When the facts are right, but the story is wrong

/ Carlos Carmonamedina for NPR Public Editor

/

Carlos Carmonamedina for NPR Public Editor

Sometimes a news story simply explains why something is going viral on the internet. These stories usually get a lot of interest from the audience, because people want to know what other people are talking about. But not every social media sensation makes for a good news story.

An audience member wrote in to object to a recent NPR digital story that set out to examine whether a conservative magazine editor uttered a racial slur. Many observers concluded after watching the tape that no slur was intended. Instead, it was a verbal fumble.

Seeing the debate online, a reporter for NPR took on the story. The first version that NPR published was, by NPR’s own admission, unfair to Rich Lowry, the National Review editor at the center of the story – who did not actually say the slur. Recognizing the unfairness, NPR editors made substantial edits to the story several hours later, making it a more accurate representation of what really happened.

We were interested in how this happened and especially why there is no note of clarification on the story to signal that it was significantly revised. So we talked to an executive news editor, the standards editor and NPR’s media correspondent. Read on for NPR’s explanation and our analysis.

On a more positive note, we are also highlighting an NPR story on the investigation into college financial aid earlier this year. NPR’s coverage of the federal application form (called FAFSA) that college students must use to qualify for college loans and grants is consistently top notch.

/

/

Illustration by Carlos Carmonamedina

NPR’s coverage of a questionable viral moment

This Sept. 17 NPR online story was intended to document a viral internet moment.

Here’s the back story: National Review Editor-in-Chief Rich Lowry appeared on the Sept. 15 episode of The Megyn Kelly Show, which airs on SiriusXM, and streams on YouTube and as a podcast. As the editor of the conservative publication, Lowry is a frequent guest on the show.

Kelly asked Lowry to analyze the media coverage of JD Vance’s false claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s pets. In responding, Lowry verbally stumbled between two words, “migrants” and “immigrants” and it sounded to some viewers like he called Haitians the N-word. The video clip swept through X, with accusations that he indeed said the N-word. Other news outlets ran with the story.

Two days later, NPR ran a story, recapping the accusations that Lowry used the racial slur. The story included an embedded tweet from Madeline Peltz, deputy director of rapid response at the liberal group Media Matters, suggesting that Lowry uttered a slur. It also included a tweet from Lowry explaining what happened, and a tweet from National Review contributing editor Andy McCarthy calling the verbal stumble a mispronunciation.

Hearing the clip of Lowry speaking, it’s easy to see why people did a double-take. But we replayed it many times and heard what others eventually concluded: that Lowry bungled “migrants” and “immigrants” together. In fact, NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik tweeted out exactly that conclusion two and half hours before the NPR story was published, although his colleague who wrote the story did not see it.

We wondered: Why run a story at all?

NPR Vice President and Executive Editor Eva Rodriguez said C Mandler, the reporter who wrote the NPR story, pitched it after noticing a swirl of discussion about it on social media. “This was a moment that was garnering intense audience focus on social media,” Rodriguez told us in an email. “The purpose of this story was to respond to that audience interest with the relevant facts and context for them to better understand it.”

Folkenflik told us he didn’t think there was a story there.

“I think people should be dinged for and reported on what they actually do,” Folkenflik said, adding that he decided to acknowledge the incident on social media because it was in the media space and gained a fair amount of attention.

The NPR story was substantially updated several hours after it was published. The story’s original headline read: “Conservative editor-in-chief appears to use racial slur to refer to Haitian migrants.” That headline was later updated to: “Conservative editor-in-chief says mispronunciation led to accusations of using slur.” Folkenflik’s tweet was added. And Lowry’s response was moved up to the first paragraph.

NPR’s standards editor Tony Cavin explained why the headline and story were modified after publication. “The focus of the story was changed, frankly, to I think better reflect what actually happened, which was that he said something, and some people will say he’d made this slur. He said he had not. And I think I would argue the original framing of the story was not as fair to him as it should have been.”

There was no correction on NPR’s website noting those changes as we were doing our reporting. Cavin said that’s because there was nothing factually wrong with the first story. Instead, he said the story and headline needed more editing.

Rodriguez, the executive editor, told us the headline on the first version fell short. “The story clearly and accurately lays out what happened in that moment and provides the clip for readers to judge for themselves, along with responses from Lowry, Megyn Kelly, a contributing editor to the National Review, and a director of Media Matters,” Rodriguez said. “After the story was published — and in the interest of fairness — Lowry’s denial of using the N-word was moved to the lead. We decided that it was initially too far down in the story and wanted to make it more clear.”

She said the headline change was made at the same time Lowry’s denial was moved up in the story. “We felt the new headline was more fair and gave a more complete picture of the story,” she said. “The original headline, while accurate, was vague. Typically we would not mention a headline change at the bottom of a story if it was not correcting a factual issue.”

It is a sign of integrity that NPR recognized the story needed to be improved and did so.

We disagree with NPR on two points. First, the story as originally published wasn’t just unfair. It was inaccurate. The story told readers that Lowry “appeared to use” the racial slur.

Lots of questions go viral on the internet, like “Is this dress blue or gold?” Explaining the nature of a viral question in a news story presumes that the answer is truly up for debate. In this case, NPR’s own media expert had determined by slowing down the video that it was unlikely that Lowry blurted out the racial slur.

Second, after recognizing that the story was wrong, NPR should have acknowledged the changes to both the headline and the body of the story with a formal note of clarification. Because readers were much more likely to come away from the original story with the belief that Lowry actually said the racial slur, a clarification note would be a public acknowledgment that the first story fell short.

Lowry himself wrote a column for National Review about the fallout he experienced due to the accusations, including the cancellation of two scheduled speaking engagements.

“Everyone in my business takes lumps for things they say. That comes with the territory,” the column begins. “What’s different is getting smeared for something you verifiably didn’t say.”

Lowry mentioned NPR’s story in the column, noting the headline change. We reached out to him, and he told us that the initial headline was “grossly unfair and misleading,” but said he was gratified that it was changed to something more accurate. “It was also good that the comment from your media reporter was added, concluding I didn’t say it,” Lowry said in an email. “But covering this internet nothing-story should have been beneath NPR to begin with.”

Last week National Review launched what it’s calling the “Cancellation Tour,” asking for donations to send Lowry to new events across the country.

Rodriguez said, “We hope this level of vigilance, transparency and responsiveness helps NPR to earn and keep the trust of this audience member and the millions of others like him who turn to us every day.”

In our view, NPR should be more transparent by noting the fixes to the story. Studies show that audiences are more likely to trust journalists when they acknowledge their mistakes.

This story did not meet NPR’s high standard of being newsworthy. On top of that, the original story was written in a way that created more confusion, to the point of being misleading, instead of generating clarity. The post-publication editing corrected that problem. But a correction or a clarification note would make it clear to the audience that NPR acknowledges the flaws, which they clearly do, according to the standards editor. (Update: NPR added a correction note to the story on Friday, Oct. 4.)

NPR’s own ethics guidelines speak to this. Journalists are encouraged to: “Guard against subjective errors. Ensuring we have our factual details correct is only part of the accuracy equation. It's just as important to make sure we've correctly interpreted those facts in our reporting.”

Additionally, when it comes to mistakes, the policy states, “We have a simple standard: Errors of fact do not stand uncorrected. If we get it wrong, we’ll admit it.”

And finally, NPR’s standards caution its journalists, “Any falsehoods in our news reports can cause harm. But errors that may damage reputations or bring about grief are especially dangerous, and extra precautions should be taken to avoid them.”

While the story may not have made specific factual errors, the way the facts were originally stated distorted the truth. Good for NPR for recognizing that and improving the story in a way that reported a more accurate version of the truth. Because of that, the clarification should have been noted. (Update: A correction was added after we published this newsletter.) — Kelly McBride and Amaris Castillo 

/

FAFSA confusion

The U.S. Education Department’s launch of the revamped FAFSA in December 2023 — Free Application for Federal Student Aid — had dozens of problems. On the Sept. 24 All Things Considered, NPR’s education correspondent and senior editor Cory Turner highlighted the key findings from U.S. Government Accountability Office officials, who recently testified before a House subcommittee.

The two-way interview and the accompanying digital piece detailed the issues with the system in an understandable way, further solidifying NPR’s important reporting on the topic. Turner and others on the education desk have been reporting on the failed FAFSA rollout since the beginning of this year, and stories have included great examples of explanatory journalism and enterprise reporting to show the impact on families. — Emily Barske Wood

The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Reporters Amaris Castillo, Nicole Slaughter Graham 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