Who hired the person on the bench?

A self-described longtime NPR consumer and fan reached out to ask why NPR journalists often mention which president appointed which judge when reporting on federal rulings. After all, judges are supposed to be independent of political leanings, even if they have a specific legal philosophy that might predispose them in one direction or the other.

It's one of those questions to which we, as journalists, know the answer. And then, as we start to explain our thinking, a lightbulb comes on and we realize, "Maybe we should be explaining our thinking all along, rather than making you guess."

When journalists have a solid justification for their choices, but fail to let the audience in on it, listeners and readers get skeptical. But the reporter can't think of everything. That's why there are editors, producers, hosts, show directors and executive producers.

In a second letter this week, a listener was upset that a story about several political candidates who have been accused of abuse by their ex-wives and girlfriends made it to air without a single female voice or viewpoint of an advocate for abuse survivors. It turns out, the journalist behind the story recognized that flaw. She told us about a couple of dead ends in her reporting process and her decision to go forward.

Our answers to both letters this week remind us that journalism is a team sport. Some people have bigger roles and more responsibility than others, but no one bears all the weight alone.

FROM THE INBOX

Here are a few quotes from the Public Editor's inbox that resonated with us. Letters are edited for length and clarity. You can share your questions and concerns with us through the NPR Contact page.

Why say which president gave the judge a job?

Michael Campbell wrote on April 19: When mentioning a ruling by a judge, it seems NPR consistently includes a comment on which U.S. President appointed that judge. For example, [in this story about a ruling against U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Judge] Totenberg is identified as being appointed by President Obama. ("Totenberg, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by President Barack Obama, wrote...")

It seems to me that adding this bit of information can be interpreted as attempting to politicize or attach partisan perspective to that judge and their rulings. ... What is the rationale for including this bit of information?

When a federal judge rules on a political issue, it is common for journalists everywhere, not just at NPR, to indicate which president appointed the judge. As we started asking around, we discovered that journalists have varied reasons for doing this. If they shared those reasons in their work, it would prevent suspicion.

You cited an AP story about a court case in which a federal judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, denied Greene's request to end a lawsuit by Georgia voters who seek to have her disqualified from running for office because of her role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Here are a few other examples:

In this story about narrowing voting protections, NPR National Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson mentioned that Arkansas Judge Lee Rudofsky ruled against a new state voting map, and he was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

This AP story about a judge overturning portions of a new voting law in Florida because it suppresses Black voters, pointed out the U.S. District Judge who made the ruling was appointed by Obama.

It's not always a passing reference. Sometimes the president behind the appointment is central to the story: NPR Correspondent Joel Rose said in this recent episode of The NPR Politics Podcast , near the 5:30 mark, that Texas has had a lot of success challenging the Biden administration's immigration policies by bringing court cases mostly before judges "appointed by former President Trump." And then, because it's a podcast and there's more room for explanation, Washington Desk reporter Miles Parks further decoded it by saying, "Basically, in practice, that the courts have been a bigger impediment to the policies of the Biden administration at this point related to immigration than they were to the Trump administration."

I reached out to several of the journalists involved in these decisions. Chief Washington Editor Krishnadev Calamur said via email, "Judges are meant to be apolitical. Mentioning who appointed them provides important context about their judicial philosophy and also tells us how long they have served."

Indeed, both Trump and President Joe Biden made campaign promises about the types of judges they would appoint to the federal bench. Carrie Johnson told me in an email that judges are a president's most enduring legacy. It's becoming more relevant to identify whose legacy is influencing national policies.

"Mentioning the president who appointed a judge gives listeners and readers increasingly important context," she said, particularly "in an era where interest groups on the right and the left draft lists for incoming presidents about judicial candidates they would like to see on the bench."

And yet, it's not always a given to name-check the president behind a federal judge, Joel Rose told me.

"Personally, I don't always mention which president appointed the judge. Especially in a spot or a shorter piece, there's usually not enough time. But in cases where that information is particularly relevant to the story, I do try to include it," he said. "The podcast you mention is one example. ... It's based on a story I reported that the Texas Attorney General's office appears to be seeking out judges appointed by President Trump."

It's most helpful when journalists tell us why it's important to mention which president appointed a particular judge. Sometimes it tells us that certain plaintiffs sought out a favorable judge. Sometimes it's to demonstrate how politics and judicial philosophies have changed over time, like this historical story about how abortion became legal in the U.S. that included who appointed some of the deciding Supreme Court justices.

The passing reference that mentions which president appointed a judge without clearly stating why that's relevant is most likely to lead to a misunderstanding.

This question is a subtle reminder that when a journalist makes it clear why they included a certain detail, they can head off a dubious audience member who might assign a more biased motive. — Kelly McBride

Where were women's voices?

Andrew White wrote on April 20: I know Danielle Kurtzleben is an outstanding reporter, but I'm writing here because I was distressed listening to her piece this morning on Morning Edition describing the tough choices Republicans face because of the numerous candidates who face credible accusations of physical and domestic abuse. Not a single woman was interviewed; and not a single advocate for domestic abuse survivors, male or female, was interviewed. Instead, a piece about the toxic masculinity that characterizes so much of the Trump-dominated GOP was populated largely by its enablers (Mitch McConnell, numerous other GOP spokespeople, pollsters, etc.).

Given the emotional gravity and rampant epidemic of domestic abuse, this piece should have, AT A MINIMUM, included the POV of someone watching these candidates who had a perspective other than the mere horse-race politics of it. ...

NPR Political Correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben set out to explore how the Republican Party and voters were responding to the fact that several congressional candidates seeking election this fall have been accused of abusing their former wives and girlfriends. The story mentions four candidates by name, Georgia Senate candidate (and former football star) Herschel Walker, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Sean Parnell (who dropped out of the race), Missouri Senate candidate Eric Greitens and Ohio U.S. House candidate Max Miller.

"The goal was to inform listeners/readers of this pattern of abuse accusations among a handful of high-level Republican candidates, and to also explore what the party's/voters' responses to those accusations tell us about what the GOP will and won't tolerate among its candidates," she said in an email. "The goal was also to explore all of that in light of the fact that President Trump won the presidency despite being credibly accused of many instances of sexual misconduct."

Kurtzleben wanted to include a voice advocating for survivors of abuse. She said she reached out to an organization that advocates for survivors of intimate partner violence, but was told its representatives were not comfortable commenting on specific cases, and did not answer further questions.

She noticed Georgia Republicans began expressing more reservations about Walker, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's responses to the allegations against Walker and Greitens also became news.

"I concluded that there was enough to dig into politically to make the piece informative, even without an advocate," Kurtzleben said.

She also said she reached out to multiple women Republican strategists repeatedly to try to get their perspectives, but she never heard back from them. "I do agree with the listener that the piece would have benefited from women's perspectives," she said.

And we agree. Given that three of these candidates are still running, it certainly won't be the last time NPR asks the leaders of the Republican Party about their stance on these abuse allegations. — Amaris Castillo

ONE QUESTION

We ask NPR one question about how the work comes together.

How does NPR's National Desk work with member stations?

Tornadoes ripping through the South and Northwest in the middle of December. Millions of people in Texas without power after an arctic freeze. Mississippi hospitals struggling to cope with the most recent COVID-19 surge because of staffing issues. Californians implementing a new way to house homeless people.

Local news becomes worthy of the national spotlight if it has a large impact or tells a story that will resonate with those outside of the immediate region in which it's occurring. NPR's Collaborative Journalism Network is one of the intentional ways NPR's leaders and its member stations interact, as we wrote in a previous newsletter . On the National Desk, the collaborative teams include Energy and Environment, the American Homefront (which covers national security issues) and State Governance. The Criminal Justice team also includes contributions from station reporters. And the Race and Identity team is starting to partner with stations around the country.

But local breaking stories also pop up in NPR's national coverage.

We wanted to know more about the ins and outs of the National Desk working with member stations. NPR's Chief National Editor Vickie Walton-James filled us in via email.

"Member stations are an important resource for surfacing stories others aren't covering and for covering news as it's breaking in their areas. They're also key collaborators as we try to explain trends and movements across the country," Walton-James wrote.

There are a few ways the National Desk works with member stations:

There are five bureau chiefs who edit work from member stations in their assigned region. "The idea is to surface interesting and important stories unfolding across the nation and to bring them to national air. Those stories range from breaking news to deeply reported enterprise. They're local stories with national interest," Walton-James wrote.

The three topics teams led by the National Desk are among those we talked about in the previous newsletter piece on the Collaborative Journalism Network.

In addition to collaborating with individual stations, National Desk editors work with regional hubs, like the Texas Newsroom and the Gulf States Newsroom, which deliver news for their regions and provide national stories as well.

"We're looking for stories that resonate nationally," Walton-James wrote. "And, in the best instances, we're getting stories that are unique to the network — stories that others aren't telling. Sometimes we're asking stations if they can cover a particular story and sometimes they're offering coverage they think we'd be interested in."

The bureau chiefs and collaborative editors then edit the stories for NPR shows and websites.

Northeast Bureau Chief Andrea de Leon asks stations to alert the NPR leaders early when they're working on ambitious stories or anticipating big news.

"We're not 'picking something up'," de Leon said. "Rather, we are building it for a different audience." — Emily Barske

The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Editor Kayla Randall and reporters Amaris Castillo and Emily Barske make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on Facebook, Twitter and from our inbox. As always, keep them coming.

Kelly McBrideNPR Public EditorChair, Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute [Copyright 2022 NPR]