NPR Ombudsman: "NPR often does a lousy job of identifying the background of think tanks..."

[salvorhardin]

Alicia Shepard is NPR's Ombudsman, and is often critical of her own organization. Today she takes on NPR's habit of not identifying the political bias of experts used in NPR's reporting.

Lots of things drive NPR's audience crazy. One I totally agree with is this: NPR often does a lousy job of identifying the background of think tanks or other groups when quoting their experts.

NPR also rarely explains why listeners should pay attention to the experts it chooses to quote.

This matters.

Full post: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2011/04/12/134229266/what-to-think-about-think-tanks

Notice too that conservative or libertarian organizations are quoted or used as experts far more often than liberal or progressive organizations. 69 uses of Cato, Heritage or AEI in Shepard's 10 month survey of NPR reporting vs. just 29 uses of Center For American Progress. Of course, Brookings was used the most of all at 101 times. I personally consider Brookings to be center-right, but your mileage may vary.

I think Shepard's analysis really underscores what FAIR has found (http://goo.gl/fnJ8r), and public radio luminaries like Ira Glass has criticized it for -- that NPR's bias isn't so much one of left or right but rather represents inside-the-Beltway thinking.

It's good that NPR has Shepard to help keep it honest. Now if those NPR execs would just listen to her!

[Orrex]

1. They don't bother to identify the think tanks' background because 99% of them are conservative

At least, 99% of the ones that they feature.

It's a rare event that NPR features someone from a "left" think tank, and on those few occasions they go out of their way to make sure that everyone knows that the speaker a leftie.

[salvorhardin]

3. I think we might be succumbing to confirmation bias there

I know it seems to me like all I ever hear on Morning Edition these days are AEI or Heritage flacks.

If Alicia Shepard's analysis is sound though, NPR goes to centrist Brookings far more often than they go to AEI, Cato and Heritage combined. Like I said, I think the bias is more one of not venturing outside the beltway than of left and right. Or maybe it's whoever is easiest for NPR to get into the Morning Edition or All Things Considered studio on short notice?

[Orrex]

5. Nope. 99%. I counted.

Ha ha.

Of course you're correct; on any matter of Left/Right contention, they only feature commentators who firmly represent one side or the other. And as you note, they grab the commentators who are easiest to reach, and the Right is famously aggressive in getting its spokesdrones out into the wilderness of the Liberal Media.

My hyperbole was intended more as mockery of NPR than serious analysis, though I concur with Ms. Shepard that the network could do a much better job of identifying its commentators' origins.

I do, however, have misgivings about your Brookings vs AEI/Cato/Heritage analysis, though I confess that I don't have hard numbers here. For a span of many months before, during, and after the 2008 and 2010 elections, in nearly every political story, NPR would give the first response to someone from the Right--typically McConnell--and usually gave the speaker an open, uncontested mic for several long minutes. Then they'd jump to a mildly Left-leaning centrist for a 15-second response which NPR (usually Robert Siegel) would then rebut in real time. I actually complained about this phenomenon on DU while it was going on.

So even if NPR doesn't particularly favor Rightwing think tanks, they certainly seem to stand back in silence whenever they give airtime to a Republican.

[salvorhardin]

6. On Brookings

Well, those are Alicia Shepard's numbers. 101 instances of Brookings, compared to just 69 instances of AEI, Cato and Heritage. I think most people here would characterize Brookings as center to center-right (personally, I say neo-liberal) and I think the Wiki article does a good job of reporting where Brookings seems to stand:

As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan. The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, centrist, and conservative.<18><19><20><21><22><23><24> In 2008, The New York Times published an article where it referred to the "conservative Brookings Institution,", but the term "liberal" has been applied more frequently. The Washington Post has described Brookings as centrist and liberal.<25><26><27><28> The Los Angeles Times described Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist before concluding these labels made no sense.<29><30><31><32> In 1977, Time Magazine described them as the "nation's pre-eminent liberal think tank."<33> Newsweek has described Brookings as centrist.<34> In addition, the organization is described as centrist by the liberal media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.<15><35><36><37>

Some liberals argue that despite its left-of-center reputation, Brookings foreign policy scholars have been overly supportive of Bush administration policies abroad.<38><39> Matthew Yglesias, for example, has pointed out that Brookings's Michael O'Hanlon frequently agrees with—and appears on stage with—scholars from conservative organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Weekly Standard, and the Project for a New American Century.<38> Similarly, Brookings fellow and research director Benjamin Wittes is a member of the conservative Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.<40> A number of Brookings scholars have served in Republican and Democratic administrations, including Mark McClellan, Ron Haskins and Martin Indyk.<41>

The Brookings Board of Trustees include prominent Republicans such as Kenneth Duberstein, a former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan, and prominent Democrats, such as Laura Tyson, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton. Its scholars include former government officials hailing from both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as many who have not served in government and do not advertise a party affiliation.<42>
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution

[Orrex]

7. Spare me your facts, you zealot! I'm in Outrage Mode here!

Honestly, I wouldn't have believed those numbers, but I can't really argue with your documentation. Thanks!

[salvorhardin]

9. Well, to be clear, Shepard's numbers represent instances where a think tank wasn't identified

That says nothing of all the instances of where think tank guests were properly identified, along with their possible bias. Nor does it count instances where individuals unaffiliated with think tanks were guests.

FAIR looked at it more broadly and found Republicans outnumbered Democrats 3:2, and that ratio was slightly changed from 1993 when Clinton was President and Democrats controlled both houses.

The FAIR study was really quite good, and worth looking at if you haven't seen it before. It's a follow-up to their 1993 study.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180

Overall, I don't think NPR is intentionally trying to support the right, but as you pointed out, the right is much better at promoting itself. And putting aside some obvious failings, such as not initially covering the MLK Day bombing atttempt, their actual news reporting (as opposed to analysis) is superb. Only the BBC and CBC compare, IMHO.

[notesdev]

2. the flaw is in the use of "think tanks" at all

if you're thinking you don't need a tank for it, and if you're employed by a "think tank" chances are pretty good you're being paid to advocate, not to think.

[tularetom]

4. "Inside-the-beltway thinking" IS right biased

NPR reporters know they will never land a plush gig at CNN or Fox if they appear to lean toward the left.

[Odin2005]

8. That's because NPR gets "donations" from the same Elites that fund the think tanks.