The NPR solution

[Lord Jim]

They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

It seems pretty straightforward to me, too.

Well, the only thing that seems "straight forward" to me about that, is that they created a criteria so subjectively vague and broad, that you could pilot The USS Eisenhower and it's entire carrier task force support group through it....

Similar to the "good conduct" clause in professional sports contracts....

The line between "punditry and speculation" versus "fact based analysis" is so self-evidently amorphous and subjective, that if I didn't know for a fact they were trying to be serious, I would assume that "criteria" was a transparent attempt at sarcasm.....

[Lord Jim]

Let me give a "straight forward" example to illustrate my point:

We have a national election coming up next week, (you may have heard about it, it was in all the papers)....

Now, if I make a prediction about what I think those election results will be, (which in this case, I have) am I engaging in "speculation" or "fact based analysis"?

Well that would obviously depend on one's highly subjective interpretation. One could easily say that I was doing one or the other, based on whether or not they happened to like my prediction...(In fact, a very good case could be made that I'm engaging in both.....)

An argument can also be made, depending on how one wishes to interpret the words, that anytime a commentator makes a prediction about what might happen in the future, they are engaging in "speculation" ...

But clearly the poobahs at NPR don't mean to have that clause interpreted that way.....

A set up where political and social commentators were prohibited from giving their opinion, (ie, "speculating") about what they think is going to happen would make for excruciatingly dull radio, even by NPR standards....

[Andrew D]

Presumably, by distinguishing "speculation" from "fact-based analysis," NPR was relying on the ordinary definition of "speculate": "form a theory or opinion without firm evidence". (Compact Oxford English Dictionary at p. 996.)

Your predictions about the House and Senate appear to be based on polling data. Polling data strike me as "firm evidence" (which, of course, does not mean "conclusive evidence") of how the races are shaping up at the moment. And -- at least when we are only nine days away from the election -- "firm evidence" of how the races are shaping up at the moment strikes me as "firm evidence" of how they will turn out. Hardly mere "speculation".

Anyway, I don't see how the statement for which Williams was fired counts as either "speculation" or "fact-based analysis". He made a statement about his own personal attitude as a traveler on commercial airplanes. I don't see how that is "form[ing] a theory or opinion" at all, with or without "firm evidence". Rather, this bit:

NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.

seems the applicable part.

Anyway again, NPR's CEO, Vivian Schiller, has said that Williams was fired for violating NPR's code of ethics. What loCAtek quoted is only a small part of NPR's code of ethics. NPR's code of ethics also includes a provision prohibiting NPR's journalists' "participation in some political debates and forums where the sponsoring group(s) or other participants are identified with a particular perspective on an issue or issues ...."

Williams made his comments on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor". Whatever one may think of Fox's news reporting, it seems to me undeniable that Bill O'Reilly is "identified with a particular perspective on [a host of] issues".

That may explain why NPR has not fired Nina Totenberg. I don't think that Inside Washington is identified with a particular perspective: The regular panelists include Charles Krauthammer, and the host (Gordon Peterson) rarely expresses opinions on anything.

(I still don't get the whole "punditry" thing, though. [/i]The Collins English Dictionary[/i], via dictionary.com., defines it as "the expressing of expert opinions". How that fits into NPR's code of ethics is mysterious to me.)

[Andrew D]

By the way, according to Schiller, Williams was not fired just for this remark but for a whole series of what NPR considered to be violations of its code of ethics:

The reason that we terminated his contract is because of our news ethics guidelines.

The guidelines are based on the same news ethics guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists, and are very similar to that of The New York Times and many other news organizations.

He had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people’s air. I’m not aware of any problem with any things he has said on our air. In each of those instances, we called him on it; we had a discussion; we asked him not to do it again. It happened several times. What happened a few days ago was the latest in a series of incidents.

I can’t characterize that this was better or worse or less egregious or more egregious than any other time. The point is, this was the latest in a series of incidents.

You give people second chances — we’re big believers in that and we do it all the time — but it happened again and again. And so we made the decision at this point that we had to draw the line somewhere.

A reasonable person could say, “Well why didn’t you make the decision last time this time or the time before?” Or, “Why didn’t you wait until the next time?” Fair enough.

We made the decision here because, at a certain point, if someone keeps not following your guidance, you have to make a break. And that’s what we did. And that is the sole reason.

I don't know what the other incidents were, but just about any employer who has told an employee not to do something is, if that employee keeps on doing it, eventually going to fire that employee.

[Andrew D]

Oh, and as to whether NPR is leftist, Schiller said this:

We have 34 million people that tune into NPR member stations every week. We’ve done survey after survey of our audience. They come from red states, blue states, urban areas, rural areas. Survey after survey shows that they span the political divide.

I don’t think that our audience would be growing 60 percent — six zero percent — in the last two years, while other news organization are dropping double digits, if that were the case.

I have more respect for the intelligence and the curiosity and the common sense of our listeners than to comment on that. It’s ridiculous. And anyone who listens to us knows that to be true.

But maybe she's wrong. Maybe NPR's audience has grown 60 percent in the last two years, because more and more people are sick of the right-wing bias of the mainstream media.

[Lord Jim]

Presumably, by distinguishing "speculation" from "fact-based analysis," NPR was relying on the ordinary definition of "speculate": "form a theory or opinion without firm evidence". (Compact Oxford English Dictionary at p. 996.)

"form a theory or opinion without firm evidence"

Now there's an objective standard we can all get behind.....

"a theory or opinion withoutt firm evidence".....

And the definition of "firm"......


would be.............................???????????????

[loCAtek]

(I still don't get the whole "punditry" thing, though. [/i]The Collins English Dictionary[/i], via dictionary.com., defines it as "the expressing of expert opinions". How that fits into NPR's code of ethics is mysterious to me.)

I think it has more to do with the contemporary usage, which is: expressing a strong political opinion based on the claim of expertise, regardless whether such expertise exists or not.
Most other 'pundits' (E.G. Sports, Music) can not get away with claiming to be experts, when they aren't.

[Andrew D]

"form a theory or opinion without firm evidence"

Now there's an objective standard we can all get behind.....

"a theory or opinion withoutt firm evidence".....

And the definition of "firm"......

would be.............................???????????????

Oh, please, Lord Jim. You know better than that.

Have you read the U.S. Constitution lately?

It protects us against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. "And the definition of 'unreasonable' ...... would be.............................???????????????"

It guarantees the right to a "speedy" trial. "And the definition of 'speedy' ...... would be.............................???????????????"

It provides that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed". "And the definition of 'excessive' "...... would be.............................???????????????"

We make important decisions all the time on the basis of terms that do not have precise definitions. It is impossible for us to do otherwise: If every term had to have a precise definition, then every term in that definition would itself have to have a precise definition. And every term in each of those sub-definitions would itself have to have a precise definition. And every term in each of those sub-sub-definitions would itself have to have a precise definition. And on and on and on and on ... forever.

What do expect NPR to do? Predict every single thing that any of its journalists might say in the future and quote all those myriad -- infinite? -- possibilities in its code of ethics?

That's exactly where your complaint leads, and it's just plain silly.

Words in codes of behavior -- whether those are legal codes, ethical codes, moral codes, or any other codes of behavior -- are given the meanings that reasonable (get it now?) people ordinarily give them. Your predictions of election results based on polling data are predictions based on "firm evidence," whereas my predictions of election results based on whether my cat chooses to approach her food dish from the north or from the south are not based on "firm evidence". And neither of us needs to formulate a definition of "firm" (and then formulate definitions of all the words used in the definition of "firm" and then formulate ...) to grasp the truth of that.

[Big RR]

Anyone have a link to the NPR Code of Ethics? I'd like to see it.

As for saying something he wouldn't say in his role as an NPR journalist, I have no idea what that means. Does it mean something he would never say (or want to say) on NPR, or something NPR would not air? It doesn't seem all that clear to me.

Look, I'm not all that sympathetic to him--he said a pretty stupid thing. But NPR has put on golden handcuffs by trying to claim its "fair and balanced" (to use a monicker from a network that is defintitely neither), and I think firing an employee because a public statement he made outside of the scope of his employment is politically unpopular just shows how little they value that appearance of neutrality.

And Andrew, Nina Totenberg has been on Nightline many times, definitely not a PBS show.

[Econoline]

Anyone have a link to the NPR Code of Ethics? I'd like to see it.

Loca included a link to it in this post:

Yes, and now Williams is trying to say they're 'outdated';

NPR News Code of Ethics and Practices - Applies to all NPR journalists

V. Outside work, freelancing, speaking engagements

10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

( my emphasis)

[Big RR]

Thanks.