AK Press Club 2: Lakshmi Singh Gives Keynote

Lakshmi Singh before her talk

Lakshmi Singh was the keynote speaker Saturday afternoon at the Alaska Press Club annual conference.  As a very well known and recognized voice on NPR and I was looking forward to the talk.

First I'll highlight some of what she said.

Below that are my rough notes of the talk.  Treat them with caution.  Videos of all these session are supposed to be available at the AK Press Club site.  But they aren't up now.   If I find out more I'll put it up.

Basically Singh talked about restoring trust of media among the public.  She talked about NPR's rules of verification.
1.  The two source rule - get the story from at least independent, reliable sources, get a third if possible or unsure.  Make sure they all aren't relying on the same original source.
2.  Take no detail for granted - always check
3.  Go to the original source of the news - say a family member or spokesperson for a death
(There was one more I didn't get down fast enough)

She mentioned that a Bartlett High School student had emailed her a couple of weeks ago in an attempt to get extra credit for class.  She didn't know Singh would be in Anchorage shortly, and she said she visited the class Friday.

She also talked about the ethical question of informing sources of risks.  Say, doing a story on drug addiction, should they alert an interviewee that the story would be online and 20 years down the road, a prospective employer might find it.  She said some didn't think that was their responsibility, but she felt it was, saying, "Would it make it harder to get the interview?  Yes.  But our job isn't  to do it the easy way."

There was a question about the amount of analysis on NPR and the questioner felt that it added to the sense of media bias, because it's basically opinion and prediction.  She said she could only talk for the news programs and what they do, but the questioner said that the listener who listens to many NPR programs a day, hears lots of 'experts' analyzing rather than reporting facts.  Earlier Singh had related how she'd suggested to the Bartlett students, who had trouble trusting any news,

 If you can't trust [the network], then start with one reporter who always seems to be on his or her game.  Maybe that's where we can start to build trust.

Her response to the question didn't seem to satisfy the questioner, nor me, nor another person I talked to afterward.  It's been my perception that NPR has leaned over backwards to appear fair.  And this attempt at neutrality, especially when dealing with a president who ignores the truth and the constitution for self-aggrandizement.  Acting 'fair' in response means you've already lost ground, just by treating the outrageous as something debatable.  And, of course, one can ask, "What's the alternative?  To also be uncivil? No, but being more relenting (and this does happen sometimes on NPR) in questions is probably one option.  But this is a bigger issue than what the questioner was proposing.

In response to another question about how she chooses items to air, Singh gave a set of priorities:

• Which affects most people?  
• Which will change fastest in next hour?  (Not sure where this was going.)
• Which grabbing national attention, even if not personal impact, but historically important?  Notre Dame fire.  Why did you lead with that:
• Immediacy and impact. 
• She said she was also focused on health, particularly women's health, stories that have been  underrepresented over the years.  Underrepresented voices and get those stories told.

Below are my rough notes of the talk:


 To Serve the Governed - LAKSHMI SINGH

Talk about personal attacks we get, something we all deal with.  Was originally titled to serve the governed.

Press was protected in the Constitution to serve the public, and only a free press can expose the government.  Supreme court ruling, Nixon attempt to suppress details of the Vietnam war.   Personal privacy vs. protection of the nation.

Begins with separating fact from fiction - requires stepping out of info silos.  Basics:
1.  two source rule
2.  take no detail for granted
3.  go to original source   ??? one more
4.  they also rely a lot of local NPR stations who have better local contacts to verify stories - but this too depends on NPR's experience with the local sources.
5.  clarify for the listener where and how they got the information rather than just report it as a fact (the next day I heard that in a report on the Poway Synagogue shooting - the reporter said they got the info from a synagogue member and friend of the woman killed.)



This is all being tested.  Channel surfing, headlines,  but now my day begins with sorting through Trump's tweeting.  So many decisions, changing policies, hires, dismissals - not confirmed yet but get an idea of where going - revealed on Twitter.

Next step for me - talking with colleagues  Which P's remarks news value for our audience.
Need to fact check president.
Recall hosting ??   - asked if considering child separation.  Pres. said it was Obama who had actually separated kids.  He, Trump, stopped.   Factcheck.org  - trying to get to the audio.  Immigration experts, during GWB and Barrack  - family separations not on same scale as Trump.  We know 2700 families affected, true figure unknown.
True he signed an order that ended family separations, but had gotten lots of pushback.  Required far more detailed explanation from journalists.
April 9 or 10, NPR covered immigrations.  He met with reporters - CNN, Fox, MSNBC in our office - see where reporters are heading, if we don't have anyone there, I have to look at where to focus in next 30 min if my news cast is coming.   Trump, talking to Rep Donors in Texas.  I was at odds with our news people on how to cover remarks about violent criminals....  He'd make charactiastions about undocumented immigrants.  This is a false characterization - fear mongering - thinking.  I'll cover this.  Fears people had shared with Trump which he repeated.  Colleague felt rhetoric so irresponsible, it would be irresponsible for NPR to cover it.  That news conference specifically.  I felt for that very reason we had to fact-check the president.  Figuring will take, some we won't.  In that conference were so out-there, that I felt we had to at least report on it and correct.  If he said this, this is actually the fact.  It took about 20 seconds coming out of him.

Same as with his comment that Obama had family separations and he stopped it.  People agreed but only aired it once  All the editorial pitfalls we have to miss minute by minute, it will get harder and harder as technology advances.  How better guide audience to distinguish fact from fiction?  What should I do to get your confidence?

Teenagers keep it real.  A few weeks ago a student at Bartlett high emailed me.  Needed to get extra credit.  She had no idea I would be in Anchorage.  I showed up in class yesterday morning - 7:30am.  I'm happy to report.  She got a solid A.

Had good discussion about whether they had trouble sorting fact from fiction.  Generation with lots of options for getting their news.  Implication of lack of trust on their personal lives.  I wanted to do more listening - genuine reasonses

Racially mixed group, socially there.  Had access to NPR teacher puts on 3x a week.  Help put what they were learning in perspective.
Some influenced by families, some not.
Overall, it was hard [for them] to figure out if things presented as fact, really are.
Say, climate change.  Crisis in trust in media overall.
Left them with - NPR exhaustive work on getting right, not perfect, and if wrong, we immediately own it and correct it.  If you can't trust that, then start with one reporter who always seems to be on his or her game.  Maybe that's where we can start to build trust.
Seemed to resonate with students who talked to me after class.

Another way journalists tested - two source rule.    How many of you 70% of time rely on two sources - say wires.  Have you adjusted that to include other sources before you include a story.
We do heavy attribution.  7:30 something has happened.  Start vetting.  Call other stations and how other news is reporting it.  And then, if we still haven't independently verified - we might say "multiple news stories are reporting" or "according to LA Times" .  Feels clunky - get story out there so audience knows you aren't oblivious, but you haven't personally verified.

Two sources ok for some stories ok
Death on prominent figure, but we don't unless verified from family member or publicist.  We can have three sources, but could get their info from the same source.
Trying to compete with other news outlets - we learned that doesn't really matter.  If we want to keep our audience we have to keep integrity.

Rely on local journalists on the ground with own sources - we recognize it varies from local journalists - weight that and if have good handle on story, reliability - they may be asked specifics about their sources.  Not unusual to get a report from a local station - we ask who the sources are - PD, which person?  Is that the spokesperson for the PD?

Covington video - at NPR realized better to wait.  We did a writeup about the process of having to wait.  Disagreements over that resulted in lawsuits.

Say, interviewing about opiod epidemic and they share their story about addiction.  20 years later, it could be discovered by future employer.  Are we required to let interviewee know.  Some yes, others no.  Make it harder to get interview?  Yes.  But our job isn't to do it easy way.

Big fan of 'reportables'.  Feeding info to editors, more vetting, ready for air.  Emailed throughout the network.  When I see 'reportable" on my email - I might be in middle of broadcast - I'll know I can just read it.  There have been errors, but more often than not, worked really well.  Can do fast turnaround on breaking stories.  Often our own reporters verifying with our own sources.

Our listeners have made NPR primary sources - still offers contextual news on multiple platforms.  Our audience growing, younger listeners, so we're doing something right.

Like to turn this over to you for questions.  1:40

Q:  ???
A;  Clear that this is a developing story and will change.  Depending on story.  When I need to know about wild fires, know I can rely on AP more than Reuters.  Going to websites, getting info directly.  Updated more frequently and faster than wire services can do.  They've decided to focus on specific pieces, regions.  NPR relying heavily on member stations.  Hard to know there's a story and we can't call a member station.    You know your local sources.

Q:   ????
A:  2 or 3 different sources - I think this is what happened.  I wasn't in newsroom.  Systematic breakdown.  Multiple people, NPR reporter, correspondent and local NPR from another source - turned out all getting from the same place.  Same law enforcement official?  not sure.  So producer at the time, no longer there . . . went with that, thinking we had multiple sources saying the same thing.  Began immediate discussion at highest level.  How could we have allowed this to happen.  Took responsibility as a network.  We won't talk about the death of anyone until we can independently verify.
Q:  What was the Q?  A:  [I didn't catch this fully, but it was about a report that someone who died, but hadn't really. I've looked up such stories at NPR and they did report Rep. Gabby Gifford had died.]  Daily News called us to stop broadcasting, she's not dead.
A:  Don't know details.
Q:  Everyone working in newsroom knows agony of being right.  Comment on perception of media bias based on - opinion itself feeds the perception of partisanship.  Too much speculation of facts.
A:  We have journalists report what we know and don't know.  Then analysts who explain what they think might happen.  We're careful to qualify what we say - expect, not sure, etc.  Using our experience to tell you what you should look out for.  But at the end of that path, it could be the exact opposite.

More on analysis vs news, how we pick the analysts.
Q:  suggesting that contributes to sense of not reporting facts?
A:  Particular example.  Last year fatigue of Trump coverage syndrome - here's the liberal voice, here's the conservative voice, let's  fight it out.
A:  I have a different perspective - we're always talking about balance.  As newscaster, there's no room for speculation.  What you're talking about is - it's the whole flavor of that media outlet.  NPR itself helps feed this perception of bias.
A:  I might agree on certain stories, or timing of an interview,  I hear you.  Overall, we've gone to great lengths.  Some think we're part of the liberal media.  Other times think we're not.  Or are we always on the fence.

A: Which affects most people?  Which will change fastest in next hour?  Which grabbing national attention, even if not personal impact, but historically important?  Notre Dame fire.  Why did you lead with that.  Immediacy and impact.  I'm also focusing on health, particularly women's health, stories that underrepresented over the years.  Underrepsented voices and get those stories told.

Q"  ??[This was a question about why they covered a story in the Iditarod]
A:  Iditarod story  followed by teachers strike.  I wanted to do story about dogs.  could switch from people are striking, dogs are striking too.