NPR is often regarded -- and certainly regards itself -- as a leader in the diversity of voices and opinions it puts on air. It's known for compelling story-telling that regularly wins prestigious journalism awards.

But when it comes to female voices from outside NPR, the network is not as diverse on air as it would like to think. NPR needs to try harder to find more female sources and commentators.

I will say upfront that NPR is and has been an industry leader with female correspondents and hosts. Three out of the five hosts of its biggest shows -- Morning Edition and All Things Considered -- are women. The CEO and the head of the news department are women, as are many other top executives throughout the company.

But what about commentators and news sources?

My office researched the number of female commentators who appear on air regularly, along with the number of females who are interviewed or quoted in stories on ME, ATC and the weekend counterparts.

The news is not encouraging, though NPR is trying to do something about it.

Admittedly, the relative lack of female voices reflects the broader world. The fact remains that even in the fifth decade after the feminist revolution; men are still largely in charge in government at all levels, in corporations and nearly all other aspects of society. That means, by default, there are going to be more male than female news sources.

ON-AIR FEMALE COMMENTATORS
But NPR does have a choice when it comes to the weekly commentators selected by the shows. Men are favored over women, by far.

With the aid of NPR librarian Hannah Sommers, we compiled a list of regular commentators, who are not NPR employees but are paid to appear on air. There are 12 outside commentators who appeared at least 20 times in the last 15 months. The only woman is former NPR staffer, Cokie Roberts (51 times), who is on ME most Mondays talking politics.

Otherwise, males dominate, especially on subjects of sports, politics and the economy.

On ME, the numbers are: sports commentators Frank Deford (61) and John Feinstein (27), Wall Street Journal economics editor David Wessel (46), and Los Angeles Times movie reviewer Kenneth Turan (42) -- all in the last 15 months.

On ATC, there's sports commentator Stefan Fatsis (46), technology guru Omar Gallaga (47), and book reviewer Alan Cheuse (48-- 6 were on Weekend ATC). On Fridays, columnists E.J. Dionne (58) and David Brooks (53) talk politics.

On Weekend Edition Saturday, Scott Simon regularly chats about sports with ESPN's Howard Bryant (34).

On Weekend All Things Considered, host Guy Raz regularly discusses the world with journalist James Fallows (25).

ON-AIR FEMALE SOURCES
We also looked at the number of people from outside NPR who were interviewed by NPR news shows, or whose voices appeared in reporters' stories. For this analysis, we examined 104 shows, using a 'constructed week'* sampling technique from April 13, 2009 to Jan. 9, 2010.

Those figures are equally discouraging.

NPR listeners heard 2,502 male sources and 877 female sources on the shows we sampled. In other words, only 26 percent of the 3,379 voices were female, while 74 percent were male. [See chart.]

The news is much better when you look at just the gender breakdown of voices of NPR reporters and hosts. It's nearly 50-50, with the exception of Weekend All Things Considered, which has only a male host. [See chart.]

Even when you combined the two groups -- NPR staffers and non-NPR voices -- the male-female imbalance is still noteworthy, with the exception of Weekend Edition Saturday and Sunday, which have an equal proportion of male-female voices. [See chart.]

"The ratio of male-female sources you found is dismal," said Sheila Gibbons, who edits the Media Report to Women, which covers issues on women and media. "For listeners it suggests that there aren't many women with something important to say about the key issues of the day. It follows that they don't have a very big roles in shaping what those issues are, or making policy to deal with them. That's nonsense, of course."

I also ran the data past Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, which works to get more women sources in the media.

"If you look at hosts and correspondents, NPR is a leader when it comes to making sure there is gender equality," said Greene.

"Many times we hear there are no women, or there are more men to tap into as experts," said Greene. "I think that's a mindset that is common in the media. Clearly, it is worth it to do the extra work for the story to get the female perspective which many times can be different, unique and necessary."

ME host Steve Inskeep took issue with the data because it counts all sources as the same -- without considering the amount of time each voice is on air. He wondered, for example, if it should be counted as equal when celebrity journalist Tina Brown is on for 8 minutes and the president is on for 45 seconds? Inskeep also noted that President Obama, by himself, represented a large percentage of the times males appeared on air, thereby single-handedly skewing the figures.

"You yourself acknowledge that if more men appear, it may reflect 'societal' factors like the preponderance of men in certain fields," wrote Inskeep in an email. "So I just find this study really unsatisfying, and wish you'd take it back for further refinement. Probably you'd still find men getting more attention than women. Maybe you'd even identify specific areas where we fall short."

Inskeep said he agreed that NPR "can find a wide range of voices, and that we should. There are some obvious go-to guys on NPR, many of whom tend to be guys. Speaking only for myself, sometimes it's hard work to make sure that my stories include a wide range of people, including women. I think I do better than I used to, and not well enough."

Inskeep is right that the data could be stronger. But I'm not a social scientist, and I do not intend this to be a comprehensive academic study. My goal is to get NPR journalists to think more seriously about integrating female sources into stories and work harder at getting them on shows. The same is true for the voices of blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities.

NPR is not blind to this.

The network just launched a pilot project scouting for new voices for on-air interviews and potential sources. Carol Klinger, who has been booking interviews for ATC since 1995, has a temporary assignment of cultivating new sources for all of NPR.

"The objective is to make NPR a better and stronger news organization by providing our audience with a greater range of content, ideas and expertise," wrote Ellen Weiss, NPR's senior vice president for news, explaining the project.

The goal is to identify and audition new, diverse voices and widen perspectives in stories. Klinger is focusing on new sources in politics, arts and national security.

"The question [Klinger] is asking right now: Who's missing from our coverage of these topics as experts, analysts, commentator or sources of stories?" wrote Weiss. "In one area we may find opportunities to hear from a greater variety of people of all ages; in another area we may find we want more male or female voices. In another, people of color."

Klinger has a tough job. She says, in many cases, women say they are too busy, while men seem more willing to rearrange their schedules to go on the air. In other cases, some women will speak on background, but not on the record. In general, men seem less concerned than women about blow-back from their employers, clients or colleagues.

The radio format also poses challenges to finding new voices, as Klinger notes. "Just because someone is very smart doesn't mean they are good on air," she said. "We need people who are confident and dynamic. We've done a lot of interviews with men and women that we've killed because they lack confidence on the air."

I applaud NPR's efforts, and hope they result in shows reflecting a greater wealth of experiences and voices.

It's not going to be easy. "Unconscious bias flows through our lives in many different ways, and it is not easy task to disentangle all strands," said Shankar Vedantam, author of The Hidden Brain, a book about unconscious bias. When he worked at Knight-Ridder's Washington, DC bureau, two editors insisted every story have at least one female source.

Initially he resisted.

"By month two, I for one was happily following the directive, not in the interest of equity but because it was allowing me to write better stories," said Vedantam, who is now a Washington Post reporter. "The spirit in which these policies are implemented and followed matters a great deal. [But] the number of females sources in our stories rose, our stories got better, our jobs got easier."

NPR could try a similar directive. But right now, NPR can improve its shows simply by adding more female commentators. That doesn't mean getting rid of the men.

Are there really no women to alternate the political patter on Friday nights with Dionne and Brooks? Couldn't Maureen Corrigan (who reviews books for Fresh Air) split the book reviews on ATC with Cheuse? How about more Christine Brennan (8) on sports than Feinstein (26)?

These are just two of many possible examples. In January, women made up 49.9 percent of the nation's total non-farm payroll employment, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Clearly there are females out there with expertise in every field.

My study may not be scientifically perfect, but the skew is so lopsided that it demands attention.

"I doubt there is a conscious, systemic aversion to selecting women as sources at NPR," said Jill Geisler of the Poynter Institute, a media think tank. "But benign neglect is still neglect and its impact just as harmful to society."

When listeners don't hear women as sources and commentators on the air, they can get the impression that women aren't smart, aren't experts and aren't authoritative.

That's just not true.


[Caitlin Huey-Burns and Anna Tauzin, two terrific interns, contributed to the data gathering for this piece.]

Here are links to sources that help journalists find qualified female experts:
Shesource.org
Theopedproject.org
National Women's Editorial Forum

* Using what is called a "constructed week," we examined five NPR programs: Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday, Weekend Edition Sunday, All Things Considered and Weekend All Things Considered. We started with Monday on April 13, 2009, then Tuesday, April 21, Wednesday, April 29 and so on until Saturday, Jan. 9, 2010. The study counted the gender of each person interviewed by the shows and each person whose voice appeared on tape in reported stories.

In this constructed week study, we did not count the gender of NPR or member station staff reporters, hosts and commentators. When a voice was translated from a foreign language, we counted the gender of the source, not that of the translator.

There are often several ways to irritate people -- some direct, some more cryptic. Republicans have a way of irritating Democrats that also has frustrated some listeners.

They don't like to hear NPR journalists or guests use the noun 'Democrat' as an adjective.

As in: "What Democrat lawmakers want to do -- hang with me here," said NPR Correspondent Andrea Seabrook, who covers Congress, "is pass the changes that they want to this bill in the House at the same time that they pass the Senate bill itself."

Josephine Bennett, a reporter/host for Georgia Public Broadcasting recently emailed asking about NPR's policy after she heard Seabrook on Morning Edition about the upcoming health care bill.

NPR's policy is to call parties what they call themselves, said Ron Elving, NPR's senior Washington editor. The proper name is the Democratic Party. Democrat is a noun and Democratic is the adjective to describe the party.

"When using democratic or Democratic as an adjective, it should be the adjectival form with 'ic' on the end," said Elving. "We should not refer to Democrat ideas or Democrat votes. Any deviation from that by NPR reporters on air or on line should be corrected."

While Seabrook's words were later corrected in the transcript, they are not corrected on air.

Initially, I thought what's the big deal? One listener said it would be like calling me by another name than my own and thinking that's ok.

It turns out this is a perceived slight that goes back decades.

Continue reading "Since When Did It Become the Democrat Party? " >

Last week, I wrote a post about how NPR identifies people who support or oppose abortion. It engendered a lively debate inside and outside NPR. Today, some top editors got together to review the 2005 policy and decided to no longer use "pro-choice" or "pro-life."

Here's the memo that was just distributed to all NPR staff:

"NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.

This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.

On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights"). It is acceptable to use the phrase "anti-abortion", but do not use the term "pro-abortion rights".

Digital News will continue to use the AP style book for online content, which mirrors the revised NPR policy.

Do not use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain." [An actuality is a clip of tape of someone talking. So if a source uses those terms, NPR will not edit them out.]

Thanks
David

David Sweeney
Managing Editor

The Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, FL, posted a piece about two NPR correspondents who bought a toxic asset. Thought some of you might be interested in learning more about it. ACS

Posted by Mallary Jean Tenore at 6:33 AM on Mar. 22, 2010

National Public Radio reporters David Kestenbaum and Chana Joffe-Walt wanted to help the public better understand the financial crisis -- an ongoing narrative that they believe gets weighed down by numbers, statistics and seldom-explained financial terms.

So they made an investment as part of a "Planet Money" project. Together, with colleagues Alex Blumberg, Caitlin Kenney and Adam Davidson, they pooled $1,000 of their own money and bought a toxic asset -- a sliver of one of the bonds that fueled the housing boom and then lost their value during the bust.

"I feel like we've bought our front row seat to the last quarter of the financial crisis," Kestenbaum said in a phone interview. "We're going to get to watch this thing die."

The purchase has meant that Kestenbaum and Joffe-Walt are stakeholders in the story.

In this case, the reporters said, becoming stakeholders was a low-risk way to get an inside perspective on what toxic assets really are. It has also helped them generate story ideas and gain access to information they may not have otherwise had, such as how the investment status of a toxic asset changes over time. Spending their own money, Joffe-Walt said, helped give them greater ownership of the toxic asset and, subsequently, their reporting on it.

Kestenbaum and Joffe-Walt spoke with "Planet Money" Editor Amy Stevens before making the purchase to ensure transparency and minimize any conflict of interest. Stevens said any money they make from the toxic asset will go to charity -- likely one that helps educate people on financial issues. If they lose money, they'll take the loss.

"We certainly didn't want to share in any financial rewards," Stevens said by phone. "We also thought that in this case, once you are an owner, it gives you unique insight into what's inside one of these things."

To resolve the ethical dilemma, they were also transparent about their decision, letting listeners know that they made the purchase and would not benefit financially from it.

"The key thing was we should not stand to gain personally. We just wanted to make sure that we were ethically scrupulous about that," Stevens said. "The financial stake in it is really a journalistic tool. It's a way of taking a look at what's inside the toxic asset, but it is designed so we don't have a financial interest in it. And it's a very nominal amount of money. It's almost like an experiment; it's really a way of studying a phenomenon."

Kelly McBride, Poynter's ethics group leader, said she thinks NPR made a smart decision in being so open about the purchase.

"I like it when journalists put themselves in the place of the consumer, then describe their experience. It's similar to using a product or doing a travel story. You have to be very transparent with the audience," McBride said in an e-mail. "I think it's the perfect way to explain a complicated process to their audience, since most of us don't really know what toxic assets are."

"Planet Money"'s toxic asset has more than 2,000 mortgages in it. Whenever the foreclosed homes in the bond are taken over and sold for a loss, the bond shrinks, meaning the toxic asset will eventually disappear entirely. Whenever a homeowner in the asset makes a mortgage payment, those who own the asset get part of that money.

So far, Kestenbaum and Joffe-Walt have received $406.88 but have no way of predicting whether they'll ultimately gain or lose money when their asset disappears.

"There's some drama in it," Kestenbaum said. "Every month we get updates on how everybody in the pool is doing. There are a lot of human stories there in terms of who owns it and where they are."

Joffe-Walt and Kestenbaum hope to hear from some of the others who own part of their toxic asset, which has lost 99 percent of its value throughout the past few years.

Kestenbaum was reminded of this recently when he attended a toxic asset conference (yes, they have those) to further inform his reporting. While there, he asked one of the speakers, Craig Schiffer, for his thoughts on "Planet Money"'s toxic asset. Kestenbaum reported last Friday on what Schiffer said.

"You bought this personally?" Schiffer asked, a sound of disbelief in his voice. "It's not a very good portfolio, man."

The interactive time line that accompanies "Planet Money"'s coverage shows just how much the value of the toxic asset has depreciated over the past three years.

"Planet Money" added interactive components to the stories, Stevens said, in hopes of giving people an easy way to visualize the financial crisis' impact on the asset.

"The concept of a toxic asset is very, very abstract," she said. "By doing everything from a podcast to an animated Web video to a radio story to a blog post, we feel like we are reaching a broad audience and helping bring to life something that would otherwise be very dense."

One of the challenges Joffe-Walt and Kestenbaum have faced is figuring out how to explain a dense subject in a limited amount of time.

The original version of their story for "Morning Edition" was 12 minutes. They had to get it down to about 7:40. "That's not much time to explain what a bond is and have a whole story with characters in it," Kestenbaum said. "A radio story is like a poem. There's not a wasted word in it."

Joffe-Walt said she pictured telling the story to her mom, aka the average listener. Would her mom, she'd ask herself, understand what she and Kestenbaum were saying?

Their animated video helps break it all down, in a simple sort of way. Instead of referring to the bond by its technical term -- "Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10" -- Joffe-Walt and Kestenbaum call it a "pesky little creature," a blue-haired "pet" that they hope you'll help name. (I voted for "Toxie.")

Their pet, they explain in the video, is sick because people are falling behind on their mortgage payments. They encourage listeners to follow their pet's journey and make a prediction about how long she'll last.

Kestenbaum and Joffe-Walt said they hope their ongoing reporting on the toxic asset will help inform listeners' predictions.

"I think generally we've been trying to do every story in a way that doesn't dumb down the actual details, that's accurate and understandable and, whenever possible, human," Jofee-Walt said. "If we can get people to understand what a toxic asset or a bond is, it'll be a major success."

"Planet Money"'s Toxic Asset Coverage

"We Bought a Toxic Asset, You Can Watch it Die," by Chana Joffe-Walt and David Kestenbaum

"Toxic Assets Market Awaits Rebound" by David Kestenbaum

"Toxic Assets: What You Need to Know" by Jacob Goldstein

Podcast: "We Bought a Toxic Asset!"

Interactive time line: "Tracking Our Toxic Asset"

Animated video: "Meet Our Toxic Asset"

Vote: "Name Our Toxic Asset!"

Martha Hamilton winces when she hears an NPR correspondent describe politicians who oppose abortion as "pro-life."

"I am a 'pro-life' voter," said Hamilton, of Washington, DC. "For instance, I would vote for someone opposed to the death penalty over someone in favor of it. However, 'opposed to the death penalty' would be a better, more accurate description of my position. Pretty sure I'm not who [the correspondent] is talking about."

Now that abortion is in the news regularly connected to health care overhaul, Hamilton and other listeners are once again taking issue with the terminology NPR uses to describe people who support or oppose abortion.

Since 2005, it has been NPR's policy to use the term pro-choice to identify anyone who advocates on behalf of abortion rights and pro-life for anyone who advocates in opposition to abortion.

"The terms pro-choice and pro-life are in such widespread use these days that they're just as neutral as their alternatives (abortion rights advocate or abortion rights opponent)," said the 2005 memo authored by three people who are no longer at NPR. "Just as important, the phrases allow us to write more colloquially -- e.g., to identify someone as a pro-choice Democrat or pro-life protester, rather than using wordier, less conversational descriptions."

So Hamilton, who favors abortion rights, would be considered pro-choice if she were to appear on NPR as part of a report on the abortion issue--not as she identified herself as a "pro-life" voter on capital punishment. The terms can get awfully confusing.

NPR may be alone among major news organizations in how it identifies people who support or oppose abortion.

I checked with NBC, CBS, CNN, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer and not one of them uses the terms "pro-choice" or "pro-life."

"We call them pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights because it's the right to abortion that we're talking about," said Linda Mason, CBS senior vice president of news and in charge of standards. "What does pro-life mean? That leaves people scratching their heads."

Continue reading "In the Abortion Debate, Words Matter" >

NPR's weekday newscasts air 37 times a day and usually include stock market figures.
But are those numbers valuable to the average listener?

"As a data bit for a civilian audience the Dow is flat out useless at best," wrote Tom DeVries from Mariposa, CA. "Of course the people who actually do know what it all means keep track minute by minute and don't need NPR to tell them."

The Ombudsman regularly hears from people with similar concerns. Some wonder what exactly it means when a newscaster says "the Dow fell 10" or "jumped 25 points today."

NPR gives Wall Street futures and foreign markets before Wall Street opens at 9:30 a.m. After that point, NPR reports the Dow Jones industrial average and gives closing numbers into the evening. The S&P; 500 and Nasdaq indexes also make it into the mix.

The coverage is so consistent many listeners might not give it a second thought. "It's been done since the dawn of time," said Robert Garcia, executive producer of newscasts, "which for us was in the 1970s."

NPR predominantly reports on the Dow, a stock market index established in 1896. It averages the stock market value of 30 large, publicly-owned U.S. businesses. Some listeners argue it is not as relevant as the S&P; 500, which began in 1957 and averages the value of 500 companies.

"They're not that different in their up and down swings," Garcia said, adding that the Dow is still widely recognized as a major indicator of economic health.

NPR reports stock market indexes for two reasons -- one of which has little to do with journalism.

The first is that stock market information is important to listeners -- especially the millions of people with investments and 401Ks, said Jonathan Kern, former executive producer of All Things Considered.

"Investors are interested in these numbers every day," he said. "If you're interested in the stock market we want you to know you can get it here."

It's true. If a newscaster leaves out a stock market update, NPR hears about it.

"Today's three-minute noon news broadcast omitted any mention of the Dow and Nasdaq indices," wrote Gordon Daiger from Bethesda, MD. "The market indices are a matter of considerable interest in your listening audience. What is the problem giving rise to the omissions?"

The second reason is technical and reveals some of the "mystery" behind the workings of NPR's newscasts.

Stock market indexes help newscasters "hit the post," or finish speaking at exactly the right second. For example, some newscasts begin at one minute after the hour. Three minutes later they break so local stations can air their own newscasts (many stations continue with the NPR newscasts, however). The timing must be exact or the newscaster will either be cut off abruptly or speak over the local announcers.

The Dow "is copy that gives them flexibility," Garcia said. Reading the Dow and Nasdaq helps newscasters "hit the post" because they can read as little as 5 seconds or as many as 15 seconds before signing off.

Local stations often use weather and traffic updates as similar fillers since the length can be easily changed. With a national audience, NPR has to use something relevant nationwide, Kern said, and that includes the stock market.

Journalistically, however, the way NPR uses the figures is not perfect.

"Because we use it as filler there is no proportion for how much time we give it," Kern said. Sometimes big news in the stock market will only get a little air time and a slower day could get much more. "You wouldn't treat any other story that way," he said.

Including numbers without context is another possible problem. To rectify this, Garcia encourages newscasters to include a line of context as to what might be driving the numbers. In the current economy, for example, the markets often rise or fall on the basis of the government's latest economic reports. The amount of context included depends on how much time newscasters have.

Newscaster Jean Cochran, who joined the network in 1981, believes it's useful to give the Dow, S&P; 500 or Nasdaq figures.

"All in all, I think people like the little factoid of what the market's doing," Cochran wrote. "Either it's doing nothing much...and that's comforting. Or it's gyrating...and it's really news."

-- Lori Grisham
Assistant to the Ombudsman

Curious about the Dow? For a concise explanation, read Joe Bel Bruno's Finance 101 article from The Seattle Times.

[Last Thursday, the family of a Navajo Marine who was killed in Afghanistan asked NPR to stop mentioning his name because of how the Navajo culture views death. His death was the focal point of three NPR stories in two weeks. I am respecting the family's request in this column although the U.S. military has made his name public and it's easy to find.]

"He's dead," yelled a female voice as gunfire erupted around the Marine unit in Marjah in Afghanistan.

Dead in an instant was a 23-year-old Navajo from Rock Point, AZ. He left behind a wife nearly five months pregnant with their first child.

Listeners captivated by NPR Kabul correspondent Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson's compelling audio, learned of his death through the anguished cries of his fellow Marines.

"A bullet struck him in the head, killing him almost instantly," Nelson reported in a Feb. 19 story, three days after the battle. He "had planned to call his wife on my satellite phone that very night."

Nelson was embedded with the Marines' India Company 3rd Battalion, 6th Regiment. She traveled, ate and slept alongside them. Her reporting did what great journalism should do: It put you there. You could feel the tension and taste the fear as the Marines together with Afghan soldiers exchanged gunfire with the Taliban.

But the piece on All Things Considered also aired the intimate last minutes of a young man, graphically providing details of how he died. [ATC did warn listeners, before the story aired, about disturbing combat scenes.]

Some listeners found the piece extraordinarily powerful. However, an equal number were bothered by it, feeling that the moment of death was too private to share over the air. "A loved one should never be exposed to hear the last sounds of their hero passing in the defense of the nation," wrote Charles Walden, a retired Air Force colonel.

Among those most upset were some of the Marine's family members. While the military notified the family of the death well before NPR aired its 9-minute piece, no one told them specifically how he died or what happened to his body -- as the piece did.

Nor did NPR warn the family about the piece. They heard about it through friends.

"The only complaint we, as the family, have is that we were not notified about the broadcast," said his sister-in-law on March 2. "It was quite a shock when we actually heard the story then heard the moment he was killed from the audio. It was too graphic for us to hear."

Continue reading "When Cultures Clash" >

I thought some of you might like to read this magazine piece about what's happening at NPR published Thursday in Columbia Journalism Review ---ACS

Feature -- March / April 2010
NPR Amps Up
Can Vivian Schiller build a journalism juggernaut?
By Jill Drew

If I were writing this story for All Things Considered, I might open with some audio: the sound of applause. The clapping would come from hundreds of employees gathered for an all-staff meeting at National Public Radio's downtown Washington headquarters in December, as they acknowledged the tenor being set by Vivian Schiller in her first year as NPR's president and chief executive. Staff members were thanking Schiller for leading them out of the mess they had been in a year earlier, when they had gathered in the same auditorium. At that 2008 meeting, an interim chief executive and his number two had perched nervously on stools in front of the room, shocking the staff with announcements that they were canceling two NPR-produced shows and firing sixty-four people, 7 percent of the staff, in order to deal with a projected $23 million budget gap torn open by the recession. These were the first budget-related mass layoffs to hit NPR since the early 1980s.

It wasn't just that the news was bad. The executives' impersonal and awkward manner of delivery--one fiddled with his BlackBerry while the other talked, a staff member recalls--left other managers queasy and the staff reeling. NPR's nonprofit status had not protected it from the cataclysm that was decimating commercial media, and the place felt rudderless in the storm, the NPR board having ousted the previous chief executive nine months earlier after his aggressive maneuvers had alienated many. READ MORE

A Boy Scout, according to the scout "law," is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

But he cannot be gay.

More than one in 10 boys (11 percent) in the United States is currently a Scout, according to a Boy Scouts of America 2005 study touting how scouting builds character and provides lifelong benefits. There are 2.7 million registered Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts and Venturers.

"Scouting provides youth with an opportunity to try new things, provide service to others, build self-confidence, and reinforce ethical standards," said the study. "In fact, 83 percent of men who were Scouts agree that the values they learned in scouting continue to be very important to them today."

But openly gay youth are not likely to learn those values from the Boy Scouts.

Recently, NPR ran a piece on Weekend Edition Saturday highlighting the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Boy Scouts.

"That's a century of merit badges, campfires, bowlines, half-hitches, jamborees and camporees, first aid, and community service," said Audie Cornish, the substitute host on Feb. 6. "Steven Spielberg was a Scout. And so was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, and George W. Bush all participated in Scouting. Half of all astronauts were Scouts too."

The story featured actor Jon Heder, star of the popular movie classic, Napoleon Dynamite. Scouting played a large role in his life. He and his four brothers all became Eagle Scouts, the highest rank one can achieve in scouting.

Cornish also interviewed Marcos Nava, head of Hispanic initiatives for the Boy Scouts of America, who works to get Hispanics involved in scouting.

But the piece never mentioned the funding controversy that erupted in the early 1990's over the Boy Scouts discriminating against gays. Or that their organization went all the way to the Supreme Court in a successful fight for the right to bar homosexuals from becoming troop leaders.

Continue reading "Boy Scout Story Should Have Mentioned Gays" >

The Ombudsman's recovery from major shoulder surgery is taking a little longer than expected. However, she has appeared on two NPR member stations this week. You can listen to those interviews here:

Radioactivity with Robert Lorei WMNF (Tampa, FL)

1370 Connection with Bob Smith (Rochester, NY)

We hope to hear from you.