Honey, I Plugged Your Article Today!

Brooke Gladstone , co-host and managing editor of NPR's popular "On the Media" radio show, feels like she did nothing wrong. In an interview with a Russian diplomat, she a cited Fred Kaplan's Slate Magazine piece, saying:

"...This week, Slate columnist Fred Kaplan wrote that [Karen] Hughes could make better use of her time if she spent it searching for someone who could better represent America in the Arab world, someone comfortable with its language and traditions, someone who gets the religion and the jokes -- in other words, the American equivalent of former Soviet spokesman Vladimir Posner...

Everything seems above board, right? Well...not so much. Fred Kaplan is not just a "Slate columnist" to Gladstone; he's her husband, which seems like quite the conflict of interest. Still, Gladstone, when questioned by Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR's ombudsman about the decision, stuck to her guns, calling the mention of Kaplan "a piece of trivia" that would have "served as a useless distraction":

Our staff discussed mentioning Fred, and decided to stick with our usual practice of crediting the reporter, columnist or whoever comes up with an original idea we cite...If you read the transcript, you'll see a fleeting mention of Fred Kaplan for that reason. To stop at the point and say, by the way, "he's my husband" would have only distracted the listener from the set- up for the interview with a piece of trivia. There was no conflict of interest here. The point was [the subject of the interview], not Fred.

For his part, the ombudsman disagreed, saying that Gladstone's decision not to identify her relationship with Kaplan gave the impression of "familial favoritism." I agree with his decision. It's not like the substance of Kaplan's article --that Hughes was a improper spokesperson for the US in the Middle East -- was only a thought that could have occurred to her husband. She easily could have cited another source that had the exact same premise without arousing suspicion of her motives. In addition, as the ombudsman briefly mentions, citing her husband's work to an audience of thousands, some of whom will later read his work due to the reference, isn't very far away from a "plug." Mind you, I believe members of the media have a right to privacy like everyone else and feel like they shouldn't be forced to divulge information about their private lives if it's not germane to the discussion. But even if Gladstone's motives were pure in this matter, it at least creates the perception of ethically questionable behavior for her to cite her hubby's work on air. As a award-winning journalist, she should have known better.

Brooke Gladstone (not verified) @ November 18, 2005 - 9:16am

Just for the record, you are mistaken on what I take is one of your key points. You write: "It's not like the substance of Kaplan's article --that Hughes was a improper spokesperson for the US in the Middle East -- was only a thought that could have occurred to her husband. She easily could have cited another source that had the exact same premise without arousing suspicion of her motives." In fact, I did not refer to Kaplan's column because of his criticism of Hughes, but because of the contrast he drew between Hughes and Vladimir Posner, who you failed to point out, was the subject of my interview. Kaplan was the only one to make that link (I checked) which, incidentally resulted in a suprisingly candid interview with Posner. So, in keeping with the strict rules of our program, we credited the reporter.

Ryan McConnell @ November 22, 2005 - 12:55am

Hi Brooke

Thanks for replying. First off, I'd like to apologize for not noticing the Posner link, which is certainly relevant to your choosing Kaplan's column on your program. And, though you didn't mention it, my headline was a little snarkier than it could have been. To be frank, I didn't expect many people outside of the 20 people in my class to read it, so this is a good lesson for me.

But my basic criticism of your situation remains: By citing your husband's column on the air, it created a perception among a collection of your listeners that something improper was afoot. It doesn't even really matter that you had valid reasons for doing it; for a collection of NPR's listeners, it raised a red flag. Judging by your response to NPR's ombudsman, I don't suspect you'd do anything differently now that you've had some time to reflect, and I'm sure the last thing you need is a some snot-nosed j-school student giving you an ethics lesson. But if you or a co-host or even an anonymous announcer provided a brief statement before or after the interview stating your relationship to the writer and the reasons why the article was chosen, the transparency would have served your credibility. As it stood, it raised eyebrows.

Feel free either to respond on this forum or, if you prefer, email me at RyanMcC24@yahoo.com.

Recent comments

Navigation

Syndicate

Syndicate content