© 2024 KGOU
News and Music for Oklahoma
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Mailbag: Too Much Detail And Not Enough Context

iStockPhoto

Should NPR have published a review of a controversial book? And are the details in a new NPR podcast so detailed as to be irresponsible? Those were among the non-politics issues raised by listeners and readers in the last couple of weeks. Here are a few of the letters we have received and responses from the newsroom.

A couple of readers wrote to me, and many more weighed in vociferously in the comments and on Twitter, about an online review of the new book Thomas Jefferson Dreams of Sally Hemings, by Stephen O'Connor. As reviewer Jean Zimmerman wrote, at the core of the historical novel imagining the relationship between the nation's third president and Hemings, who was his slave as well as his lover, "lies a conundrum: How could the author of five words that shook the world — all men are created equal — keep his lover enslaved for decades?"

In her positive review, Zimmerman raised the obvious question, writing that "The entire book revolves around the issue of consent — to what degree Sally determines her own fate with her master or whether she's being forced, whether freedom to say no rather than yes could ever be a possibility for an enslaved female, a child at that." But the word "rape" never appears in the review. The reaction to NPR's posting of the review has been fairly brutal, particularly on Twitter, with criticism of the decision intermingled with criticism of the language in the review, as well as of the book itself.

Listener Deb Bergen, of North Newton, Kan., was one who wrote directly to me. "I recoil at every thought of this review," she said, adding, "It is not clear to me why this book needed to be reviewed at all. If it did, at this moment in our history, there needed to be more about the impact of fantasy 250 years ago and now. Naive support without any opportunity for counter-narrative or questioning is literally seen as support for abuse of young women and visible minorities, as well as apologetics for the whole operation of slavery. At a time of #BlackLivesMatter, this review places NPR solidly within a culture that we need to challenge at every step."

I'm going to set aside the content of the review because Zimmerman does not work for NPR and she was contracted to give her opinion (which, for what it's worth, paralleled those of other reviewers in The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, among others). But the question of how NPR handled the book is relevant. I asked the newsroom to respond to Bergen's letter.

Petra Mayer, an editor at NPR Books, sent the following response:

"Thank you for sharing your concerns about this review; we definitely hear you. We felt that Thomas Jefferson Dreams of Sally Hemings is an important book deserving of critical attention, and we stand by that decision. However, we made the choice to consider it on its merits as a novel — while our reviewer described the contrasts in the book as 'agonizing' and was clear about her discomfort with its premise, her focus was on the book itself and not the larger context. In retrospect, that was not the right choice, and as the editor I take responsibility for it. We'll be more thoughtful going forward."

I am fully supportive of the decision to run a review the book, however controversial it may be; that is only all the more reason to review it. But a straight review was not enough; as Mayer said, it could have been wrapped in much more historical context or paired with a separate piece, perhaps an interview with the author, exploring the difficult questions raised by the topic.

Does 'Embedded' Go Too Deep?

The new NPR podcast Embedded, hosted by Kelly McEvers (also a host of All Things Considered), is designed to get up close and personal; the podcast, per its self-description, "takes a story from the news and goes deep." But too deep for several listeners and online readers, who wrote with concerns about an excerpt of the first episode that aired on All Things Considered late last month, and the episode itself, which returns to Austin, Ind., a small town that "was at the center of an HIV outbreak linked to intravenous use of the opioid painkiller Opana."

Their concern was the detailed description given by McEvers as she watched several people go through the process of turning Opana into an injectable form.

Amy Russell, of Vacaville, Calif., wrote, "I'm a huge fan of NPR and respect the freedom of the press, and [the] need to educate the public." But she called the detailed instructions "reprehensible," adding, "There is no value in sharing this information except for the writer to show off [her] 'investigative skills.' Does it push the conversation forward? No, all this step-by-step manual does is allow people to find a means of dosing themselves with a clearly dangerous drug. I am absolutely appalled by the lack of judgment and taste shown."

David Kugler, of Mogadore, Ohio, had similar concerns: "How many people might read this and abuse this information, having not previously known how to abuse the drug? Is this responsible journalism? Maybe this is easily available on the internet already and people will find a way to abuse drugs if they are determined to do so, but I would be worried about any kids and teenagers reading this who are bored and find their parents' painkillers. I feel this information should be modified in the article to preserve moral decency, yet keep the integrity of the journalists' efforts."

This issue of how much detail is too much pops up frequently, such as when NPR writes about dirty bombs or terrorist targets. In this particular case, McEvers told me by email: "The main reason we decided to include it was we were reporting on the fact that the drug company had applied this coating as a way to keep people from abusing the drug. And yet people figured out fairly easily how to remove the coating. And we wanted listeners to hear that, up close." She added, as Kugler noted, "In the age of the internet, the methods for using Opana are very widely available. That had bearing on our decision, too."

The internet is rife with material that NPR would not report, of course. But the details included in this piece are indeed widely available. They also make for compelling listening to a story that deserves extended attention beyond the past reports from the daily news cycle. If the episode were just about making the drug, I might think it sensationalistic, but the subjects of the report, including a nurse and an Army National Guard veteran who served in Iraq, are given ample time to tell their personal histories in depth, in the context of a very real crisis.

Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

Elizabeth Jensen was appointed as NPR's Public Editor in January 2015. In this role, she serves as the public's representative to NPR, responsible for bringing transparency to matters of journalism and journalism ethics. The Public Editor receives tens of thousands of listener inquiries annually and responds to significant queries, comments and criticisms.
More News
Support nonprofit, public service journalism you trust. Give now.