By Anthony Cody.
Alexander Russo is an unlikely ombudsman for education journalism, given that he is paid to blog by publishing giant Scholastic. But he has taken on the role, and in this column, he argues that the Broad Foundation sponsorship of education coverage at the Los Angeles Times is not worthy of the ethical fuss that education advocates have made of it.*
The brouhaha kicked off when Peter Sussman, who literally helped write the 1996 Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, was asked to comment on the fact that Eli Broad is now paying for education coverage at the Los Angeles Times,* and is sponsoring a very controversial project that would turn half of the Los Angeles Schools over to charter operators. Sussman offered this statement:
…trust and credibility are the life’s blood of journalism, and without it, a “news” organization is no different than any other partisan in public disputes, with the added problem that there is no major paper to hold it accountable, although in this case a blogger has apparently stepped into the breach. People have jeopardized and lost their jobs for defending their editorial independence and standing up to such conflicts of interest. I haven’t read the background on the issue you’ve highlighted, but if all your information is accurate, the Times’ problem extends beyond opinions to reporting, however well-intentioned their education reporters are.
Russo then offers two main lines of defense. The first is an impermeable wall he asserts exists between the editorial division of a newspaper and the journalistic side. According to this theory, journalists are utterly objective, and not subject to the influence of their owners or underwriters. Russo writes:
However, at the LAT and at most other papers, these two parts of the paper are developed independently. The editorial page is where the paper takes a position on an issue. The news page is where reporters cover the story but do not take a position.
I think we have all seen ample evidence that reporting is skewed according to the political perspective and economic interests of the ownership of media outlets. But this supposed wall is good enough for some.
The second defense Russo offers is based on a supposed lack of consistency on the part of the critics.
Russo writes:
There’s also the issue of a double-standard. Where are the objections from Sussman and Ravitch to the Ford Foundation funding the LAT, or the Robert Wood Johnson funding for PBS health care coverage, or Gates Foundation funding for the NPR education team? If outside funding with a vested interest is an issue for the LA Times, it’s an issue for everyone else, right — regardless of funding source or the position being taken?
Many of us have indeed objected to journalistic operations taking money from Gates, Walton and the like. And we have noted NPR in that regard:
Democrats are heavily influenced by NPR and PBS coverage that virtually excludes teacher voices except for a recent NPR series on the “Secret lives of teachers” that reifies the political, social, and economic contexts of educational issues. NPR and PBS both receive very generous support from the Gates and Walton foundations and Students First, which is heavily subsidized by many individuals and foundations hostile to public education. Among centrist Democrats heavily influenced by the Wall Street investors who support privatization of schools, NPR, PBS, and the New York Times remain the three most influential institutions that most directly shape mainstream public opinion on education issues.
Money buys media, and control of the media message has been central to the corporate reform campaign from the start. As I describe in “The Educator and the Oligarch,” there is a strategy at work that has several elements. First, “non-partisan” think tanks produce pseudo-academic “reports,” and then run around to testify at state legislatures to promote their conclusions. The media is provided with funding to subsidize news favorable to reform, as we saw with NBC’s Education Nation, and the more recent Gates-funded Education Lab project. Public media outlets such as NPR and PBS are likewise beholden to corporate philanthropies and have their education coverage underwritten by Gates. And then money can buy public relations outright, such as the $12 million that recently flowed into Peter Cunningham’s “non-profit” Education Post.
This week, some in the media have begun to take notice of the effect money attached to an agenda can have. A report in Current describes what has become the elephant in the editorial room, especially in what is now inaccurately called “public” media:
“The [Gates] foundation has supported public radio and TV journalism for years, backing coverage of global health, another priority for its philanthropy, as well as education. Within the past year, it has extended that commitment with $1.8 million in support to NPR for expanded education reporting. It also gave $639,000 to American Public Media for multiplatform coverage of education technology, to be featured on Marketplace’s broadcasts and website. In previous years, the Gates Foundation has also supported Frontline, PBS NewsHour and Teaching Channel, a nonprofit producer of public TV programming.”
This morning, we learned that Education Week will be getting an extra $2 million from the Gates Foundation to expand coverage of “innovation” in American education. And yes, we learned this from Diane Ravitch, who is indeed distressed not just about the LA Times, but states:
I wish the billionaires would keep hands off the independent media. Can EdWeek be independent of the man and the industry that underwrites their coverage?
Ravitch earlier called out NPR’s funding from the Waltons here in 2014.
Russo has reached out to other journalism experts and will share their perspectives in the weeks to come. Meanwhile, he notes that the Washington Monthly, where his column on the subject appeared, “is funded by the AFT and the Education Post (among whose funders is the Broad Foundation).”
I want to add one additional point, which I made at some length in this earlier post. It is not “neutral” or “objective” to expand coverage of “innovation” in education. It is not “neutral” or “objective” to have sections of a publication focused on “what is working” in education. The Gates Foundation has made clear that they are very interested in promoting the idea that technology is of tremendous educational value. Stories that trumpet success in this arena are not neutral. They advance the agenda of those selling technological solutions to human problems in education. The act of “focusing on success” sidelines serious criticism of this approach. Journalism that focuses primarily on success misses one of the crucial roles that true journalists must play.
Solutions to this may be, as Russo suggests, “unlikely or unworkable.” Undoing the corporate influence on the newsrooms of America is not going to be easy. But acknowledging we have a serious problem would be a valuable first step. An important second step would be to recognize independent bloggers as a critical part of the field of education journalism.
It should be noted that it was not Russo who originally posed this ethical question to one of the deans of journalistic ethics. It was someone who read the concerns raised by a Los Angeles blogger, Karen Wolfe, as originally reported here. It should also be noted that Alexander Russo, and the reporters working at the Los Angeles Times, are all eligible for full membership as journalists in the Education Writers Association, while unpaid, independent bloggers such as Wolfe (and myself) are not.
Note: An earlier version of this post stated incorrectly that Eil Broad owned the LA Times. There were rumors regarding this last year, but the current controversy focuses on the Broad Foundation’s funding of education reporting at the newspaper.
What do you think? Will the wall that separates the editorial department from the reporters prevent bias? Or are Peter Sussman’s concerns valid?
Karl Wheatley
Should I laugh or cry? Russo’s argument seems like a joke, or perhaps what happens when people have been marinating so long in the influence of big money that they don’t know what it would be like to be truly independent.
Imagine I’m paid to work at a paper whose owner is an aggressively outspoken billionaire who has been sharply critical of public education and the LAUSD in particular, while being such a fierce supporter of charter schools that he’s willing to donate millions to fund them. Then imagine if I, working in this situation, come to the conclusion that billionaires are corrupting American education and that democratically-run public education is superior overall to a market-oriented charter approach. Assuming I really need this job to pay the bills, and given the shrinking market for newspaper journalists, what are the odds I will voice my real unvarnished opinions about education? Zero or close to it, unless I am extremely brave.
howardat58
“Education Writers Association”. And where do they get their money from?????????????????
Lloyd Lofthouse
I didn’t know there was a wall between the editors and the journalists/reporters and I have BA in journalism and I was the adviser for and taught an award winning high school journalism class for several of the thirty years I was a public school teacher.
I’m going to ask a few questions and answer them with the answers I know.
Who assigns most of the stories to reporters? Editors
Who edits the stories when they are turned in before the assigned deadline? Editors
Who cuts and/or revises the stories that are turned in before they go to print? Editors
Dr. Bob- Blog Curator
My solution in a state that seems to have no ethics is this. I separate journalists into two categories. Those who investigate, research, and speak a critical mind, I refer to as journalists, however, those who only publish what they are fed, I refer to as, reporters.
Duane Swacker
Maybe Russo should read “Ethics in Speech Communication” by Thomas R. Nilsen. Only 50 years in print, certainly timely these days.
Susan Lee Schwartz
I was reading the Ravitch blog, where she reposted this important post on ETHICS. I posted the comment below. it is not short…but I think it is very important and address the reason that immoral and unethical behavior is on the rise… think Flint Michigan.
“Yes, others do it too” Anthony says ” Last year, investigative reporter David Sirota caused PBS to return a multimillion dollar grant from the John Arnold Foundation.
I did no get past the words “Others do it too.”
This, by the way, is a very important CLUE to the HYPOCRISY that permits UNETHICAL behavior to flourish.
“EVERYONE IS DOING IT,” is so… so HUMAN!
People reason that if others do it to, it must be OK!
This, my friends and colleagues, is THE NORM that runs through our culture — like a SWORD, but which is ‘de rigeur’ in the bureauracies that are EDUCATIONAL systems… schools!
When there is NOT A SHRED OF ACCOUNTABILITY — when too many people do the WRONG thing — then, like day follows night, — some mongrel will go too far.
I am reminded of the men at LIBOR (the English Standards & Poors.) who were entrusted to rate the financial instruments: “Everybody was doing the same thing,” I actually heard one of them say — as if it were a REASON!
Everyone in the oil and coal industry is polluting our air and water. Ubiquitous. look at the gas leak in California, or the tragedy that is destroying the ecosystem where the BP oil leak polluted the gulf. Everyone was sloppy in reporting the poor maintenance on the leak preventers.
So, it was only A MATTER OF TIME, before some sociopath would PUSH THE LIMIT, and allow poisoned water to replace a city’s supply!
People ‘get it’ (that everyone is doing it , too)
It is common behavior in our culture, for example, to ignore COLLATERAL* damage in order to get the job done. I am reminded of what drones do.
We are at the point in the 21st century, where people think that ‘a tough guy,’ is normal and good, and a quality for our President. The anti-hero- – who has internal ‘rules’ for doing things– appeared in fiction in the seventies, and in the movies with” Rambo. THIS, is is what rea, tough guys do in order to reach their goal.
Now, decades later, it seems so normal… that everyone is doing his own thing! It IS it is an American right to march to an internal drummer, like the guys in Oregon believe.
Utter chaos, ensues, as it did when everyone who was running a school system in the eighties discovered that it was open season on tenured teachers..
Indeed, administrations were ALL doing it to tenured teachers, in the 80s & 90s, bu BECAUSE most teachers BARELY KNEW what was afoot in the school DOWN THE ROAD –, let alone across thousands of miles– TEACHERS WERE THE LAST TO KNOW that WAR HAD BEEN DECLARED ON Public Education, and the first assault was on the tenured expert,the professional in practice… the real teachers who would say, “ARE YOU KIDDING… that is not a curriculum or a standards, and you want me to stop what I have been doing.
Lorna Stremcha does a wonderful job of explaining this in the preface of her incredible book “Bravery, Bullies & Blowhards,” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/background-information-bravery-bullies-blowhards-lorna-stremcha
She describes how TOP-Down management took over what had always been the PRACTICE OF THE PROFESSIONAL , in Montana schools.
She did not know what was happening as the EIC directed the war across the states. https://greatschoolwars.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/eic-oct_11.pdf
BUT, WE KNOW IT NOW… so what do we do NEXT…becasue complaining is not working!
Hey, there are 15,880 districts, and teachers caught in THAT transformational era in our public schools, were ALL experiencing the same thing! Top-dogs were mandating anti-learning policies, and when things went south, THEY BLAMED the teacher-practitioner VAM came LATER, when we tenured teachers were BUT A MEMORY
LET ME TAKE YOU ONE MORE STEP — and show you WHAT THE COMMON BEHAVIOR for DEALING WITH TEACHERS became, as the profession of teaching was IN THE PROCESS OF BEING utterly destroyed as everyone in charge was doing it… as I discovered in NYC. None of us knew that THIS was a hidden, but common process–the the WAY IT was being DONE, in schools ACROSS THE NATION!
Others were DOING IT!
THIS was the new culture of REFORM… doing it to teachers.
Good-bye tenured, experienced teachers…hello Core Curricula, and TFA..
Now hold on to your hats>>> Lorna , for example, was SET-UP, by the principal*, to be sexually assaulted by a stranger, in her classroom. This low excuse for a human being, had experienced NO deterrent for the harassment he brought into Lorna’s classroom, and saw the utter lawlessness among OTHER administrations existence, so, he took it to a new low.
* and she had to go to court to prove what he did… because NOTHING HAPPENED TO HIM! No accountability, like the banisters, means anything goes! http://blog.ebosswatch.com/2013/05/one-womans-legal-fight-against-workplace-bullying/
http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2013/10/lorna-stremcha-and-her-rubber-room.html
Gosh… read her book…http://www.amazon.com/Bravery-Bullies-Blowhards-Lessons-Classroom/dp/0991309936/ref=cm_sw_em_r_dptop_dn1Avb040EW4Q_tt
Lorna testified before Congress, and with her state senator brought a workplace bullying law into Montana. That was her path to recovery from the trauma & shock of what this principal thought was acceptable,– because , hey, everyone was getting rid of tenure by ignoring the civil rights of teachers. He just toolkit a step farther.
Administrators trampled on their civil rights of the teachers with impunity and got away with it.
http://www.perdaily.com/2011/01/lausd-et-al-a-national-scandal-of-enormous-proportions-by-susan-lee-schwartz-part-1.html
Protecting our civil rights, is WHY we create LAWS that do not depend on subjective rationales like: “Hey, gimme a break, I am not alone –> they are doing it too, and getting away with it.”
Our laws prevents chaos, and ensures that the anarchy does not destroy good societies, or corrupt institutions.
The law MUST BE RETURNED to the classroom first, so that teachers have the floor under their feet when parents or administration undermine their voices and their professional practice. EVERYONE cannot do it any longer— NOT TO TEACHERS.
VAM is a charade, built on that first hidden assault that was so common, that it took our over a hundred thousand teachers, and is still in progress in LA,
http://citywatchla.com/8box-left/6666-lausd-and-utla-complicity-kills-collective-bargaining-and-civil-rights-for-la-s-teachers
http://www.perdaily.com/2014/03/lausd-and-utla-collude-to-end-collective-bargaining-and-civil-rights-for-teachers-part-2.html
We need to band together, like they are in NY right now, to end workplace bullying that is endemic in public schools.
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Join-UFT-Solidarity-in-Alb-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Bullying_Learning_Petition_Politicians-160120-489.html#comment579953