NPR dismisses an ombudsman report
An internal review found serious problems with an award-winning NPR investigation.
This past Friday, NPR Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos released an 80-page report reviewing an October 2011 Peabody-winning investigation into the South Dakota foster care system’s treatment of Native American children. The ombudsman’s review concluded that the investigation as aired violated NPR’s Code of Ethics.
NPR management has vehemently disagreed with the ombudsman’s findings. In an “Editor’s Note” posted that same night as the report, Chief Content Officer and Executive Vice President Kinsey Wilson and Margaret Low Smith, the senior vice president of news, stood by the substance of the reports. Furthermore, they characterize the ombudsman’s analysis of the story as “deeply flawed,” describing the way the “re-report” was carried out as “unorthodox.”
The original series, by Laura Sullivan and producer Amy Walters, was a three-part investigation which alleged that there were disproportionate removals of native children from their families into white foster homes. These disparities put South Dakota in possible violation of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, a law intended to prevent and minimize the separation of native children from their families and culture.
In his review, the ombudsman cited the investigation for violating NPR’s Code of Ethics in five ways:
1. No proof for its main allegations of wrongdoing;
2. Unfair tone in communicating these unproven allegations;
3. Factual errors, shaky anecdotes and misleading use of data by quietly switching what was being measured;
4. Incomplete reporting and lack of critical context;
5. No response from the state on many key points.
The Ombudsman’s review directed most of its censure at the first of the work’s three parts, which made the most pointed allegations of state wrongdoing, including claims of improper removals of native children from their families and the implication that these removals were motivated by “federal financing incentives.”
NPR executives claim in their online statement that the sourcing of the ombudsman’s report was incomplete and that many of his conclusions were “subjective or without foundation.” Because of these flaws, they concluded, his charges do not warrant a point-by-point response. They additionally take vigorous exception to the way that his interaction with state officials, in their view, “impeded NPR’s ability to engage those officials in follow-up reporting.” According to the response, NPR executives were first shown a draft of this review in September of last year. After NPR’s editors separately looked over the reporting and sourcing of investigative series, there was a December meeting with the ombudsman. NPR, through its media relations office, declined to comment to CJR beyond the posted statement. Read more in the Columbia Journalism Review.