants, and we follow and friend sites created by advocates from all sides of the issues. It’s as basic a tool as joining mailing lists.
If in their personal lives NPR journalists join online forums and social media sites, they may follow the conventions of those outlets and use screen names that do not identify who they are. But we do not use information gathered from our interactions on such sites in our reports for NPR without identifying ourselves to those involved and seeking their permission to be quoted or cited. If we get ideas for stories, we treat the information just as we would anything we see in the “real world” — as a starting point that needs to be followed by open, honest reporting.
Finally, we acknowledge that nothing on the Web is truly private. Even on purely recreational or cultural sites and even if what we’re doing is personal and not identified as coming from someone at NPR, we understand that what we say and do could still reflect on NPR. So we do nothing that could undermine our credibility with the public, damage NPR’s standing as an impartial source of news, or otherwise jeopardize NPR’s reputation. In other words, we don’t behave any differently than we would in any public setting or on an NPR broadcast.
We probably couldn’t hide anyway, because there is no privacy on the Web.
Imagine, if you will, an NPR legal correspondent named Sue Zemencourt. She’s a huge fan of Enormous University’s basketball team and loves to chat online about EU. She posts comments on blogs under the screen name “enormous1.” One day, an equally rabid fan of Ginormous State (“ginormous1”) posts obnoxious comments about EU.
Sue snaps. Expletives and insults fly from her fingers on to the webpage. They’re so out-of-line that the blog blocks her from submitting any more comments — and discovers that her IP address leads back to NPR. The blog’s host posts that “someone at NPR is using language that the FCC definitely would not approve of” and describes what was said. Things go viral.
The basically good person that she is, Sue publicly acknowledges and apologizes for her mistake. But that doesn’t stop The Daily Show from satirizing about the “NPRNormous Explosion.”
Be circumspect about your behavior, even when the exchange feels private or anonymous. Even an email to a trusted recipient can be made public, with or without the recipient’s knowledge or consent.
Online sources should be on-the-record too.
Many contacts with sources are made online — via emails and social media sites. As we discuss in the guidelines about accuracy and transparency, NPR pushes to keep its interviews on-the-record. The same is true of our “virtual” interactions with sources. We make that clear to potential sources when we reach out to them.
Social media outlets are public spaces.
We know that everything we write or receive on a social media site is public. Anyone with access to the Web can potentially see what we’re doing. And regardless of how careful we are in trying to keep them separate, our professional lives and our personal lives overlap when we’re online.
The line between private and public activity has been blurred by these tools. Information from a Facebook page, blog entries and tweets — even if they’re intended to be personal messages to friends or family — can be easily circulated beyond the intended audiences. The content, therefore, represents us and NPR to the outside world — as do our radio pieces and stories for NPR.org. This applies to the people and organizations we choose to “friend” or “like” online as well. Those are content choices as much as a message or blog post. As in all of all reporting, the NPR Guiding Principles guide our use of social media.
Rule of thumb: You should conduct yourself in social media forums with an eye to how your behavior or comments might appear if we were called upon to defend them as being appropriate behavior by a journalist. In other words, don’t act any differently online than you would in any other public setting.
And a final caution – when in doubt, consult with your supervisor and, if needed, the Standards & Practices editor and Engagement Team.
Can we follow political parties or advocacy groups related to our beats?
If your work includes coverage of politics and social issues, can you “follow” or “friend” a political party or advocacy group?
Yes, if you’re doing it to keep up on what that party or group is doing. And you should be following those on the other side of the issues as well.
Self-protection is part of being accountable online.
Protect yourself: Use the highest level of privacy tools available to control access to your personal activity when appropriate, but don’t let that make you complacent. It’s just not that hard for someone to bypass those safeguards and make public what you thought was private.
Don’t be careless. Keep your opinions to yourself. Imagine what you say or write landing in an AP story or in The Washington Post, and imagine the damage that could cause you or NPR.
Consider the legal implications of your actions, regardless of the medium.
Whether in an NPR newscast or a tweet, “you always have to take into consideration what you’re saying, what you know, what you don’t know, and be thoughtful about not making libelous comments whatever the medium.”1
In many cases, a journalist will be legally responsible for any statement he or she repeats, even if the statement is attributed to another source. There are a few exceptions, and one of them is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects news organizations from defamation liability for content that’s created by a third party. Many experts believe this protection would extend to retweets. Citizen Media Law Project co-founder David Ardia put it this way in a Poynter.org story: “So if a journalist or news organization were to retweet a defamatory statement, they would not be held accountable. If, however, they added a defamatory remark as part of the retweet, they could be.”
So, in theory NPR would be protected if someone retweets a post that says something defamatory or inaccurate about someone. But be careful about adding comments that would make the message your own and destroy immunity.
But beyond the legal implications, it is important to consider our listeners and readers and the fact that they trust that the information we’re giving them is as accurate as we can make it. This extends to the information we tweet, retweet, blog, tumble or share in any other way on social media. And that’s why we don’t simply pass along information — even via something as seemingly innocent as a retweet — if we doubt the credibility of the source or news outlet. We push for confirmation. We look for other sources. We reach out to those closer to the story. In other words, we do some reporting.
1. Source: NPR’s Ashley Messenger, in an article on Poynter.org.
The same standards apply.
Do not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online. This extends to your Facebook page or a personal blog. Don’t express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org. These guidelines apply whether you are posting under your own name or — if the online site allows pseudonyms — your identity would not be readily apparent. In reality, anything you post online reflects both on you and on NPR.
Your simple participation in some online groups could be seen to indicate that you endorse their views. Consider whether you can accomplish your purposes by just observing a group’s activity, rather than becoming a member. If you do join, be clear that you’ve done so to seek information or story ideas. And if you “friend” or join a group representing one side of an issue, do so for groups representing other viewpoints.
THE LEGAL FINE PRINT
When posting or gathering material online, consider terms of service.
It’s important to keep in mind that the terms of service of a social media site apply to what we post there and to the information we gather from it. Also: The terms might allow for our material to be used in a different way than intended. Additionally, law enforcement officials may be able to obtain our reporting on these sites by subpoena without our consent — or perhaps even our knowledge. Social media are a vital reporting resource for us, but we must be vigilant about keeping work that may be sensitive in our own hands.
We understand that what we say on platforms such as Snapchat, where things seem to disappear after a short time, may still exist in the service’s database. That’s why we follow the same rules on those platforms as on all others. We’re as careful about what we say there as we are anywhere else.
It’s been three years since we issued guidance on the language to use and avoid when reporting about illegal immigration.
Since then, a couple references have worked their way into common usage and no longer seem to fall into the category of loaded language.
Here, then, is updated guidance:
- The debate is still about “illegal immigration” and what to do about it. “Illegal immigration” remains an acceptable term when we’re reporting about the issue.
- When we’re reporting about the people at the center of this story, it’s still best practice to begin with action words, rather than labels. Two examples: They are “in the country illegally” or have “entered the country illegally.”
- In subsequent references, we now think it’s OK to mix in the phrases “undocumented immigrants” and “unauthorized immigrants.” They are now in common usage. And, unlike the label “illegal immigrants,” they are not phrases sometimes used to hurt others. (Our approach on this language is similar to what we’ve said about the debate over health care – it is best practice to first refer to the law Republicans want to replace as the “Affordable Care Act”. Then it’s OK to say “Obamacare.”)
- “Undocumented” is also OK in headlines.
For an example of how to handle immigration language, see John Burnett’s report on “Riding With ICE: ‘We’re Trying To Do The Right Thing.’ ”
(“Memmos;” July 25, 2017)
The grim news from San Antonio has two words being used interchangeably. It’s not yet clear that they should be used that way.
Smuggling, in this context, is the illegal transporting of people into the U.S.
Trafficking involves “force, fraud or coercion.”
As of now, the driver of the truck has been charged with smuggling.
It might turn out that the people in that truck were also the victims of “force, fraud or coercion.” But we don’t know that yet. So “trafficking” isn’t the word to use at this point.
(“Memmos;” July 24, 2017)
Take a look at the corrections page. We’re making the same kinds of mistakes over and over. Names. Numbers. Titles. We’re getting those, and other things, wrong.
This month has been especially busy. From reporters to producers to editors, it’s clear that we aren’t always double-checking the basics.
The result is that some great stories have corrections notes attached to them. That’s a shame.
- Be sure about “facts” you put into DACS, scripts, promos, blog posts or basically anything that could find its way onto our website or onto our airwaves. Remember, your keyboard is a live mic.
- Double- or triple-check everything, and never assume that the next person in the process is going to do it for you. If you write it, say it or approve it, you own it.
John Wooden, arguably the greatest men’s college basketball coach, would show his players how he wanted them to put on their socks and tie their sneakers. His point was that if they didn’t do those things correctly, they would get blisters — blisters that could put them on the bench and hurt the team.
We get so many things right. But we’re also getting too many blisters.
(“Memmos;” July 18, 2017)
If we refer to Washington, D.C., and the 48 states that are south of Canada as being the “continental United States,” we’re leaving something rather large out of the picture.
Alaska is, after all, part of the North American continent.
The states south of Canada are within the “contiguous United States.”
Or, and this is a word that not even Korva has ever used on the air, they are “conterminous.” (Think she can do it?)
(“Memmos;” July 5, 2017)
We worry about references to bodily parts and bodily functions. We obsess about which of the various uses of the word “ass” have to be bleeped. We wonder why “effing” is OK but the F-word isn’t. We give our audience warnings before they hear such words, as well as many others.
Then, sometimes without much discussion beforehand, we in the media print or broadcast comments from those who engage in what most people would agree is hate speech.
We do not want to sanitize such comments or shield the audience from them if they are important to our stories. We do, though, want to give the question of whether to include hate speech in our reports the same sort of careful thought that we give to other forms of offensive language. The framing, for instance, has to be correct. Is a warning or other type of heads up needed? Is the audience owed an acknowledgement that what they heard is highly offensive? How should the speaker be challenged about what was just said?
The point is simple. Our position is that as a responsible broadcaster, NPR sets “a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to our audience.” If we’re going to be concerned about a mild oath or a scatological reference, we should be equally or more concerned about hate speech.
Talk with senior editors about such material and how it will be handled. The DMEs and/or Standards & Practices editor should be consulted as far as possible before broadcast or publication.
(“Memmos;” June 20, 2017)
When news is breaking, we tell listeners and readers that we’ll do our best to be accurate – but that it’s a developing story and some things that get reported may later turn out to have been wrong.
Wednesday’s shootings in Alexandria tested us again. From this vantage point, it looks like we did remarkably well. Some important things were kept in mind (and are important to remember for the next time):
- We went to eyewitnesses and kept the discussions to “what did you see?”
- We stuck close to the language that police officials and other authorities were using to report what was “known.” Rumors and comments beginning with “I’m hearing that …” weren’t passed along.
- When the shooter’s name started to appear in other media, we worked our sources to confirm rather than go with what others were saying.
- As the shooter’s Facebook page started to circulate, we tapped the expertise of our social media team to do what we could to verify it was his. And we were careful to use such words as “purported to be” when there was any smidgen of doubt.
- We used our Visuals team to think through how to handle the videos and other material that were popping up on social media and other news sites.
- Speaking of social media, we steered clear of unverified accounts – but followed what was being posted to get leads that we could run down ourselves.
- We stuck with words such as “suspect” and “alleged” a little longer than many other outlets. That’s OK. It’s better to be cautious than to have to go back to correct.
- There wasn’t unfounded speculation about a motive in our reports. We kept to the facts as they came in.
I’m surely missing many other important steps we took to keep things straight.
(“Memmos;” June 15, 2017)
Editor’s note on July 27, 2017: Click here to go to an updated special section about the do’s and don’t's of social media.
When a tweet containing verifiably incorrect information (beyond a minor typo or something easily corrected in a follow-up tweet or reply) goes out from an NPR account, here’s what to do:
1. Take a screenshot of the offending tweet, preferably on Twitter.com with you logged in as NPR (or your specific branded account). Save that screenshot for archiving.
2. In Notepad or a similar tool, draft a correction. The format should follow the style we use at NPR.org/corrections. That is, we state what the error was and then give the corrected information. For example: “We’ve deleted a tweet that [insert description of mistake]. In fact [insert correct information].” If you can fit in a link to a page where the correct information is more fully stated, do so.
3. Ideally, show the draft to someone. We all need an editor and we don’t want a typo or an error to slip into a correction. For relatively simple, low-profile fixes a colleague is fine. For more serious corrections (trust your gut on this), talk with the DME in charge that day, your supervisor, the Standards & Practices editor or one of the copy editors. The members of the Social Media team are invaluable resources as well.
4. Then, delete the offending tweet. Again, be sure you have your corrected tweet and screenshot ready to go before deletion.
5. Once the tweet has been deleted, create a fresh tweet with your correction language. Add a link if you have one and attach the screenshot you created of the problematic tweet.
6. If a DME or the Standards & Practices editor isn’t already in the loop, send them a note recapping what’s been done.
Here’s what is going on:
We’re aiming to be transparent, but we also don’t want a tweet with a serious mistake to keep circulating. By making a screenshot and attaching it to the follow-up tweet with the right information, we are acknowledging the error without hiding it.
What sorts of mistakes warrant this type of treatment? We’re going to have to apply judgment. Sometimes, it will be obvious. But in many cases a “reply” to the tweet might suffice. Again, talk with an editor, a DME, the Standards & Practices editor or the Social Media team.
Wright Bryan, Sara Goo, Lori Todd, Mark Memmott & Steve Mullis
(“Memmos;” June 15, 2017)
There have been a few times recently when we’ve referred to “third world” nations. As Goats & Soda has previously explained, that’s an out-of-date expression.
We basically agree with The Associated Press:
“Avoid use of this term. Developing nations is more appropriate when referring to the economically developing nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.”
“Developing” has its critics, as Goats & Soda noted. But the word does describe a nation’s situation, without as openly assigning a lesser (“third” vs. “first”) status.
As always, of course, action words can work better than labels. Rather than simply saying a nation is developing, facts about its status can help tell the story.
- “Third world” is out.
- “Developing” is OK.
- Action words may be better alternatives.
(“Memmos;” June 1, 2017)
It is “our job to know about ‘experts’ conflicts of interest” and share that information with our audience (or not use experts whose conflicts are problematic). As we’ve said, it’s not optional.
Click here for related reading from JournalistsResource.org. It includes “some questions journalists should ask when researching think tanks.” Among them:
- “Look at the think tank’s annual report. Who is on staff? On the board or advisory council? Search for these people. They have power over the think tank’s agenda; do they have conflicts of interest? Use OpenSecrets’ lobby search, a project of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, to see if any of these individuals are registered lobbyists and for whom. …
- “Does the organization focus on one issue alone? If so, look carefully at its funding. …
- “Does the organization clearly identify its political leanings or its neutrality? …
- “Does the annual report list donors and amounts? Are large donors anonymous? If the answer to the second question is yes, you should be concerned that big donors may be trying to hide their influence. …
- “Does it have a conflict of interest policy?”
(“Memmos;” May 30, 2017)
A “dictator” has “absolute power and authority” (Webster’s). That power and authority may have been acquired through a military coup, family succession or over time. Dictators do not hold on to power through free elections.
An “authoritarian” enforces “unquestioning obedience to authority” (Webster’s), but doesn’t have the personal, absolute power of the dictator and might be just the latest leader of an authoritarian regime. Authoritarians may enjoy majority support, though any elections that keep them in office are not likely to be truly free.
“Strongman” is a word that foreign policy wonks and journalists love, probably so that they don’t have to say authoritarian or dictator. Here’s something to remember: A male dictator is a strongman, but a strongman might not be a dictator. That’s because he (they’re almost always men, right?) may not have absolute power.
A “totalitarian” government reaches down into, and attempts to control, all aspects of life. It goes deeper into society than an authoritarian regime. There’s usually a dictator at the top.
As always, action words are better than labels. For example, describing Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte’s violent crackdown on drug dealers and users, and the resulting deaths of 7,000 Filipinos, says more than only referring to him as a strongman.
Contributing: Will Dobson
(“Memmos;” May 8, 2017)
There have been some questions from our new arrivals, so a note seems timely.
First reference: “President Trump.”
Note: “President Donald Trump” is OK in a first reference on the air, but the “Donald” really isn’t necessary.
Note: “Donald Trump” alone is not how we initially refer to the president.
Later references: “Trump” or “the president.”
Note: “Mr. Trump” is OK in later audio references, but we long ago did away with the “Mister” requirement for presidents.
(“Memmos;” May 3, 2017)
When there’s disturbing news or content, the issue of whether and how to warn the audience comes up.
As we’ve said before, ”there is no one style. Sometimes, ‘this report includes offensive language’ is enough because there are only a few such words. Other times, a more substantial advisory is needed — when a story includes sounds of suffering or painful accounts of personal trauma, for example. We use our judgment to determine how much is necessary and what to say.”
Here are four effective ways the issue was handled in the past 24 hours:
- A Newscast spot about the latest murder posted on Facebook was introduced with an advisory: “This next report involves details that may be upsetting to some listeners.” Then, before the details were shared, listeners were given a sense of what the story would be about and enough time for most of them to turn down the volume if they wished.
- On Morning Edition, a conversation about that murder and video was preceded with word that “many people will find this next story disturbing. It’s the story of the latest murder shown on Facebook. The world’s biggest social network has offered condolences … but has not said much about just how it addressed the violent content from Thailand. We are going to talk about some troubling details, which is going to take us about four minutes or so.”
Telling listeners how long a report will be is, of course, a way of signalling that some of them might want to tune out for that period. Here’s what we’ve said about that kind of warning:
“Are you suggesting we do it all the time? No.
“What is being suggested is that some types of reports — especially those that parents might not want their children to hear or that might disturb particular groups of vulnerable people — might merit a mention about how long they’ll last.
“It’s a friend doing someone else a favor.”
- The Facebook news was in the Up First podcast, and a heads-up tailored for a digital audience was included: “Let’s have a warning here — before we begin our final story — because … some people may just want to hit pause or something at this point because [they] are going to find this disturbing.”
- Online, rather than just noting that there was sexual content in the piece, Eric Deggans’ review of The Handmaid’s Tale was introduced with a note that “this story talks about characters who are forced into sexual slavery.” The words “forced” and “slavery” were important because simply saying there was sexual content would not have given readers a clear enough picture of what was going to be discussed.
(“Memmos;” April 26, 2017)
The guidance we’ve applied to the Bush and Clinton families applies to the Trumps.
“The default setting for any of our news reports is simple: We use family names on second reference. That promotes clarity and helps us maintain an objective distance from those we report about.”
It’s especially important to apply that standard to first families because “there’s the matter of respect … and we don’t want to be perceived as being either for or against someone because of the way we refer to him or her. Everyone is treated the same.”
In stories that include more than one member of a family, subsequent references may need to include full names or other descriptions in order to keep everyone straight. It’s “Eric Trump” or “the president’s son,” but not “Eric.” It’s “Ivanka Trump” or “the president’s daughter,” but not “Ivanka.” The exception in the current first family is 11-year-old Barron. At least until he’s 16, he can be referred to by just his first name on subsequent references.
What about features stories? We’ve said before that it may feel appropriate to use first names on subsequent references in “personal pieces in which someone is the emotional center of the story.” Consult with a DME or the Standards & Practices editor ahead of time.
Other circumstances may arise. We’re always glad to discuss.
Finally, some famous folks may qualify for first names on second reference, including:
(“Memmos;” April 25, 2017)
This lede in The Two-Way on Friday underscores why it’s important to stick to the facts and avoid speculation when news is breaking:
“German federal prosecutors say the bombing of a soccer team’s bus in Dortmund, Germany, was carried out by a man apparently attempting to manipulate the team’s stock for profit. The 28-year-old man has been arrested and charged with attempted murder, among other things.”
So much for the supposed “terrorist involvement” that had been the subject of earlier news reports.
We skillfully avoided going too far in this case. The day of the attack, The Two-Way was clear: “Police and prosecutors have not identified who is behind the explosions.” Also, the blog quoted the Dortmund police chief saying “I do not want to suggest that this was a terrorist attack.”
On Newscast that day, Lucian Kim reported that “authorities say it’s too early to speculate on the motive behind the blasts.”
Caution is wise even when things seem obvious. The day Aaron Hernandez was found dead, there was discussion about whether we should immediately say it was a suicide. We chose not to, even though the circumstances pointed to that conclusion. The better choice was to simply report what was known about what happened and let the authorities figure out if it was a suicide (the eventual ruling: it was).
(“Memmos;” April 24, 2017)
Everything in this note has been said before, but needs to be said again. Click the links to read more.
– Is the person going to be in danger if we use a full name?
– Is the subject sensitive and among those that could come back to haunt the person because the story will live on the Web forever?
– How hard have we tried to get others with equally good stories who have no problem with the use of their full names?
2. Senior editors must be consulted before we put anonymous voices in our stories.
“Senior editor = a supervising senior editor, a DME or the Standards & Practices noodge. Senior supervising editors can weigh the issues and make the call on this. They should then flag the decision to the DMEs and the S&P. That way the DMEs and S&P can raise concerns if needed, but just as importantly can keep a handle on how often this is happening across the desks and shows.”
“When we decide to withhold a source’s name from a story, we don’t invent a pseudonym for that source. Again, our job is to present factual – not fabricated – information.”
Note: When someone is using a pseudonym they created to hide their identity, we might refer to them by that name if we believe they need to be kept anonymous. In those cases, we explain to the audience what we’re doing.
4. Explain, explain, explain.
We “describe anonymous sources as clearly as [we] can without identifying them” and we explain why they need anonymity.
Note: “NPR has learned” is never enough.
5. No attacks.
“In our coverage, anonymous or unnamed sources generally cannot make pejorative comments about the character, reputation, or personal qualities of another individual, or derogatory statements about an institution. We don’t use such material in our stories, with rare exceptions. (If an individual is blowing the whistle on significant misdeeds or making an allegation of sexual assault, we may decide to air the person’s claims. But we would only make such a decision after careful deliberation with senior news managers.)”
6. No offers.
“Occasionally in the course of our reporting, a source will agree to share information only if it’s not attributed to him or her. Journalists should use their good judgment to determine whether the information merits such a decision. However, we do not begin our quest for interviews by promising to keep a source anonymous or off the record. Our goal is to get as much information as possible on the record.”
There is more on this subject at http://ethics.npr.org/. Just type “anonymous” or “anonymity” in the search box at the top of the page.
(“Memmos;” April 18, 2017)
Do not use the word “battleship” unless you’re referring to the classic game or have checked in with our Pentagon team to be sure you’re using the word correctly. This is important: There are no active battleships in the U.S. Navy’s fleet. That means there are no battleships among the group sailing toward the Korean peninsula. The only U.S. battleships still around are museum pieces.
What is sailing to the region?
The Carl Vinson Strike Group – the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its escorts, which include two destroyers and a cruiser.
(“Memmos;” April 17, 2017)
We’ve done pretty well so far, but it’s important to remember and say that the man being sought for the murder in Cleveland is a suspect. “Allegedly” is also an important word at this point.
And: We shouldn’t just flatly state that Stephens is the man in the video or is the man who uploaded it. That’s what police and other authorities are saying, so attribute that kind of information to them. The same goes for the man’s claim to have committed other murders. Police and other authorities are saying the man who claims that is Stephens. Let’s keep attributing that.
One attribution may be enough if the things he’s suspected of doing are introduced with something like this: “Police in Cleveland say the man, whom they’ve identified as Steve Stevens, allegedly …”
(“Memmos;” April 17, 2017)
On long drives from Virginia to New York State and back in the past month, I listened to our coverage of the Gorsuch* confirmation hearings, analyses of the health care debate, breaking news about the missile strikes in Syria and Alice Cooper talking about Chuck Berry. I felt fully informed and entertained. Thank you.
Now if, as happened to me, you get to a point where you need relief from the serious side of the news, here’s a recommendation: Listen to and read Alina Selyukh’s story about the couple who are preserving the emails they’ve been writing to their daughter, who’s almost three years old. It tugged at the heart of at least one aging editor.
This also happened to me during one of those long drives: I heard people ask on our air whether the missile strike was a “one-off” and I began to wonder where that expression came from and just what it means. William Safire reported that it began as a British manufacturing term meaning “the only item of its kind.” He concluded that one-off has become a way of saying something is unique in an age when the word unique has been mistakenly corrupted by modifiers such as “very, quite, rather, almost [and] practically.” Webster’s defines one-off as “something that is one of a kind, not part of a series.” Merriam-Webster’s definition seems to fit best in the current conversation: “limited to a single time, occasion, or instance.”
A correct usage: “Based on things she’s said to him in the past, Korva’s compliment to Mark was a one-off.”
An incorrect usage: “Korva’s perfect pronunication of Eyjafjallajokull was a one-off.” (It couldn’t be, because she nailed it many times.)
* REMINDER: Our official pronouncer is “GORE-such.” Not “GORE-sitch.” You can hear him say his name here. (H/T Melissa Block)
(“Memmos;” April 11, 2017)
It’s incorrect to refer to Mar-a-Lago as if it’s a town or city. That also doesn’t give enough information to identify where the place is.
A few words are needed – most importantly, “Palm Beach.”
Here are some examples of how to do it:
- As Greg Allen has noted, Mar-a-Lago is “a private club [Trump] owns in Palm Beach, Fla.”
- Jim Zarroli has simply called it “President Trump’s Palm Beach resort.”
- Jessica Taylor has referred to it as President Trump’s “Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla.”
(“Memmos;” March 31, 2017)
The same guidance that applied during the Obama-era health care debate applies for the Trump-era tax debate.
“Reform” is not a neutral word. It’s used by partisans as they make the case that something needs to be fixed and that they’ve got a solution. And, as we’ve said, it “has a positive connotation so use it advisedly when referring to an issue that is controversial … (immigration reform, health care reform, welfare reform). Good substitutes: revamp, overhaul, change.”
In other words, proponents can use it. We shouldn’t.
(“Memmos;” March 20, 2017)
The University of Tennessee Chattanooga has said the decision to terminate the employment of reporter Jacqui Helbert was made by university officials, not the news editors at WUTC. The station’s news staff says the decision to remove from WUTC’s website the story that Helbert had done about meetings held by state legislators with students from a Gay-Straight Alliance Club was also made by university officials, not WUTC’s editors. (That story has been archived here.)
Serious questions have been raised about whether university officials were pressured to take those actions by state lawmakers — who could cut state funding to the school and WUTC.
In both cases we at NPR believe the decisions should have been left to the journalists in charge. Taking the decisions about enforcing ethics out of their hands did more to undermine the station’s credibility than the original infraction.
This chain of events underscores why it is critical that newsrooms such as that at WUTC not be subject to pressure from the institutions that hold their licenses, the sponsors who give them financial support or the politicians who sometimes don’t like the stories they hear or read.
To be sure, Helbert should have said explicitly to the legislators that she was there to report a story for WUTC. That said, the fact that she was wearing press credentials and was holding a 14-inch long microphone that she moved around as people spoke would be obvious signs to any public officials that they were being recorded — most likely for some type of public posting.
Her mistake was not, her editors say, a firing offense. Instead, it was a learning moment for a new reporter and she was counseled about her mistake. Her editors did not view the story as fatally flawed — she had not hidden her equipment or misled anyone. They say they would not have removed it from WUTC’s website if they had not been ordered to do so. Removing a story – except in the most extreme circumstances — is a breach of the standards practiced by NPR and other credible news organizations.
We at NPR agree with the editors’ thinking. They should have been allowed to handle the situation as they – the journalists – felt was right. We strongly urge the university and WUTC to reach an agreement that ensures the station’s editorial independence in the future.
(“Memmos;” March 28, 2017)
The Pentagon is dealing with “another scandal involving women in the military,” we said in some intros Tuesday.
Let’s add some words.
The Pentagon is dealing with “another scandal involving the treatment of women in the military.”
Or, the Pentagon is dealing with “another scandal involving sexual harassment of women in the military.”
Though it becomes apparent in the stories, we want to be clear from the start that the women are not the cause of the scandal. Also, we don’t want it to sound as if it’s the women’s presence that’s the problem.
We also may be approaching the point where the first reference could be to the military’s “nude photo scandal” or a similar construction, since the story has been out for a few days.
(“Memmos;” March 15, 2017)
About that storm heading across much of the nation:
- We don’t use The Weather Channel’s names for winter weather events. So, please, don’t refer to this one as “Stella!”
- As we’ve said before, let’s bury all the worn-out winter clichés before they pile up. Those include:
- Big chill
- Brave the elements
- Hunker down
- White stuff
- Old man winter (or Ol’ Man Winter)
- Jack Frost
- Deep freeze
- Nipping at our noses (or anything else)
- Enough is enough
- First flakes
- Winter wonderland
(“Memmos;” March 13, 2017)
As we continue to cover the health care debate, each of our stories and interviews needs to make some things clear and we need to continue to be careful about some language.
For starters, when referring to the law enacted during the Obama administration, it is best to use “Affordable Care Act” on first reference before explaining that it’s also known as Obamacare. A recent survey (Feb 2017) showed that a third of the public thought the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare were two different things (17 percent) or didn’t know if they were the same or different (18 percent).
While it’s OK to say the law is also known as Obamacare, we should be sparing in our use of the Obamacare label in subsequent references. It has swung from being a politically loaded word used by the law’s opponents, to a label embraced by the Obama administration and now back to a politically loaded word.
Meanwhile, the package unveiled this week can be summed up as “the Republican proposal, called the American Health Care Act.”
We can’t get tied up in initialisms, of course. Few will understand if we go on to refer to the Obama-era law as the ACA and the Republican proposal as the AHCA. “The Republican plan” is the easiest subsequent reference.
As during debates in earlier years, we should steer clear of the word “reform” when reporting about the proposal. One person’s reform is another person’s destruction. We settled on “overhaul” as a worthy substitute in the past. Suggestions are welcome for other alternatives.
Contributing: Joe Neel
(“Memmos;” March 7, 2017)
Editor’s note on July 27, 2017: Click here to go to an updated special section about the do’s and don’t's of social media.
There may be news in coming days about federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That’s not a prediction. It’s just an acknowledgement. If it happens, that would put NPR and NPR member stations in the news as well.
Just as we don’t participate in marches or rallies, don’t contribute to political campaigns and do not express our political opinions on social media, we should not be jumping into the middle of a debate about federal funding for public media. (We wouldn’t step into the debates over federal funding for defense, education or anything else, after all.)
If NPR journalists post opinions on social media or show up in other outlets’ news reports making critical comments, this news organization’s credibility will be compromised.
Jarl Mohn, Mike Riksen and others on the business side are making the case for public broadcasting. Member stations are making the case in their communities.
Meanwhile, some of NPR’s journalists will be covering the story. If others here weigh in with their opinions, the credibility of those NPR journalists’ work could be questioned.
We can, of course, post about the facts without opining. What types of things are OK?
- Links to any stories NPR does.
- Links to news reports from other credible outlets.
- Links to any “fact sheets” or similar materials put out by those on both sides of the issue. That includes this page about “Public Radio Finances.”
Obviously, we all care about the financial health of public media. The best thing we can do is to do our work as best we can — and that means showing we can treat news that affects NPR as we would any other story.
(“Memmos;” March 1, 2017)
A few times in recent days we’ve mispronounced the word anti-semitic. The middle syllable is “MIT,” not “MET.” Listen to Audie Cornish and Tom Gjelten, who get it right here.
For you dictionary fans, here’s how Webster’s New World does it: sə-MIT-ɪk.
(“Memmos;” Feb. 28, 2017)
At news organizations across the U.S., including at NPR, journalists and the colleagues who support their work are talking about whether basic journalistic standards and practices still make sense.
Some argue that journalists need to “do something.” That they need to “get involved.” That they should participate in the news as well as cover it.
The other side of the discussion is that journalists, and those who support their work, are already “involved.” That there is nothing more important they could be doing than their jobs. And that it is critical that they hold true to the core principles that have worked so well.
We’re going to be talking about all this in coming days, weeks and months. At lunch, over drinks and during meetings.
We’re planning a series of Q&As with Mike Oreskes and others. The hope is that they’ll be thought-provoking discussions about journalism that everyone at NPR, including those from outside News, will benefit from. If you have suggestions about specific topics we should tackle or speakers we might want to bring in, please tell Scott Montgomery or me.
Meanwhile, as we prepare for those sessions, this is a good time to remind ourselves about the NPR view.
We do not bury the lede in the Ethics Handbook. It begins with this:
“The mission of NPR, in partnership with its member stations, is to create a more informed public, one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas, and culture within the United States and across the globe. To this end, NPR reports, produces, acquires and distributes news, information and other content that meet the highest standards of public service in journalism and cultural expression.”
NPR, the handbook continues:
“Is at its core a news organization. Our news content, whether on the radio, on the web, or in any other form, must attain the highest quality and strengthen our credibility. We take pride in our craft. Our journalism is as accurate, fair and complete as possible. Our journalists conduct their work with honesty and respect, and they strive to be both independent and impartial in their efforts. Our methods are transparent and we will be accountable for all we do.
“We hold those who serve and influence the public to a high standard when we report about their actions. We must ask no less of ourselves. Journalism is a daily process of painting an ever truer picture of the world. Every step of this process – from reporting to editing to presenting information – may either strengthen or erode the public’s trust in us. We work hard to be worthy of that trust and to protect it.”
The key words in those passages were chosen carefully:
- “A more informed public.”
- “Public service.”
- “Accurate, fair and complete.”
- “Honesty and respect.”
- “Independent and impartial.”
- “An ever truer picture.”
- “The public’s trust.”
Our handbook makes a strong case about the importance of our jobs. We have a unique privilege. Think of it this way: There are plenty of other people sounding off on social media, marching in the streets and organizing for or against various things.
But we get to paint those ever truer pictures. We fulfill a public service. Everyone here contributes to the effort, whether you’re part of the newsroom or not.
As we all think about these issues, here are two suggestions:
- Reread the handbook; at least the opening page.
- Revisit the NPR mission statement that Bill Siemering wrote in 1970 — a time of great unrest when many journalists were surely feeling they should “get involved.” Bill underscored the role we play in giving people the information they need to “intelligently participate” in the debates of the day. He said we should help them be “more responsive, informed human beings and intelligent responsible citizens of their communities and the world.”
More to come.
(“Memmos;” Feb. 7, 2017)
The Supreme Court nominee’s last name, per our reporting from those who should know, is pronounced:
That’s Gore, as in Al Gore.
Such, as in “such a fine sight to see.”
Take it easy.
(“Memmos;’ Feb. 2, 2017.)
The next time a politician, press secretary or — yes — president says something that is false, unproven or has no basis in fact, the question will come up:
Do we call it a lie and do we call that person a liar?
Our policy remains the same as it’s been since we put it in writing during the 2016 presidential campaign.
We are not using the L-word.
You can read more about the reasoning here.
Mike Oreskes did say on Morning Edition that no word is “banned” and that NPR has “decided not to use the word lie in most situations.”
Those aren’t loopholes that give correspondents or editors the freedom to decide on their own that the word can be used. Someone from this group (and they all may weigh in) must give the OK: Mike, Edith Chapin, Chris Turpin, Gerry Holmes and Mark Memmott.
(“Memmos;” Jan. 26, 2017)
There will be claims and counterclaims from partisans this weekend about how many people came to watch the Inauguration and then how many came to Saturday’s march. Stay away from those claims. We should focus on describing the crowds – how far they stretched, how much of the Mall they covered, how many deep they were along the streets, how crowded the Metro was, etc. We should not cite the numbers coming from those partisans as if they’re real. They’re claims.
Brian Naylor is leading the effort to get non-partisan estimates from local security officials. Those will probably be disputed as well. We must attribute them to those officials if we report them. Look for “reportable” guidance from Brian and his editors.
By the way, some of the academic types who have done such estimates in the past have said they won’t be doing them this time around because of the blowback they’ve gotten in previous years. The Associated Press, meanwhile, says it is not planning to estimate the size of the crowds.
As for the widely cited 1.8 million figure for President Obama’s first inauguration, that is an estimate that has been disputed. Do not cite it as if it is a fact. Other estimates put the figure for that day several hundred thousand people, at least, lower. That needs to be noted in any mentions of the Obama crowd.
(“Memmos;” Jan. 20, 2017)
Editor’s note on July 27, 2017: Click here to go to an updated special section about the do’s and don’t's of social media.
It’s a new year, we have new faces in the newsroom and there’s a new president being sworn in Friday.
For the few among us who haven’t saved or memorized the previous notes and the new among us who weren’t here when those notes were sent (that’s you, interns!), here are the headlines and links to the ways we’ve said “don’t march, don’t cheer, don’t jeer and don’t share your political views on social media”:
(“Memmos;” Jan. 18, 2017)
Russian President Vladimir Putin said a couple things today that were clues to some of the details in that unverified dossier about what Russian spies may or may not know about President-elect Trump.
We can’t let something like that alone be the reason we report things that we haven’t previously been putting into our stories.
Don’t report any backdoor mentions of such details without first discussing it with the duty editor.
(“Memmos;” Jan. 17, 2017)
We’ve added proper context to our stories about the back-and-forth between Rep. John Lewis and President-elect Donald Trump.
Trump tweeted that Lewis is “all talk … no action.” We stated the facts about Lewis:
- “Lewis was one of the original Freedom Riders and a top lieutenant of King’s, helping organize the March on Washington in 1963 and marching with King across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., in 1965, where his skull was fractured.” (Jessica Taylor on NPR.org/politics.)
- “Lewis has spent his life working for civil rights and suffered a skull fracture durin a march in Selma, Ala., more than 50 years ago.” (Newscast introduction to a Jessica Taylor spot.)
- “After Lewis had challenged the legitimacy of his election, Trump took to Twitter, calling Lewis all talk and no action. Of course Lewis still bears the scars of his action as a leader of the Selma voting rights campaign and one of those who helped lead the march on Washington where King made his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech.” (Scott Horsley on All Things Considered.)
- “Lewis is a civil rights hero.” (Ari Shapiro on All Things Considered.)
- Trump’s comments had “a lot of things in [them] that just aren’t true both about [Lewis'] district and about John Lewis. … His district, as Tam is alluding to, has a higher percentage of people who are college graduates. You have Georgia Tech, Morehouse College, Coca-Cola. This is Atlanta. Like, this isn’t some, you know, crime-infested backwater in the way that Donald Trump wants to kind of bill it.” (Tamara Keith and Domenico Montanaro on All Things Considered.)
As we’ve said before:
- “Simply Setting Things Straight” is part of our job.
Update: If the issue of whether this will be the first inauguration Lewis has boycotted comes up, be sure to note it won’t be (even though that’s what he told Chuck Todd). Lewis did not attend George W. Bush’s inauguration in 2001: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-lewis-to-skip-inauguration-for-second-time-in-congressional-career/
(“Memmos;” Jan. 17, 2017)
A classic story device is showing up across all types of media: “advice” for the next president.
He needs to read these 10 books. He needs to consult these five experts. He needs to take these three steps. He needs to know this about that.
Those stories may work on opinion sites. But if they’re not handled carefully, they’re not appropriate for news outlets such as ours. They can make it sound or read like we — NPR, that is — are lecturing the president-elect and telling him what he “needs” to know.
We don’t do that. We don’t lecture.
Obviously, we do need to talk to a wide variety of people – from “regular folks” to Nobel scientists – about the president-elect and the decisions he makes. And, yes, we may ask about what they think he needs to know.
But if we’ve interviewed a cross-section of experts about what they would advise the next president, our reports must be framed so that it’s clear the advice is coming from them, not us.
It’s also important to remind the audience that, as President Obama and some of his predecessors have said, no one is ever prepared for the presidency. All newly elected presidents supposedly need to know a lot of things. Why else would the media do these stories?
(“Memmos;” Dec. 29, 2016)
Everyone at NPR – journalists and those who support the work they do – has a part to play in upholding two of this organization’s core principles:
We can’t keep the public’s trust if we aren’t seen as independent and we risk our reputation if it looks like we’re not impartial.
As you know, the Inauguration is going to spark celebrations and demonstrations in coming weeks, especially around Jan. 20.
That means some reminders are in order, for journalists and everyone else at NPR. As we’ve said previously, “We Can Observe, But We Don’t Participate In Rallies.”
The key line in that guidance: “We believe journalists can go see such events, even if they’re not assigned to cover them, so long as they don’t ‘participate.’ ”
Put another way, watching from the sidelines at rallies in support or opposition to the new president is fine. Marching or cheering is not.
You can go to the National Mall to see the Inauguration. That’s a national, historic event. It’s OK to attend. But, again, we go to observe – not to cheer or jeer.
These rules definitely apply to our journalists and to NPR employees in “outward-facing” positions. As we’ve said, those are “jobs that sometimes put them in the position of representing NPR to the outside world.” They should not “participate.”
Other staffers – those whose work doesn’t touch our journalism and who aren’t in outward-facing positions – should understand that their actions can reflect on NPR. We can’t cover every eventuality with a “do this, don’t do that” list. We do ask that no one wear any NPR paraphernalia or do anything that would raise questions about NPR’s objectivity.
It’s not always easy to determine whether a job touches our journalism. Talk with your supervisor, who in turn can consult with the Standards & Practices editor and NPR’s Chief Ethics Officer.
– We’ll have more to say about this in coming weeks, but the guidance in our post about “Social Media Rules Of The Road On Election Day” applies to Inauguration Day as well. Please, “conduct yourself online just as you would in any other public circumstances as an NPR journalist.” If you’re not a journalist, remember that what you say could reflect on NPR.
– NPR journalists do not donate to political parties or advocacy organizations. Except, that is, when a group’s issues are “directly related to our journalistic mission (e.g. First Amendment rights, the Freedom of Information Act, a federal ‘shield’ law).” The Ethics Handbook notes that it may be “appropriate to donate money or time to organizations that advocate on such issues” and on subjects such as the dangers facing journalists around the world. This guidance also applies to “outward-facing” employees. Others at NPR should know that their donations may draw attention and spark questions about NPR’s objectivity.
(“Memmos;” Dec. 15, 2016)
Instead of declaring that someone is a “climate change skeptic” or taking it a step further and using the word “denier,” use action words to explain what that person has said and done.
Basically, tell the audience what that person has said about climate change and humans’ contributions to it, and/or what that person has suggested should or shouldn’t be done. That information is much more helpful than any labels. “Says he doesn’t believe the science” says a lot more than “is a skeptic.” “Has called climate change a hoax” is better than “is a climate change denier.”
One reason action words are better is that the labels aren’t always easy to apply. Here’s what the words mean (from Webster’s):
- A “skeptic” is “a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment upon matters generally accepted.”
- A “denier” refuses to accept something “as true or right.”
You have to determine what it is a person is skeptical about or denies is happening. At one end of the spectrum, someone may refuse to accept that climate change is happening. That’s complete denial. Another person might agree that climate change is happening, but doesn’t accept that humans are contributing to the change. That’s denial about one point, but not another. A third person might have doubts about climate change or questions about its severity and causes. That’s skepticism.
There are many other possible combinations.
Please note that we’re not saying you can’t use the words or must use one and not the other. The message here is that, as we’ve said before, action words are almost always better than labels. And if you do use a label somewhere in a story or piece, you have to be sure it fits and be as precise as possible.
(“Memmos;” Dec. 14, 2016)
The handwriting is on the wall. There’s a perfect storm bearing down on us. We need all hands on deck or we’ll soon be in over our heads. If we don’t redouble our efforts, in quicker than a New York minute we’ll be swept out to sea by a tsunami of clichés.
It’s an uphill battle. We’re under attack from three sides:
- You’re going to be tempted to trot out the holiday classics. There’s a list here. Don’t unwrap them. If you’re thinking of saying “ho, ho, ho,’’ just tell yourself, “no, no, no.”
- Bone-chilling temps are spreading as Jack Frost nips our noses and the white stuff falls. As we’ve said before, bury the winter clichés.
- Politicians are pivoting and doubling down as the nation braces for the changes that will come after a new president moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Let’s take the moral high ground and keep the political clichés behind closed doors.
(“Memmos;” Dec. 9, 2016)
Unless you’re working on the script of an On The Waterfront remake, the phrase “union boss” isn’t how you should refer to the elected leader of an organization representing the interests of workers. The person’s title is good enough.
(“Memmos;” Dec. 8, 2016)
Let’s be sure to say that President-elect Trump has “nominated” someone to a post if that job requires confirmation by the Senate. Save the word “appointed” for positions that don’t need the Senate’s OK.
Update: A well-informed source points out that the announcement may be that the president-elect “will nominate” someone or “intends to” nominate them. That’s why “tapped” or “chose” are also good words to consider.
(“Memmos;” Dec. 5, 2016)
“When language is politicized, seek neutral words that foster understanding.”
That’s been our guidance since the Ethics Handbook was published in 2012 and it remains in effect. We “strive to use words and phrases that accurately deliver information without taking sides on emotional or political issues.”
The language used in the debate over immigration policy is particularly partisan and politicized. Advocates try to stick labels on people to “otherize” them.
That’s why we’ve issued guidance that stresses the importance of “action words” rather than labels.
For those who’ve joined NPR since that guidance was issued, here’s the key point: We don’t label people by referring to them as “illegals,” “illegal immigrants,” or “undocumented immigrants.” We say they are “in the country illegally” or use other action words to describe their situations. Also, we don’t label those who want to tighten immigration laws. We use action words to describe what those advocates want to do.
Even labels that until recent years were OK aren’t necessarily acceptable. As Adrian Florido reported last year, words can turn into slurs over time.
Finally, there are words and phrases that are clearly divisive, dismissive or derogatory and should not be used. “Anchor babies,” for example. The American Heritage Dictionary calls that a “disparaging term.”
When an issue is as charged as this, advocates are constantly using loaded language. Our job is to cut through that. Action words help enormously.
(“Memmos;” Nov. 15, 2016)
When referring to the “alt-right” movement, additional words are needed because many in the audience either have not heard of it or aren’t sure what it is.
Morning Edition has explored “What You Need To Know About The Alt-Right Movement.” This excerpt is more than can be said in a Newscast spot or even most show pieces, but has good background:
The views of the alt-right are widely seen as anti-Semitic and white supremacist.
It is mostly an online movement that uses websites, chat boards, social media and memes to spread its message. (Remember the Star of David image that Trump received criticism for retweeting? That reportedly first appeared on an alt-right message board.)
Most of its members are young white men who see themselves first and foremost as champions of their own demographic. However, apart from their allegiance to their “tribe,” as they call it, their greatest points of unity lie in what they are against: multiculturalism, immigration, feminism and, above all, political correctness.
The AP says this: “The so-called alt-right – a movement often associated with far-right efforts to preserve ‘white identity,’ oppose multiculturalism and defend ‘Western values.’ ”
Sarah McCammon has put it this way: “The alt-right movement, which has been associated with white nationalism.”
“White nationalist” is the most concise description.
(“Memmos;” Nov. 14, 2016.)
We’ve been saying Donald Trump will be the nation’s 45th president and we will continue to say that.
But he will be the 44th person to take the oath of office.
Grover Cleveland gets counted twice. The former mayor of Buffalo and governor of New York was first elected president in 1884. That made him No. 22 in the line of succession.
Cleveland lost his re-election bid in 1888. Benjamin Harrison became the nation’s 23rd president.
Then in 1892, Cleveland beat Harrison in a rematch. Cleveland is the only person to have been elected president, lose a re-election bid, and then come back to the White House four years later.
It’s the break in the line of succession that’s important here. If anyone other than Cleveland had defeated Harrison in 1892, that person would have slipped into the No. 24 position. What else could be done other than to treat Cleveland as the nation’s 22nd and 24th president?
The point here is that we will continue to say Trump is going to be the nation’s 45th president. We should not, however, make a mistake like the one President Obama did in his first inaugural address. Obama said he was the 44th American to have taken the oath of office. In fact, he was the 43rd person to do so.
Trump will be the 44th person to take the oath of office, and he will be the 45th president.
(“Memmos;” Nov. 10, 2016)
(Editor’s note on July 27, 2017: Click here to go to an updated special section about the do’s and don’t's of social media.)
This weekend, on Monday and especially on Election Day and Night, you will be tempted to tweet, post to Facebook and otherwise express yourself on social media. There’s probably a lot you’d like to say about the remarkable 2016 campaign and the candidates.
Please bear in mind that the coming days are as important as any to protecting NPR’s reputation as a trusted news source. All of us need to take great care and remember, as the Ethics Handbook says, that it is critical to:
“Conduct yourself online just as you would in any other public circumstances as an NPR journalist.”
After all, we take great pride in our objectivity and independence, and the fairness of our political coverage. We do not want a few words on social media to wrongly suggest a bias one way or the other.
What should you do? Some guidance follows.
As we’ve said before, what anyone who works at NPR tweets or retweets may look like something that “NPR is reporting.”
Now, as you would expect, NPR has a system in place for spreading news on social media on Election Day/Night.
So, this is important:
The Politics Team and our Digital News professionals are in charge of what “NPR is reporting” on social media. If you want to post about the day’s news, let them go first and then retweet what they’re reporting. Don’t even get ahead of them based on what you may see in emails to the desk that are marked “reportable.” Those are for internal use and the language in them may not have been given a final edit. Let that news go out on our various platforms and then share it.
Speaking of retweeting, our position is that retweets may be seen as endorsements. Please remember that you should:
“Tweet and retweet as if what you’re saying or passing along is information that you would put on the air or in a ‘traditional’ NPR.org news story. If it needs context, attribution, clarification or ‘knocking down,’ provide it.”
It is especially important on Election Day/Night to avoid retweeting the “news” posted by some websites about what they have supposedly learned from early exit polls. Whatever conclusions they draw from that data will likely be wrong.
There’s a good chance, by the way, that friends at other news organizations, other people you know and members of your family will be asking “What’s NPR hearing?” Tell them you love them, but that they’ll have to wait for us to report the news.
Finally, there will be things said in the newsroom on Election Day/Night that are not “ready for air.” Correspondents and editors will be talking about what they’re seeing and hearing. They’ll be making calls to sources. Editors will be debating what words can and can’t be used. There will be moments of confusion. Those are not things that should show up in your social media threads. Also respect your colleagues’ feelings about photos. Not everyone wants to have their faces show up on social media.
Related, and important, note about booing and cheering in the press box:
This may seem obvious, but is worth making clear for those doing this for the first time. On Election Day/Night, we do not celebrate or complain about the results on social media.
(“Memmos;’ Nov. 4, 2016)
The simplest thing to do if there’s any doubt about how to say someone’s name, of course, is to ask that person to say it for you.
What if he or she isn’t alive?
The best sources include:
- Tape or video of the person saying his or her name.
- Guidance from family members.
- Guidance from close friends.
These are NOT primary sources:
- Tape or video in which a journalist is heard introducing the person. We don’t know if the reporter got the name right, and we don’t know whether the person was too polite to correct the reporter.
- Historians, government officials or others who should know what they’re talking about. “Should” doesn’t mean they “do” know how to say the name.
Meanwhile, in case you haven’t looked at it in a while, here’s a highlight from NPR’s “Philosophy of Pronunciation”:
“NPR guidelines for proper nouns encourage on-air staff to approximate the pronunciation of proper nouns (names and places) as they are pronounced by the person or by residents of the place. However, they are not supposed to sound as if they’re splicing in a native speaker when pronouncing foreign names and places. And there are exceptions to this rule -– Americans do not say Roma or Moskva and so we say Rome and Moscow.”
As always, members of the RAD team are ready to help if someone’s name isn’t already on our Intranet list of pronouncers.
(“Memmos;” Oct. 28, 2016)
Ombudsman Elizabeth Jensen’s latest post digs into the issue of how far we should go in characterizing what Donald Trump told Billy Bush he had done to women (which, Trump later said he hadn’t done, as you know).
Robert Garcia told Elizabeth that Lakshmi Singh found a way to add “the appropriate amount of nuance.” In a newscast, Lakshmi said that in a 2005 recording, Trump is heard “bragging about groping women, which without their consent, would be sexual assault.” She also added that Trump said during the second debate that he never actually did force himself on women.
Using Lakshmi’s framing as a starting point, here are some ways to talk about Trump’s words:
- In a 2005 recording … Trump talks about groping women, which without their consent is sexual assault.
- In a 2005 recording … Trump is heard saying he can get away with groping women. That could be sexual assault if there’s no consent.
- In a 2005 recording … Trump talks about groping women. If that’s done without their consent, it’s sexual assault.
- In the video, Trump says he can grab, grope and kiss women … Those may be sexual assaults if there’s no consent.
- Groping … touching someone without their consent … can be sexual assault. In a video from 2005, Trump claims he can grab women’s genitalia because he’s an “all-star.”
- Trump brags about being able to grope women … which without their consent is sexual assault.
(“Memmos;” Oct. 18, 2016)
Here’s a cheat sheet about some words we may use these last three weeks of the campaign. The first two often get confused:
Rebut: “To contradict … or oppose, esp. in a formal manner by argument, proof, etc. as in a debate.” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary)
Refute: “To prove (a person) to be wrong; confute. … To prove (an argument or statement) to be false or wrong, by argument or evidence.” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary)
Repudiate: “To refuse to have anything to do with. … To refuse to accept or support. … To deny the truth of.” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary)
Refudiate: “Verb used loosely to mean ‘reject’: she called on them to refudiate the proposal to build a mosque.” (H/T to Sarah Palin and the Oxford American Dictionary.)
We’re not suggesting anyone use “refudiate,” except perhaps on the Politics Podcast.
“Repudiate,” meanwhile, can be a mouthful.
We are suggesting that “rebut” is the word to use when one candidate contradicts or pushes back against another’s charge. Save “refute” for when a candidate actually proves that the other person is wrong. I guess one may “rebut” by seeking to “refute,” but that makes my head hurt.
Sometimes the most effective thing to do is to use the word “deny.”
(“Memmos;” Oct. 17, 2016)
Here is where we stand on the issue of bleeping (on-air) the vulgar words used by Donald Trump — and the thinking that got us here.
- Were Trump’s words “news?” The answer is clearly, “of course.” That has weighed in favor of airing them.
- Did he use words that are among those that many in our audience would find highly offensive? The answer to that question is also obvious: “yes.” That has weighed against airing them. “Respect” is one of our core principles.
- Do “community standards” about what is and is not offensive vary widely across the nation and could airing the words generate complaints that might lead to FCC action against some NPR member stations? “Yes” and “yes.” That has weighed against airing them.
- If we do not “bleep” the words, can we give radio listeners adequate warning so that if they wish to tune out, they can? “Yes, but.” Certainly, we could include an advisory that lets listeners know there is language that many would find offensive and that they might not want children to hear. That would help most of those listening. But not everyone tunes in at the top of the hour or top of a report. What about those who turn on their radios in the middle of a report and one of the first things they hear is Trump’s vulgarity? A warning earlier in the report would be of no use to them.
- Can we adequately tell the story if we “bleep” the words? The answer to this question – “yes” — is the deciding factor. By letting the audience know that Trump had spoken in vulgar terms about how he tried to pressure a married woman into having sex with him, and about how an “all-star” such as him could grab a woman’s genitalia as if that was an acceptable thing to do, we have given listeners the key information about the pieces of tape that they will hear. When the cuts are played, there is no serious confusion about what was said – even with the bleeps.
Some will wonder why it is OK to use our digital platforms to give people a choice between hearing Trump’s words “bleeped” and “unbleeped?” The key word there is “choice.” Digital users can decide for themselves whether they wish to hear the words. Radio listeners aren’t always able to do that.
Some may ask “if this wasn’t the time to air such language, will we ever?” I suspect the answer is “yes.” I can’t predict what the circumstances will be. All I can say is that I trust the same amount of hard thinking will be applied.
(“Memmos;” Oct. 11, 2016. Note: This was emailed to staff on Oct. 9, but not posted here until today because I was out of the office.)
We haven’t “hunkered down” or “battened the hatches.” We haven’t talked about the hurricane’s “wrath.” “Mother Nature’s fury” hasn’t come up. There haven’t been “calm before the storm” references. Only a few “lashes” have been whipped.
Perhaps we’ve had Matthew “barreling” toward a coast a few too many times.
But, overall, we seem to be avoiding hurricane clichés.
Thanks for not letting them rain down upon the audience.
(“Memmos;” Oct. 7, 2016)
The words to use and not use when reporting about transgender people have been the subject of several notes in recent years. We’ll link to them below.
This note is a recommendation. Today’s Morning Edition piece about D.C. police Sgt. Jessica Hawkins is worth a listen, read and look (for the photos) because of the way Gabriela Saldivia and her editors simply and sensitively told the officer’s story. It’s also a model for how to handle gender references, names and pronouns in such reports.
One of our core principles is “Respect.” The story does exactly what we aim to do: treat “everyone affected by our journalism … with decency and compassion.”
Along with Gabriela, the team included:
- Morning Edition‘s Andrew Jones
- Story Lab’s Michael May
- Digital’s Heidi Glenn
- Photo intern Raquel Zaldivar
(“Memmos;” Oct. 6, 2016)
(Editor’s note on July 27, 2017: Click here to go to an updated special section about the do’s and don’t's of social media.)
We are reporting today about Donald Trump’s latest tweets in which he had more to say about both Hillary Clinton and Alicia Machado, the former Miss Universe who says Trump bullied and humiliated her.
Be very precise about what is said about the content of Trump’s tweets concerning Machado. He states, as if it’s a fact, that she appears in a “sex tape.” We should not frame any references to imply that such a tape exists. That is not an established fact and Trump did not provide any evidence that it exists. As Snopes.com has reported, a tape that has been cited by others is grainy, not explicit and “possibly staged or fabricated.” (I would give you the Snopes link, but it’s not “safe for work.”)
Headlines, spots and intros should not give any misimpressions.
Here are some bad headlines from other news outlets. Avoid anything like them:
- “Donald Trump: ‘Check Out Sex Tape And Past’ Of ‘Disgusting’ Alicia Machado.”
- “Donald Trump Urges Followers To Check Out Alicia Machado’s ‘Sex Tape.’ ”
- “Trump Rips Beauty Queen Machado For ‘Sex Tape And Past.’ ”
Here’s a better one:
- “Trump Attacks Former Miss Universe In Early Morning Tweet Storm.”
- “Trump Again Attacks Miss Universe Contestant.”
And here’s how we introduced a Sarah McCammon spot:
- “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump unleashed and early-morning tweet storm going after his democratic rival Hillary Clinton… And again attacking former miss universe Alicia Machado. NPR’s Sarah McCammon has more.”
(“Memmos;” Sept. 30, 2016)
The list could go on.
A scroll down our corrections page makes clear that we’re not doing a good enough job checking and re-checking many basic things. Bad information is getting into story collections and DACS lines. It’s getting into captions and blog posts. It’s getting on the air.
We’ve got to do better. We can do better. Here’s how:
- Be sure about “facts” you put into DACS, scripts, promos, blog posts or basically anything that could find its way onto our website or onto our airwaves. Remember, your keyboard is a live mic.
- Double- or triple-check everything, and never assume that the next person in the process is going to do it for you. If you write it, say it or approve it, you own it.
- Use the Accuracy Checklist.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 26, 2016)
“Whenever your pals show up in your work,” Poynter ethicist Kelly McBride has written, “a small number of people in the audience will be wise to the connection. For those in the know, it may seem like you have duped the readers. You also are likely to experience conflicting loyalties. Your friendship may cause you to paint a rosier picture of your friend than you would of other sources. Depending on the subject, you might ignore bad grammar, illegal behavior or plain old stupidity. Your friends would most likely expect to look good in your article, if they agreed to participate.”
The simplest solution is to follow this rule: Friends, family members and co-workers are not sources or subjects we put in stories unless our relationships with them are important to the tales and are fully disclosed. “Mama Stamberg’s Cranberry Relish” comes to mind.
Now, this note isn’t about the kinds of friendly relationships with sources that may develop when a reporter has been on a beat for many years. When that happens, it’s important that our reporting remain solid and objective, as we’ve previously noted. Also, it’s critical that reporters and editors monitor such situations.
We’re talking here about a story in which a character shows up for no other reason than being a friend or relative of the reporter — but it’s a connection that isn’t disclosed.
When is someone a “friend” who shouldn’t be part of a story? Here are some thoughts from The Canadian Association of Journalists:
“As Scott White, then editor- in-chief of the Canadian Press (and a former member of our committee) told us: ‘Current or recent connections are generally more problematic than long-ago connections; close personal friendships more problematic than casual acquaintances or routine professional interactions; siblings or spouses more of an issue than third-cousins.’ That said, almost everyone knows that some long-ago entanglements can have lasting impacts on choices, whether on a conscious level or more subtly.”
If there’s any doubt, leave that person out. Or, hand off the story to someone else. Or, if you’re the editor, assign the piece to someone else.
Two final, probably obvious, points:
- Reporters have to tell editors about connections to sources that might raise conflicts.
- Editors should ask “how’d you find this person?” if they don’t know already.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 22, 2016)
(Editor’s note on July 27, 2017: Click here to go to an updated special section about the do’s and don’t's of social media.)
Just eight weeks to go. We can do it, folks. We can get through the next campaign surprise, the upcoming debates and the rest of this election cycle without a social media snafu.
For the benefit of the new interns and anyone who hasn’t memmorized the earlier Memmos about this subject, here’s a snapshot version of our social media guidance:
- Keep your politics to yourself.
- Control your cursing.
- No personal attacks, even if you’re trolled.
- Speaking of trolls, don’t feed them.
- If you do respond, stay classy.
- If someone’s just ranting, disengage.
There’s more guidance in the Ethics Handbook, under “Social media.”
(“Memmos;” Sept. 13, 2016)
When there is disturbing or offensive content in a report, this question gets asked: “What’s our style for warning listeners?”
There is no one style. Sometimes, “this report includes offensive language” is enough because there are only a few such words. Other times, a more substantial advisory is needed — when a story includes sounds of suffering or painful accounts of personal trauma, for example. We use our judgment to determine how much is necessary and what to say.
On Morning Edition today, there was an advisory that’s worth spotlighting because of the key information it got across in just five words. It was in the introduction to a report about the man who has admitted killing a Minnesota boy in 1989 — a case that led to a 1994 federal law about sex offender registries. Here’s how the introduction went:
“After almost three decades, Minnesota parents — whose 11-year-old son was abducted — finally know what happened. And we should tell you now, this story, which lasts about three minutes, will be disturbing to some listeners. A man arrested last year on child pornography charges admits he kidnapped and killed the boy.”
Saying that this report about a child’s murder would last about three minutes was a simple but powerful way of showing respect to our listeners (an NPR core principle). Most notably, parents with children nearby would know that they might want to turn down the volume or switch stations for a little while. We weren’t sounding scary or shocking. It was conversational — as if a friend was speaking. And we were indirectly inviting them to come back.
Have we given listeners that time of warning before? Yes.
Are you suggesting we do it all the time? No.
What is being suggested is that some types of reports — especially those that parents might not want their children to hear or that might disturb particular groups of vulnerable people — might merit a mention about how long they’ll last.
It’s a friend doing someone else a favor.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 7, 2016)
Everyone should know by now that before we accept speaking requests, we have to get OKs from our supervisors — who will consult with Talent Relations and Ethics. An email on the process went out on Aug. 4. If you need a copy, ask the Standards & Practices editor.
Why should you say “no thank you” to a request? Or, why might your boss say “no?”
These are three of the most common reasons:
- A government agency (foreign or domestic) is putting on the event or paying for it.
- An advocacy group or political organization is making the request.
- A company or organization that we cover wants you to speak.
There’s a common thread running through those examples: We must guard our independence. We don’t work “with” or “for” governments, advocacy groups or the organizations we cover. We don’t want to even appear to be doing that.
Are there grey areas and cases where exceptions may be made? Of course. But the bars are set high. It might be OK, for example, to be on a panel or give an address if there’s no honorarium and no travel costs are reimbursed. If the topic is work you’ve done “outside” NPR (a book, for example), that could change things. But even then, if the invitation is from a government agency or political group you should probably say “no” — or not be surprised if that’s the response from your supervisor or the Ethics folks (Standards & Practices and the DMEs).
Beyond those issues, of course, is whether the event conflicts with not just your schedule and work, but also those of others on your desk or team. After all, if you’re out someone may need to cover for you.
Finally, the request might involve issues that aren’t on your beat. You and your supervisor should think about whether there might be someone else at NPR who’s a better fit for the speaking engagement.
(“Memmos;” Sept. 2, 2016)
If we’re going to say that a candidate is set to deliver a “major” address about something, in almost all cases we need to make clear that’s how the candidate’s campaign is characterizing it, not NPR.
This introduction to a Newscast spot last night did the job well:
“To the chants of ’USA. USA,’ Donald Trump has taken the stage in Phoenix, Arizona, tonight to deliver what his campaign has billed as a major policy speech on immigration.”
Yes, there are times when objective observers agree that a speech is going to be “major” or some similar word. But in most cases, “major” is a word that campaigns want the media to use to help build anticipation — whether it fits or not. The best advice: Avoid or attribute, and if we don’t think the facts support the campaign’s spin, don’t even use the word.
The same goes for describing the speech after it’s delivered. Some questions need to be answered. Who says it was a “major” address? If we’re going to characterize it that way, what’s our proof? How was it anything more than what the candidate usually says?
(“Memmos;” Sept. 1, 2016)
When some listeners hear the phrase “to be honest,” they ask this question:
“Does that mean you don’t usually tell the truth?”
We get emails about that phrase, which has been heard on the air at least 240 times in the past year. Most of the time it’s been said by guests, but we’ve used it as well. Along with the snarky question, listeners point out that of the many mostly meaningless ways there are of moving conversations along, it is can be among the least meaningful. For example, here’s Larry Wilmore on Fresh Air talking about what it was like to roast the media during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner: “It was really all in fun, to be honest with you.” What did “to be honest with you” add?
If the words aren’t meaningless, they may give the exact wrong impression. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, the phrase is among the verbal tee-ups that may “signal insincerity.”
Or, there’s the fact that “to be honest” can be heard as an adverbial disjunct that “conveys the speaker’s or writer’s comment on its content, truth or manner” (Merriam-Webster). A “to be honest” can make it sound like you’re opining.
If you want to signal that what you’re about to say is important or you want to underscore that you’re being candid, just say that. “To be clear” might be what you really want to say.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 31, 2016)
This is not optional: Before we put “experts” in our stories, we have to know where their financial support comes from, who’s paid for their latest work and whether they’re doing any lobbying or advocating related to the issue we’re interviewing them about. It’s information that may knock them out of stories and needs to be shared if they stay in.
That all seems obvious. Why are we bringing it up now?
Well, if you haven’t read these two New York Times reports yet, do so:
This “nut graph” should concern us all:
“Think tanks, which position themselves as ‘universities without students,’ have power in government policy debates because they are seen as researchers independent of moneyed interests. But in the chase for funds, think tanks are pushing agendas important to corporate donors, at times blurring the line between researchers and lobbyists. And they are doing so while reaping the benefits of their tax-exempt status, sometimes without disclosing their connections to corporate interests.”
That’s troubling because news outlets are constantly interviewing “experts” from those think tanks. Many of those experts are getting into stories without any references to their connections to “moneyed interests” and lobbying groups. We aren’t perfect on that score. I suspect it’s because in some cases we didn’t do enough digging.
This is important: Just as we said that we have to ask experts about any connections they have to candidates, we have to be looking at the connections experts from think tanks, universities and other institutions might have to interest groups and others.
That means, as we said above, asking questions such as:
- Who’s funding your work?
- Who or what organization has supported you in the past?
- Who paid for the study?
- Is your organization (or school or think tank) taking any money from a corporation or organization with an interest in the issue?
- Are you lobbying or advocating on this issue?
If someone won’t answer such questions, that’s a red flag.
Answers need to be checked, of course. Look in archives. Consult databases. Read a think tank’s annual report and other disclosure forms to see where it’s been getting its money. The RAD team can help.
We should use tools such as the U.S. Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act Database to find out if an expert is also a registered lobbyist.
This is also critical. We have to keep expanding our contact lists to get away from the usual think tanks and sources. Have you consulted the Source of the Week lately or contributed to it? Please do.
Finding out that a study was paid for by a corporation with an interest in the issue will raise questions about the findings. Learning that a think tank “fellow” is also a paid lobbyist may mean that person doesn’t make it into a story. Whatever the result, it’s basic information that we we’re expected to know and share with our audience.
Finally, there’s this: If an expert’s potential conflict of interest should have been revealed in a story, but wasn’t, that is an error that needs to be acknowledged and corrected.
(“Memmos;” Aug. 15, 2016)
It seems longer ago, but was only last November when we wrote that “When There’s No Evidence To Support A Claim, We Should Say That.”
When Donald Trump kept saying this week that President Obama is the “founder” of ISIS, we simply said in our reports:
- It’s a “false claim.”
- It’s “unbelievable.”
- That there’s an “obvious fact check here — President Obama did not found ISIS.”
- It’s an “unfounded claim.”
- It’s an “unfounded assertion.”
We also, of course, explored the history of ISIS and the role that U.S. policy during the Obama and previous administrations has played. As Ari Shapiro put it, “the true story of the U.S. and ISIS is complicated and nuanced.”
(“Memmos;” Aug. 12, 2016)
- “Trump Fires Back Against Fallen Muslim-American Soldier’s Father.”
- “Donald Trump Targets Muslim Soldier’s Parents Over ‘Sacrifice’ Remark.”
- Donald Trump has been in a “war of words with the parents of a Muslim Army captain who was killed in Iraq.”
Those are headlines and copy from some stories in the media this week.
Three things come to mind:
1. It seems insensitive to use war or violent metaphors in stories that involve the death of Army Capt. Humayun Khan in Iraq and his parents’ high-profile comments about Trump. What’s going on between Trump and the Khan family is not a “war” when compared to what Capt. Khan experienced.
2. As we’ve said before, clichés are to be avoided at all costs — especially during election years, when they spread like wildfire. In a Hall of Fame for clichés, war-related ones would be among the first inductees.
3. On any given day there may be an attack or battle in which people are killed. The juxtaposition of a headline or story about politics that is peppered with war clichés alongside news of real people dying in real warfare can make it look as if we’re not careful with our words.
Speaking of campaign clichés, two others phrases have been brought to our attention in recent weeks — “on the campaign trail” and “threading the needle.” You can probably think of others you’ve heard or read that sound tired. Let’s try to avoid all of them. The AP’s list of campaign clichés includes:
- Horse race
- Laundry list
- Pressing the flesh
- All those state nicknames
(“Memmos;” Aug. 2, 2016)
Sometimes we say “honed in” when we mean “homed in.” Within minutes, we hear from listeners or readers who wonder why we don’t know the difference between “hone” and “home.”
They want us to save “hone” for when we’re talking about sharpening, and to use “home” when we’re saying that something or someone has been targeted.
Those folks are sticklers and that’s OK. What they rarely acknowledge, though, is that there’s a lot of fine honing in the work we do.
Look at how much information was packed into two Newscast obits this morning:
– “Renowned TV and film writer and director Garry Marshall has died in Burbank, Calif., at the age of 81. His publicist says he had pneumonia following a stroke. He was behind many TV hits such as Happy Days. Other Marshall hits included Laverne and Shirley, Mork and Mindy and films such as Pretty Woman and The Princess Diaries. Marshall had supporting roles in Lost in America and in Soap Dish.” (Korva Coleman)
– “The creator of the 1970s and ‘80s TV sitcoms Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley and Mork and Mindy has died. Garry Marshall was 81 years old. He died at a hospital in Burbank, Calif., of complications from pneumonia; following a stroke. Actor Richard Gere worked with Marshall on the film Pretty Woman. He says Marshall was one of the funniest men who ever lived, with a heart of pure gold.” (Dave Mattingly)
Listen to the top of Morning Edition’s roundup of news from the GOP convention. Steve Inskeep quickly wraps up the campaign so far, folds in news from last night and sets up listeners for three wonderful clips:
“Months of brutal campaigning for president concluded with a quaint American tradition last night. State delegations cast their ballots for president at the Republican National Convention. It’s a chance to promote your candidate for the nomination; and also your state.”
Revisit the way Weekend All Things Considered opened its look at policing. With short, declarative sentences and the effective use of clips, the show prepared listeners for a powerful hour. Michel Martin then kept things simple:
“After all that’s happened this week, indeed, after all that’s happened in recent years and confrontations between citizens and law enforcement that have resulted in deaths and injury among both, we decided to take this entire hour to talk about policing.
“Almost all of our guests today are or have been directly involved in law enforcement, and we’ll be talking with them about the work they do, why they do it and whether they think the system is broken. We’ll talk about how they cope with the stresses of the job, and we’ll be talking with folks who’ve looked at the latest research around policing to ask them what, if anything, should be done differently.”
Read these concluding paragraphs from Linda Holmes’ appreciation of The Great British Baking Show (which I also love):
“What emerges over the course of the show is that it doesn’t only have a style; it has an ethic. Mary and Paul do not fall victim to the misdirection of small but spectacular-looking mistakes. If the custard in the middle of whatever you’re making doesn’t quite set, the entire thing may collapse and run all over the counter, but they’ll taste it anyway! And they’ll tell you that your custard not setting isn’t necessarily a bigger mistake than anything else; it just looks worse. If you can’t get your cake put together, they’ll still taste the layers. You may not be out. Do not lose heart. Do not lose heart.
“Don’t laugh, but this is life, in a way, as we all hope for it to be. You screw up, but not entirely. You see your hoped-for result dashed on the counter in a pile of goop, but someone says, “I see what you put into this; I see what you intended.” Someone you trust who is better than you are at whatever you’re trying to do says, “We both see what you did wrong; I can help you identify what you did right.” You still might lose. You still might go home crying with disappointment. But someone will have said, “Next time, take it out of the oven five minutes sooner and you’ll really have something.” It’s a show of such … hope. Hoping everybody else is going to be willing to try the imperfect layers of your particular not-quite-put-together cake is often the only way to get through the day, after all.
“It will also really make you want to learn to make macaroons. Though that might be just me.”
Check out this carefully crafted phrase from Camila Domonske’s Two-Way opus on Larry the Cat and the rumors that he hasn’t been a very competent prime mouser:
“Slurs on Larry’s efficacy continued to dog him.”
The list could go on. The point is that while we may not always use the word “honing” correctly, we do know very well how to hone.
(“Memmos;” July 20, 2016)
”Taking someone else’s work and intentionally presenting it as if it is your own.”
Note the word “intentionally.”
We can talk about phrases that are “word-for-word” or that “mirror each other.” It’s fine to say there’s a “plagiarism issue” or that the speech last night raised questions about whether some parts were plagiarized. But we don’t know at this time whether anything was done “intentionally.” So don’t declare that there’s been some plagiarism.
(“Memmos;” July 19, 2016)
On Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and other social media platforms, we’ve been doing lots of great work. Thank you for engaging with the audience in those places. It’s very important.
Now, a “memmo” wouldn’t be a “memmo” without some nudging. Here goes:
The political conventions are approaching. During them, you may be tempted to say some things on social media – especially when candidates are on stage and the urge to live tweet is strong. This is a good time to remind everyone about our thinking when it comes to social media.
- Keep your politics to yourself. And that means on Facebook too. You may think only your “friends” are seeing what you say, but they may share it widely.
- Control your cursing. NPR journalists don’t swear on the air and we don’t think they should be swearing in the digital world either. But we also know that language that isn’t appropriate in one place is common in another. How about this: Don’t use such words in anger and never in a way that might look like a political comment.
- No personal attacks, even if you’re trolled.
- Speaking of trolls, don’t feed them. Here’s a tip: You do not have to respond to any obnoxious Tweet, Facebook post or other diatribe. They can be ignored. (If they feel threatening, please send a message about them to our internal distribution list, “NPRThreats.”)
- If you do respond, stay classy. Something along the lines of “I’m sorry you feel that way and would like to hear more about why you do” is far better than “go back to the cave you crawled out of.” Remember, “we are civil in our actions and words, avoiding arrogance and hubris. We listen to others.”
- By the way, you can usually tell after one or two exchanges whether the person on the other end is willing to have a conversation or just wants to rant. If it’s a conversation, great. If they’re just ranting, disengage with something like, “thanks, I’m out. We just disagree.”
There’s more guidance in the Ethics Handbook, under “Social media.”
There have also been several “memmos” on the subject:
(“Memmos;” July 13, 2016)
Let’s stop referring to the man who killed five Dallas police officers and wounded seven others and two civilians as a “sniper” or to what he did as a “sniper attack.”
He was a “gunman,” a “killer,” a “shooter” and several other words you can probably come up with. It was an “ambush” as well as an “attack.”
Yes, it appears he at times was firing from hidden positions and from above the street. But he also shot at least one officer from point-blank range. Reporting since the attack indicates he moved quickly from one position to the next. He wasn’t a “sniper” in the sense that most people have come to understand that word — an expert who lies in wait and then methodically fires single shots from a long distance.
(“Memmos;” July 11, 2016)
A check of our archives shows we’ve generally avoided the phrase “officer-involved shooting.” Thanks.
But it has crept into some DACS-only pages, online teasers, photo captions and headlines. Going forward, let’s not use it.
As On The Media explored this week, “officer-involved shooting” is among those phrases that feel like “euphemisms designed by government to change the subject.”
The better way to go is almost always to simply say “police shooting” or to use action words – basically, to describe what happened rather than try to label it.
(“Memmos;” July 7, 2016)
Scott Simon weighed in last month about the word “pivot,” which he’s tired of hearing in stories about politicians. “The hundredth time you’ve heard it bounce off the echo chamber of pundits and analysts, it begins to smack of smug insider-ness,” he said.
“Pivot” is a word we use a lot when discussing politicians and their shifting positions. It shows up in about 100 stories we posted or broadcast in the past year.
Scott has a point. We don’t have to use the same word every time. Just as each tornado does not have to “sound like a freight train,” every politician’s pirouette does not have to be called a pivot. Let’s try to use some other words. “Change” or “switch” or “shift” offer possibilities. Maybe it’s a simple “turn.”
Today’s other potentially pedantic points:
– Just say “regardless.” “Irregardless” means “without without regard” and just doesn’t make sense.
– If you’re “flaunting,” that means you’re proudly showing off. If you’re “flouting,” you’re showing scorn or contempt; rejecting or defying.
– In almost all cases, you really mean to say “couldn’t care less,” not “could care less.”
– “Sink, sank, sunk.” “Spring, sprang, sprung.” Watch your tenses.
(“Memmos;” July 6, 2016)
It’s Not “Day:”
Do say “REE-oh dee zhah-NEH-roh.” Don’t say “REE-oh day zhah-NEH-roh.”
It’s Not David Cameron:
Queen Elizabeth II is the U.K.’s head of state.
The prime minister is the head of government.
That means, for example, that the prime minister meets with “other leaders,” not “other heads of state.”
(“Memmos;” June 30, 2016)
There has been a lot of great work this week about another disturbing news event; the mass shooting in Orlando. Thank you.
As much as we hope “this is the last one,” we have to think about things we’ve learned in case they come up again.
This brings us to weapons.
Posts after earlier mass shootings have discussed why we need to be very careful when describing them.
“Until we have solid information from the authorities, we need to be careful about descriptions of those weapons. Words to avoid unless we are sure of them include: ‘automatic,’ ‘semi-automatic,’ ‘assault’ and ‘assault-style.’ They are often misused.”
“To many in the audience, ‘assault rifles’ are fully automatic weapons that cannot be legally purchased. At this point, it’s better to refer to the rifles used in San Bernardino as ‘assault-style.’”
Everyone’s done a good job applying that thinking. Thank you. Here’s what we’re adding to the guidance:
Until there are on-the-record statements from officials in charge of an investigation, or until we have heard from multiple, reliable sources with direct knowledge and the reporting has been vetted with senior editors, do not go into specifics about the types of weapons or their manufacturers. It will often be enough to say, for example, that the gunman had a “rifle and handgun.” As more details come in, “assault-style” may be important to add. Or, perhaps “semi-automatic” if we’re absolutely sure that’s correct.
When we eventually get into specifics, attribution is essential – “said Police Chief John Doe” or “said three law enforcement officials with directly knowledge of the investigation.”
The message here is simple. The details about the weapons will emerge. But in the early hours and perhaps days after a mass shooting, the exact make and model and manufacturer are not at the top of the list of things we need to nail down. And, frankly, if we try to be too precise before all the facts are in, we run the risk of being wrong.
Think of it this way: If the story is that someone with a rifle killed or injured dozens of people in a matter of minutes, it’s clear a powerful weapon that could be rapidly fired was used. Whether it was made by one company or another and exactly which model it was doesn’t immediately change the story or add substantially to the audience’s understanding of what happened.
Again, thanks for the hard work and for applying previous guidance notes.
(“Memmos;” June 17, 2016)
There are several reasons not to refer to the murders in Orlando as the “worst mass shooting in U.S. history.” Editors have been pointed to Eyder’s post about this, where those reasons are explored, but the phrase is still getting into stories. It’s time to stop.
If a piece needs to put this tragedy in context, it can be said that it was the “deadliest” mass shooting in recent history.
(“Memmos;” June 14, 2016)
The listener could have complained that “chomping at the bit” is a cliché, and that it’s one we’ve used at least three times so far this month. But his gripe was more specific — that we should have said “champing at the bit.”
To the dictionary we go:
Webster’s says “champ at the bit” is to “show impatience at restraint; be restless.” It comes from something said about horses when they bite their bits “repeatedly and restlessly.” They “champ.”
That fits with what we were trying to say this week about President Obama and his eagerness to get out on the campaign trail.
The AP says “champ at the bit” is “the original and better form.”
But, Webster’s adds that “chomp at the bit” is a variation.
What’s more, no less an authority than William Safire weighed in 31 years ago, saying that “to spell it champing at the bit when most people would say chomping at the bit is to slavishly follow outdated dictionary preferences.”
The Grammarist blog also comes down on the side of “chomping.” It points out that “champing at the bit can sound funny to people who aren’t familiar with the idiom or the obsolete sense of champ, while most English speakers can infer the meaning of chomping at the bit.”
We’ve been … itching to issue a note about some picky point of punctuation or grammar. After chewing on this one for a while, we’re not going to insist on “champing.” Feel free to use it. After all, you’ll score points with the lexicographers out there.
But “chomping” is fine.
Fine, that is, except for the fact that it is a cliché. As for them:
(“Memmos;” June 9, 2016)
When a story involves Facebook, when and what do we need to say or write about “NPR Live?”
The best advice is to err on the side of disclosure. When the news is about Facebook’s business or about controversies such as whether it does or does not “suppress” conservative stories, we should say something like this (from a David Folkenflik report):
“Facebook pays NPR and other leading news organizations to produce live video streams that run on the site. The network calls its offerings NPR live.”
Other information that can be added includes the fact that Facebook has “no role in the content of the videos” (a line from NPR Extra). The part of the line about what NPR calls its offerings is certainly optional.
If the story has little or no connection to Facebook’s “business,” such as COO Sheryl Sandberg’s thoughts about the challenge of being a single mother, a line about NPR Live may not be necessary. Senior editors and show executive producers should be making the call, with guidance from the deputy managing editors or standards & practices editor.
(“Memmos;” May 19, 2016)
Several times we have said the so-called bathroom bill in North Carolina is about whether transgender people should be able “to use the public bathrooms of their choice.”
In this case, “choice” is a loaded word. Proponents of laws restricting bathroom access to the sex on someone’s birth certificate say transgender people want to “choose” which bathroom to use, which also implies that being transgender is a “choice.” But transgender people say choice isn’t involved; that that this is about people using the bathrooms that match the genders they identify with. They say being transgender is who they are, not a choice.
We look for neutral language. One way to talk about this subject is to say it’s a debate over whether transgender people should be allowed to use public bathrooms “based on their gender identities or, instead, what’s stated on their birth certificates.”
As for “gender identity,” the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association defines it as “an individual’s emotional and psychological sense of having a gender; feeling like a man, woman, both or neither (gender nonconformity). Does not necessarily align with an individual’s sex at birth.”
We’re going to be using “gender identity” again. It could help our audience understand the phrase if we take a moment when possible to explain it, perhaps simply as “the way we feel about ourselves.”
(“Memmos;” May 16, 2016)
As we report about the administration’s letter to schools, the HB2 law in North Carolina and related stories, here’s a reminder: Someone is “transgender,” not “transgendered.” And it’s “transgender people,” not “transgendered people.”
Vox has written about the difference between “transgender” and “transgendered” here: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/18/8055691/transgender-transgendered-tnr
The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association has helpful language resources here: http://www.nlgja.org/
(“Memmos;” May 13, 2016)
“Othering,” or “otherizing,” has been a topic of conversations on the campaign trail this year and in newsrooms for many years.
I think of it this way: Othering is when a story feels like it’s about “them” and that “they” aren’t like “us.” They’re “others.” It can look and sound as if the news outlet or reporter is tone deaf or condescending. The stories often feel like the reporters began with preconceived notions and looked for confirmation.
This post isn’t about a case of othering. Read or listen to Debbie Elliott’s piece this week about “transgender rights, the new front in culture wars.” The central character is LBGTQ advocate Lane Galbraith. I didn’t detect any othering, so I asked Debbie about the way she reports.
“You know, my approach is always to just try to get to know the people I’m interviewing as people first, not ‘subjects,’ ” she said in an email. “I get rather familiar quickly, but always say something like, ‘OK, now I’m going to get a little nosy or into private territory, please don’t be offended and feel free to wave me off if it’s too personal.’ I will also be honest and admit that I’m not sure a question is appropriate, but ‘here’s what I’d like to know.’
“Generally, I find that people are longing to tell their story, so I mostly listen. And in this case, we had spoken a few times before during the same sex marriage battles in Alabama, so I had a bit of a foundation to build from. …
“There are some interviews you do that are mostly about gathering facts, or (let’s be honest here) getting the sound bite you need. But if you’re looking to share a deeper truth, and get below the surface of the news of the day, it requires a different approach. You have to care about a person’s story and give them the time and space to tell it. And that’s hardly ever linear or even logical. Those kind of interviews are certainly less efficient, but can yield priceless insights.”
There’s a key point there: “I mostly listen.” Also, yes, we tell stories. But they’re not about us or our preconceived notions. As Debbie says, “people are longing to tell their story … give them the time and space to tell it.”
No news outlet gets this right every time. We should keep talking about othering and how to avoid it. Please flag “good” and “bad” examples.
(“Memmos;” May 12, 2016)
First, the “long version” describing what HB2 is all about:
HB2 is the controversial North Carolina law limiting civil rights protections for LGBT people. It excludes LGBT people from the state’s non-discrimination laws and prevents local governments from offering discrimination protections that go beyond the state’s. It also requires people to use public restrooms that correspond with the sex indicated on their birth certificates.
The law also eliminates the ability to sue in state court over a discrimination claim and prevents local governments from requiring contractors to pay a higher minimum wage than the state’s.
Then, a shorter (hopefully intro- and spot-friendly) version:
HB2 is the controversial North Carolina law that limits civil rights protections for LGBT people.
“So-called bathroom bill” is acceptable in billboards and as a subsequent reference in stories. Material from the “long version” can certainly be folded into pieces in different places.
Note: LGBT is acceptable on first reference. Somewhere else in the story, spell out “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.”
Thanks go out to Brent Wolfe at WUNC, Russell Lewis, Theo Balcomb and Renita Jablonski.
(“Memmos;” May 11, 2016)