Responsibility of the press: NPR and Mumia Abu-Jamal - National Public Radio

Recently, the National Public Radio program, "Weekly Edition" hosted by Neil Conin, aired an extended report on the case of Pennsylvania death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, by NPR reporter Scott Simon. The emphasis and general tone of the piece not only raises questions about objectivity at NPR, but also brings focus to the problem of how fairly the news media in the United States deal with controversial topics and people.

We Americans rely upon our country's journalists for the news that we need to understand what is happening in this perplexing world. The media in the United States provide us with enormous amounts of information. Sometimes it's a little more news then we might need, like the coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial. But usually we're glad to know as much as possible about important topics of the day.

Freedom of the press is enshrined in our national constitution. It is something that most of us would be anxious to defend, should it ever be seriously threatened. Responsibility of the press is a little more difficult to define, but most would probably agree that reporters, editors, and news directors should feel obligated to present controversial issues as fairly and completely as possible, without regard to pressure from media owners or powerful government officials. Unfortunately, Simon's report appeared to heavily favor the prosecution in this case. Could this be the result of some kind of pressure on decision makers at NPR?

A recently published book by Abu-Jamal's defense attorney, Leonard Weinglass, outlines the defense case for a new trial. Mr. Abu-Jamal was convicted in 1982 of first degree murder for the slaying of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal was then sentenced to death for the crime. Weinglass's book, Race for Justice, is organized around the petition for post-conviction relief filed in Pennsylvania on behalf of Abu-Jamal on June 5, 1995. Considering the date the petition was filed, and the fact that it was widely available on the Internet immediately after its presentation to the court, we must assume that Scott Simon and NPR had access to it well before the date of their report on Abu-Jamal's case.

The petition reveals a tidal wave of evidence pointing to deceit on the part of the prosecution, unfairness from presiding judge Albert Sabo, and a woefully inadequate defense mounted for Abu-Jamal during the investigation and trial in 1981-1982. Regrettably, very little of this new information found its way into Simon's report.

Simon brings up the matter of Abu-Jamal's purported confession on the night of the shooting. This alleged confession is believed by all concerned to have been a key element in the prosecution's case. Simon asks Officer Garry Bell why he waited two months to report that he and hospital security guard Priscilla Durham heard Abu-Jamal shout while lying on a gurney waiting for surgery, that he had shot officer Faulkner. Bell contends that his mind was so preoccupied in the days and weeks following the shooting that he didn't think to report Abu-Jamal's "confession." Simon leaves the matter there, failing to raise crucial points readily available from Abu-Jamal's petition.

According to the petition, Bell reported the alleged confession two months after the shooting, during an interview by the internal affairs unit of his department. The interview was made necessary by Abu-Jamal's complaint of mistreatment by the police on the night of his arrest. Could Bell have been covering his backside, or possibly seeking revenge for statements made by Abu-Jamal regarding Bell's own behavior to a critically wounded suspect?

The other person who claims to have heard Abu-Jamal confess, security guard Durham, is mentioned in Simon's report by former prosecutor Joseph McGill. McGill identifies Durham as a "black female security guard with no connections to the police." McGill claims, according to Simon's report, that Durham heard the same shouted confession by Abu-Jamal that Bell claims to have heard. McGill presents her as a disinterested witness who reported Abu-Jamal's confession within twenty-four hours.

Simon questioned none of McGill's assertions. He could have used information presented in the petition to put the former prosecutor on the hot seat a little, as a responsible journalist should. According to the court petition, Durham, made no formal report of the "confession" until her testimony at the trial, months later. She did claim to have hand-written a statement about the "confession" the day after she heard it, but was unable to produce the note in court. After first denying that she knew the slain policeman, Durham later admitted to having a number of conversations with Officer Faulkner, sometimes over coffee.

The story of Abu-Jamal's arrest, conviction, and sentencing is riddled with dozens of similar points of controversy, according to Race For Justice. When NPR chooses to broadcast the reports of journalists who take one side or the other in such controversies, it would seem only fair that a reporter who is sympathetic to the other side be allowed to challenge the first reporter's assertions. In its current struggle to maintain funding, NPR should take care not to sacrifice its hard-won reputation for objective journalism.

An example of not-so-objective reporting from Simon's report might illustrate what a public radio network should try to avoid. NPR hired Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1994 to record a series of commentaries to be broadcast under the title of "Live From Death Row," Simon mentions this in his report, claiming that the contract with Abu-Jamal was dropped after the NPR Board decided it would be best not to broadcast commentaries from the principal figure of an on-going news controversy. What Simon failed to report was that Robert Dole had spoken from the Senate floor, before the NPR decision to dump Abu-Jamal, decrying the granting of public funds to NPR for "the purpose of giving a convicted cop-killer a public forum."

Is it possible that NPR is making news decisions based in part on pressure from Congress?

COPYRIGHT 1996 Monthly Review Foundation, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group