Outing Barbara Bradley Hagerty
Biblio writes:
Her religion reporting for NPR has focused mainly on Christianity, including a report on the Christian Science Church, in which she did not disclose that she was herself a former member of the Church. ... More troubling still is her association with Howard Ahmanson's Fieldstead and Co. and Fieldstead Foundation. Ahmanson is a California millionaire who uses his trust fund to finance right-wing Christian, anti-gay, anti-evolution groups and politicians. He was previously associated with Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates a Biblically-based government for the U.S. ... Hagerty has spoken twice at the Summer Institute of Journalism, a program run by the Council for Christian Colleges and University and funded by the Fieldstead Foundation. ... Hagerty's keynote address to the 2003 National Student Media Convention was also sponsored by Fieldstead and Co.
Apparently, these sponsored lectures are a violation of the Ethics Guides of her employer, NPR:
NPR journalists may only accept fees from educational or nonprofit groups not engaged in significant lobbying or political activity. Determining whether a group engages in significant lobbying or political activity is the responsibility of the journalist seeking permission, and all information must be fully disclosed to the journalist's supervisor. ... NPR journalists may not speak to groups where the journalist's appearance might put in question his or her impartiality. Such instances include situations where the employee's appearance may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization.
Currently, it seems like the NPR Ombudsman is denying that Barbara Bradley Hagerty has violated their ethics code - but it seems difficult to come up with any charitable interpretation of circumstances that would allow the Ombudsman to at least think they are correct. Hagerty has received money from Fieldstead Foundation to speak. Fieldstead Foundation engages in lobbying and political activity - as Biblio notes, they are listed on the American Association of Political Consultants' 2003 membership roster. Taking money from a group that engages in lobbying and political activity is a violation of NPR's "Ethics Guide." Period. End of story.
But NPR doesn't want to do anything about this. Tell me again how they are just a shill for the Left?
Read More:
Comments
you might want to check out this piece she did on the Baha’i Faith. It was very good. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87809254
So what? You find free speech troubling when morals are applied? Or is your liberal, anti all things decent mentality to be applied only to godless and perverted liberals? What a joke.
So… I think that unethical “news” reporting is a bad idea. Is it your position that unethical behavior by journalists isn’t important?
Where have I stated or implied this?
It’s nothing more than bigotry to suggest that being liberal and/or atheist means being “anti all things decent.” It’s no better, morally speaking, than saying the same about blacks or Jews. A person taking such a position can’t be treated as having anything serious or substantive to say about the groups they are attacking.
Curiously, this expression of bigotry manages to distract attention from the topic of the above article: partisan religious reporting from someone pretending to be objective.
No, the “joke” is the large number of bigoted religious believers who pretend to have moral superiority over others simply because those others fail to have the same religious and theistic beliefs.
Or maybe that’s tragedy rather than comedy. Sometimes the line between the two is difficult to discern.
Crook religion succeeds because it has not conscience whatsoever. There is no moral conflict when everything is scripted for a robot. One of the most infuriating things about liberals is their endless concern with being morally correct. Moralizing divides the mind and slows liberals down.
One of the most infuriating things about liberals is their endless concern with being morally correct. Moralizing divides the mind and slows liberals down. — John Hanks on October 10, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Um, John? Are you implying that only liberals are concerned with acting morally?
Let’s get back to the real issue here…”Her religion reporting for NPR has focused mainly on Christianity,…”
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide to Atheism since 1998
You seem to be angry with Christianity, Barbara Hagerty, NPR, NPR’s Ombudsman,etc…
Whoever or whatever you are angry with, your connection of Hagerty to the “religious right” seems to offend you. This “association” with the Fieldstead Foundation may conflict with your beliefs or lack there of, but if you desire freedom in your support of Atheism, perhaps you should grant some freedom to someone else’s support of Christianity. At least try picking one fight at a time!
I don’t think it’s expect too much to notice that what you attribute to me here is a quote of someone else. I specifically say “Biblio writes:”, so I don’t know how much clearer I could possibly be.
I’m disappointed with the poor ethical standards being displayed, but I don’t see any anger here.
Since I’m quite clear above about the problem of the apparent violations of ethics guidelines, why don’t you address that — since that is, in fact, the real issue here. Or is it just easier to try to toss around accusations about my feelings and motives than to deal with clearly delineated issues.
Feel free to show where I have tried to deny anyone any freedom to support Christianity. Hint: you can’t.
I consider it disingenuous for you or anyone else to complain in this fashion about criticism of a person’s ideology and support for particular ideological organizations. The freedom to be a Christian does not mean that one is free from encountering criticism of Christianity or even of one’s Christian beliefs. The freedom to belong to a far-right religious group associated with Reconstructionism does not mean that one is free from encountering criticism of this association.
When people conflate the two, as you are trying to do here, they are actually undermining freedom — freedom of criticism, of dissent, and of expression. Is that why you don’t offer any serious, substantive responses to my criticisms above?