Nasty, false political attacks

Carlos Carmonamedina for NPR Public Editor /

Trollish attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris are nothing new. They spiked on X this past Sunday evening, according to the data firm PeakMetrics, after President Joe Biden announced that he was stepping aside and endorsing her as his replacement on the November ballot.

When a researcher plainly described a few of these claims on Morning Edition, it shocked some listeners to hear the misinformation stated out loud. Should NPR or its guests repeat those claims, rooted in misogyny and racism?

It’s one of many comments we’ve received from listeners in these past two weeks of intense political developments.

Journalistic fairness is at the root of each of the four audience letters we explore today.

• Is it fair to repeat unfounded misinformation?
• Did NPR fairly characterize Ohio Sen. JD Vance’s stance on abortion?
• Is it fair to scrutinize the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 document, if it’s not officially former President Donald Trump’s platform?
• Was a story on fashion at the Republican National Convention a fair choice for NPR, or did it distract from more important issues?

As political stories take up an increasingly larger part of the news cycle, it’s valuable to understand how the journalists at NPR make decisions on any given day. It’s equally important to ask how the collective impact of those decisions affects the way people understand our country’s overall political narrative.
Answering this larger question is definitely more art than science. No one sees every story that NPR produces. Yet NPR audience members should expect that, over time, they will come away with an accurate insight into politics this election season.

As we answered these four audience questions, we talked to a show host (Michel Martin), the news executive who oversees the shows (Eric Marrapodi), and the editor who leads the politics team (Krishnadev Calamur).

Pursuing answers to these questions, I believe, benefits both the journalists at NPR and the audience. Hearing listener and reader feedback helps NPR journalists fine-tune their news judgment. Hearing how reporters and editors at NPR describe their news judgment equips consumers to better understand the news. — Kelly McBride

/

/

Illustration by Carlos Carmonamedina

Conspiracies and misinformation about Vice President Kamala Harris

The day after President Biden ended his campaign, Morning Edition Host Michel Martin interviewed a researcher about the attacks that ramped up immediately against Vice President Harris. It’s not new to Harris, Nina Jankowicz said. As CEO of the American Sunlight Project, she studies political misinformation that specifically targets women candidates.

Martin’s interview revolved around one central question: “If Harris does become the nominee, how should voters go about evaluating these attacks?”

In distilling her research, Jankowicz described the range of misinformation spread about Harris including “sexualized narratives claiming she slept her way to the top or that she’s sexually promiscuous, transphobic narratives claiming that she’s secretly a man and couldn’t have gotten to a position of power without having secretly been a man, and then racist and racialized narratives. Kind of similar to with President Obama, users falsely claimed that Harris was not eligible for the presidency because of her immigrant parents and also claimed that she wasn’t Black enough or Indian enough to claim those identities.”

Hearing those attacks on the radio was shocking. But it was clear that Jankowicz was describing them, not making them. And the fact that the attacks ramped up again immediately after Biden endorsed Harris made them newsworthy.

“We reported on this because we think the public should know the nature of the attacks that have been and continue to be leveled at her,” Martin told us in an email. “This is coming to a social media feed near you — and if not you, then your relatives or your kids. We think the public should know, understand and be prepared to evaluate this in its proper context. The implication seems to be that if we don’t discuss it, it will go away; it won’t.”

Eric Marrapodi, NPR’s vice president for news programming, said NPR audience members deserve to know the breadth of the conversation about Harris. “We need to make sure we’re pointing that stuff out when it’s happening and when we know it’s flooding the zone,” he said.

With this Morning Edition segment, NPR chose to interview an expert who plainly described what she found in her research and made it clear that the attacks were false. Knowing the claims are out there prepares people to participate in the conversation — or not. — Amaris Castillo

A mischaracterization of JD Vance’s stance on abortion?

Since former President Trump announced Vance as his running mate, many stories have focused on the Ohio senator’s evolving views.

Reporters have documented the various statements Vance has made about his views on abortion. He has described himself as "100% pro-life."

NPR’s July 16 article (“Where JD Vance stands on key issues”) rounds up Vance’s public statements on issues like immigration, election integrity and abortion. The quote NPR ran in this list was: “I’d like it to be primarily a state issue. Ohio is going to want to have a different abortion policy from California, from New York, and I think that’s reasonable.” But that wasn’t the full quote. Vance went on to tell the Cincinnati Enquirer: “But I think it’s fine to sort of set some minimum national standard.”

Later, that NPR article was updated with this added line: “But in the same interview, Vance signaled openness to ‘some minimum national standard.’” A July 17 correction at the bottom of the article reads: “This story has been updated to include further reporting on Vance’s position regarding abortion.”

Updating the quote brought more clarity to Vance’s stated position at that moment. As he refines his views, it’s up to journalists to keep pace. Marrapodi, the VP for news programming, said: “It’s important for us to keep making sure we’re getting it right. His positions have shifted.”

Not only have Vance’s views shifted, but so have Trump’s views and the party platform itself, Marrapodi pointed out. Historically, NPR’s reporters have tracked these changes. For instance, in a September 2022 episode of the NPR Politics Podcast, political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben shared what she’d learned during an interview she had with Vance to seek clarity. His position back then wasn’t crystal clear, but she did note that he had softened his stance.

Vance has a standing invitation for an NPR interview, Marrapodi said.

The primary goal of reporting on these issues is to help voters see how candidates’ views may influence laws, and ultimately to describe what public policies the parties intend to implement. While Vance’s views are newsworthy, reporting on the party’s platform and track record on abortion is more important. — Amaris Castillo and Kelly McBride

Reporting on Project 2025

Project 2025 is a 900-page plan from the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation that outlines an overhaul of the federal government. The comprehensive proposal includes blueprints for shrinking social welfare programs, privatizing weather forecasts and deporting huge numbers of undocumented immigrants.

NPR has made it clear in its reporting on Project 2025 that former President Trump is trying to distance himself from the plan. Morning Edition Host A Martínez pointed this out on July 11. The day before, on the NPR Politics Podcast, White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez quoted a Trump campaign official rejecting the plan.

NPR has also reported on the Heritage Foundation’s historical influence over public policy and on the close ties between the think tank and former Trump officials.

NPR’s chief Washington editor, Krishnadev Calamur, said NPR politics reporters determined that Project 2025 was newsworthy. They did their first stories about it in 2023.

“Whenever we’ve done a story about Project 2025, we’ve noted both [Trump’s] denial, his distancing himself from the project, as well as the fact that it has been written by many people close to his campaign or part of his previous administration,” Calamur said. “I think both of those things are actually quite significant and are important for the context.”

Calamur pointed out that Trump only recently began distancing himself when polls showed the plan was unpopular with voters.

We asked a couple of outside experts about the relationship between Trump and Project 2025. It’s absolutely newsworthy, said Massachusetts Institute of Technology political science professor Andrea Louise Campbell.

“Although Trump has not formally endorsed Project 2025, he has a track record of implementing suggestions from conservative organizations and think tanks,” she wrote via email. “For example, a considerable number of the judges he named to the federal bench have ties to the Federalist Society. Furthermore, although he is not particularly focused on policy, many of the advisers around him are, and they are taking cues from the Heritage Foundation and similar organizations.”

Jon Marshall, an associate professor of journalism at Northwestern University, concurred. He’s reported extensively about the relationship between the presidency and the press.

“The Heritage Foundation has been a leading think tank for Republicans since the Reagan administration, and many of the people who worked on Project 2025 were top people in the Trump administration,” Marshall said. “So anything that Project 2025 is recommending has a good chance of being part of Trump’s policy if he is elected as president.”

Marshall listened to the Morning Edition segment and the NPR Politics Podcast and felt the journalists made clear that this was not a plan by Trump plan, but rather a plan for Trump. He added that “there should be reporting on policies coming from both conservative think tanks as well as liberal think tanks that are aimed at potentially guiding the next administration.”

Marshall encouraged NPR “to explain what the Heritage Foundation is and what its history has been and how it has often been closely connected with Republican presidential administrations.”

Given all this, Project 2025 is a significant and sweeping effort to reform public policy, and NPR’s reporting is relevant and responsible. Because most people know very little about the Heritage Foundation, NPR could include more description about why the think tank is so influential on Republican lawmakers.

In fact, focusing on policy proposals is perhaps more helpful to voters than devoting attention to campaign tactics. — Emily Barske Wood

Convention fashion

Covering fashion statements at political conventions gives news consumers a window into the many devoted followers of the candidates and the political parties. NPR’s story gave readers a chance to see and hear from a handful of people who traveled to Milwaukee from all over the country and its territories.

“The best way to capture an election is through voters,” Calamur said. “It really does give us a flavor. Trump, whatever one thinks of him, he has really devoted voters and followers and it allows us to get at that.”

This letter suggests that NPR adopt the stance that the views of rank-and-file Republicans aren’t normal. That would be folly. From polling and voting records we know that an almost-equal number of voters support both Republicans and Democrats. That suggests that the people featured in this story are the very definition of quite ordinary.

The more NPR’s audience understands about the voters who support a candidate, the better informed they are. As long as stories about clothing choices avoid denigrating or laughing at people, political convention fashion stories are a legitimate window into political viewpoints. — Kelly McBride

The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Reporters Amaris Castillo and Emily Barske Wood and copy editor Merrill Perlman make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on Facebook, X and from our inbox. As always, keep them coming.

Kelly McBride
NPR Public Editor
Chair, Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute

Copyright 2024 NPR