[CPProt.net] In NPR actions, were all things considered?

Mon Mar 21 20:24:42 CET 2005

________________________________

From: E. Randol Schoenberg [mailto:randols at bslaw.net] 
Sent: 21 March 2005 19:48
To: E. Randol Schoenberg
Subject: In NPR actions, were all things considered?

http://www.bslaw.net/news/041227a.html
http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/archives20050301.shtml#98119
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114838/  (March 17, 2005)

This appears on the front page of Saturday's Los Angeles Times Calendar
section.

REGARDING MEDIA/ TIM RUTTEN
In NPR actions, were all things considered?
Tim Rutten
Regarding Media

March 19, 2005

National Public Radio's decision to sever its 21-year connection to one of
its most experienced arts reporters has stirred a sharp controversy among
some of the networks' longtime supporters and raised questions about how its
news operation sets and enforces journalistic standards. 

The situation is of more than usual interest not only because it involves
one of the nation's major cultural institutions - New York's Museum of
Modern Art - but also because NPR is one of the few serious American news
organizations whose audience actually has grown appreciably over the past
few years. Moreover, as a noncommercial broadcaster supported by public
funds, private philanthropy and the donations of its listeners, NPR
traditionally has claimed to hold itself to a particularly high standard of
transparency when it comes to reportorial standards and practices.

The sequence of events at issue began two days after Christmas, when NPR's
signature news program, "All Things Considered," broadcast a report by David
D'Arcy on the long-running dispute over ownership of Egon Schiele's
"Portrait of Wally." The painting, which now may be worth as much as $10
million, was stolen from its Jewish owner, Viennese art dealer Lea Bondi, in
1939. It subsequently passed under murky circumstances into the collection
of Austria's government-supported Leopold Foundation. Seven years ago, the
Leopold loaned the painting to MOMA, where Bondi's heirs recognized it and
asserted ownership. Their claim was first pressed by Manhattan Dist. Atty.
Robert Morgenthau and - when he was found to lack jurisdiction - by federal
authorities. The painting currently is being held in U.S. government custody
until a federal court can resolve the matter.

D'Arcy is not an NPR employee but a New York-based independent journalist
who has provided the network with hundreds of reports on art and culture
over the years. He also is a correspondent for the Art Newspaper, a
contributing editor to Art & Auction and a regular critic for BBC Radio.
>From the outset, he has taken a keen interest in the Schiele affair. His
Dec. 27 report began with a taped interview with MOMA Chairman Ronald
Lauder, who was described as "the founder of the Commission for Art
Recovery, which has urged museums around the world to search their
collection for art looted from Jewish families in the Nazi era - museums
like MOMA."

According to D'Arcy, Lauder said, "If stolen works are identified in museum
collections, the priority should be to return them to the families that
owned them." Lauder then is heard on tape saying, "It first should go back
to its rightful heirs and whatever they want to do with it is their
decision."

Later in the piece, D'Arcy asserted, "None of the parties to the case would
be interviewed for this report, not MOMA's lawyer, not the U.S. attorneys,
not the Bondi family and not the Leopold Foundation. In motions filed in
federal court, Leopold's lawyers argue that Lea Bondi waited too long to
claim the portrait; that the Nazi who seized it was acting under laws of the
then-legal government and that Dr. Leopold [the foundation's founder] never
knew it was stolen. When MOMA has discussed the case over the past seven
years, the museum has said it's bound by its loan contract to return the
painting, and that position is backed by museums throughout the country.. "

The piece also quoted a variety of lawyers and art professionals at odds
with the positions of both MOMA and the Leopold and one who supports the
museum. One of the critics, Tom Freudenheim - former assistant secretary of
the Smithsonian and former deputy director of Berlin's Jewish Museum - said
he found MOMA's position "especially puzzling, not only for me because I'm
Jewish, but also because the Museum of Modern Art is directed and chaired by
Jews, that they wouldn't somehow have some sense of responsibility."

Here, it's worth noting Regarding Media's bias in this matter, since it is
the columnist's belief that any property stolen, coercively transferred or
expropriated by the Nazis - whether artistic masterpieces or kitchen
implements - should be returned to its rightful owners. Now and without
exception. The Austrian government's position in this matter is hardly
surprising, given that country's history of avoiding confrontation with its
complicity in Nazi criminality. As an old Central European joke goes,
"postwar Austria's great achievement has been convincing the world that
Hitler was a German and Beethoven was Viennese."

MOMA's position is murkier, more an attempt to find subtle footing in a
moral landscape that simply won't allow a delicate stance.

Nothing in D'Arcy's report, therefore, seems particularly surprising or
stunningly accusatory. Nonetheless, it resulted in the termination of his
relationship with NPR.

ACCORDING to D'Arcy, shortly after New Year's, he received a call from Bill
Wyman, the network's cultural editor, who said he had received a complaint
from MOMA about the report. In particular the museum alleged that the
reporter had never sought its comment. Ultimately, according to D'Arcy, he
was questioned in a telephone conference with Barbara Rehm and William K.
Marimow, both of whom are managing editors of NPR News. 

As D'Arcy recalls it, Rehm told him " 'there are real problems with your
piece.' I was asked why I didn't confront Lauder directly over the Schiele
case. 'You made Ronald Lauder look like a hypocrite,' I was told. Bill
Marimow said, 'You made these guys look like bad Jews,' while Rehm hissed
'shabby, shabby' in the background. Then they told me I had violated every
rule of journalism.. I don't think they accused me of bombing the World
Trade Center, but it may have been slipped in. They asked me for all sorts
of off-the-record material. Then, they said, we'll get back to

you."

A month after the initial report, "All Things Considered" aired a correction
to D'Arcy's report, which said that the piece failed to make clear that the
painting was not in MOMA's possession, did not report the museum had said it
never has taken a position on the work's ownership and that, "finally, NPR
failed to give the museum an opportunity to answer allegations in our story
about its motivations and actions."

D'Arcy told NPR and, subsequently, The Times, that he repeatedly sought
comment about the general issue and the Schiele case. A MOMA spokeswoman,
Margaret Doyle, told The Times that the reporter sought comment only in
connection with an article on the issue by the museum's lawyer and not on
any of the specifics of his report.

A short time later, Rehm again called D'Arcy - this time with a lawyer
listening in - and read him a termination notice, which said in part: "In
reporting on this subject basic editorial standards of journalism were
overlooked such as presenting the facts in a fair and balanced way. In
addition the museum was not given an opportunity to respond to the harsh
criticism raised in the piece."

D'Arcy's editor at "All Things Considered," Tom Cole, was suspended without
pay for one day. Rehm, D'Arcy said, told him that "Cole agreed with all the
criticisms and had showed the appropriate remorse."

Rehm did not return calls seeking her comment on D'Arcy's firing. Marimow
said, "We looked into this matter and we issued a correction and that's all
I have to say."

An NPR spokesman who asked not to identified said the reporter was fired not
for the substance of his report but for failing to observe two of the
network's reportorial guidelines: He allegedly interviewed Lauder on one
topic - the general issue of art seized by the Nazis - then used it in a
piece about another specific issue, the Schiele case. Moreover, according to
the spokesman, D'Arcy made no direct effort to secure MOMA's response to
"specific attacks on its integrity that he intended to broadcast in the
piece. NPR requires that the most strenuous efforts be made to do just that
and he didn't do it."

Since D'Arcy's dismissal, NPR supporters and art professionals who believe
the public broadcaster caved in to pressure from MOMA and reacted
disproportionately to its complaint, have bombarded the network with demands
for an explanation.

This week, Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, NPR's ombudsman, issued a report saying that
the network had responded appropriately to the complaint and that the
correction was valid. Somehow, he failed to mention that the reporter
involved had been fired and the editor suspended.

So much for "presenting the facts in a fair and balanced way." 