As we discussed in class, NPR did a three part investigative
story on foster care in South Dakota titled “Native Foster Care: Lost Children,
Shattered Families.” The series explored
why Native American children are taken from their families and placed in homes
off the reservation, and suggested ties to federal funding.
NPR’s Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos looked into the
reporting and conducted a 22 month examination of NPR’s investigation and
produced his own 80 page report which he called a re-telling of the story. He found the NPR series to be “deeply flawed
and should not have been aired as it was.”
NPR agreed with some of Schumacher-Matos’ investigation, but
stood by the bulk of their research and reporting. They also said in response “We find his
unprecedented effort to “re-report” parts of the story to be deeply flawed.
Below I have posted three links: The first link is for the
original NPR story “Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered
Families.” The second link is to NPR
Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos’ follow up to NPR’s story, “Indian Foster Care
in S. Dakota: A Case Study in Investigative Storytelling Gone Awry.” The third link is to NPR’s response to
Schumacher-Matos’ story.
NPR – “Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered
Families”
Edward Schumacher-Matos
“Indian Foster Care in S. Dakota:
A Case Study in Investigative Storytelling Gone Awry”
NPR – Go pound salt Matos!
Do you believe Schumacher-Matos was justified in his
re-telling and re-gathering of the facts from different sources on the other
side of the argument?
How do you feel the NPR handled themselves after their
Ombudsman came out with his lengthy report claiming that “the series was deeply
flawed and should not have been aired as it was?
I believe that Schumacher-Matos was justified in researching however I think as soon as he found the discrepancies, NPR and Schumacher should have combined forces to make a super story that would replace the original biased story that NPR put out.
ReplyDeleteNPR needed to replace the flawed story.
Do you really think NPR would even want to join forces with Schumacher-Matos after he basically went behind their backs and wrote a story on the same topic with just different sources? Would you want to have a combined effort on a story with someone who did that to you? Maybe if the person actually came up to you with the "new" information, but as we heard in class someone came up to him and told him there were different facts, so how do we know the validity of either story?
DeleteHonestly, I really don't have a problem with any of this. NPR put out a story. The Ombudsman did his job. Most importantly, both parties seem pretty transparent about it. I don't think airing their disagreements publicly like this makes them appear weaker or less professional. In fact, I respect that they aren't afraid to let the public see some of their dirty laundry. I trust their process more as a result.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both parties were simply doing their jobs. However, once the Ombudsman discovered the flaws, I agree that he and NPR would have done better to combine their information. It might have helped to save credibility.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris that NPR and its ombudsman are doing what they are supposed to. It's fine for NPR to come out after the review and say it stands by the original series. The finger-pointing and claims of flawed reporting by both sides (within one organization) makes me think neither side is grasping the whole truth.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ombudsman did what he was supposed to do. It was good that NPR responded that their report had some flaws, but I also agree with Brianna that NPR and the ombudsman should have worked together to fix the flaws. That way NPR wouldn't lose its credibility and the story would have been more accurate.
ReplyDelete