Editorial Integrity for Public Media

This general session featured Ted Krichels (Penn State Public Broadcasting) and Tom Thomas (Station Resources Group).

Session began with examples of questionable underwriting practices -- a beef council providing funding for an NET doc on the cattle industry; the FBI as a partner in "Facing the Mortgage Crisis." The question asked is "Does the viewer expect editorial integrity when the program has these underwriters.

Told how UNC turned over reporting materials into an ALCOA investigation -- including tapes and transcripts -- to a legislative committee. Is this university station considered a part of the state? (State funding)?

They then asked,"Do you know where your employees are, what they are saying off your air and do you approve?" Then a photo of Juan Williams appeared on screen.

It could happen to anyone -- we need to be prepared.

American people trust public television -- and public broadcasting.

But there are changing expectations in and related to technology (we're everywhere); the audiences, partnerships and transparency.

In this changing environment, we need principles, policies and practices to maintain the public trust.

Editorial integrity for public media is station focused -- this group came out of the Affinity Group Coalition and Station Resource Group -- it applies to radio and TV and is funded by CPB.

Core principles define public media -- a 1984 Wingspread Principles study noted: We are trustees of public service; our service is programming; credibility is the currency of our programming; many of our responsibilities are grounded in law; we are a fiduciary repository for public funds.

This group has guideposts and objectives. It is community based, inclusive and reflective, focuses on common good and accessible to all. The main objective is to increase public education and enrich.

The question is: Would a viewer reasonably question the role of the funder? If a public affairs discussion is funded by a state teacher and business lobby -- opposite points of view -- does that remedy the issue?

How does news and history differ? Does having a State Historical Society as an underwriter on the history of cattle industry that is also underwritten by vested interests balance it out?

We need to adopt transparent policies to guide those decisions.

Trasperancy is public media's calling card. Public acknowledgment amount of the grant and agreement details; publish editorial guidelines and funding standards and a glossary that includes what "brought to you in part by..." means.

How should public media apply standards and principles in community partnerships? Used the "great dates" example -- a partnership with shared mission, interests, clear division of labor, everyone brings something to the mix, there is systematic communication; the partnership guidelines are put in writing, there are benchmarks and opt-out opportunities.

Issues at the edge -- Emerging and unfamiliar platforms
Blurring lines of editorial ownership
Trade-offs with non-traditional partnerships
Do consumers actually choose sources in terms of reliability and independence?

Next steps for this group include final working group reports, feedback, recommendations, collection of resources and case studies.

The next issue on the table will be employee relations -- what can employees say or not say?

"Trust is our most important asset," says Ted.
Submitted by Jeanie Croope / WKAR/East Lansing