New York Times allegations and our response
A message from Strobe Talbott, President of Brookings
The New York Times recently published two articles which called into question the independence of Brookings research. Brookings had previously issued a blanket response to the article, and below is the introduction to an expanded point-by-point rebuttal, the complete version of which can be found on Brookings.edu.
The Brookings Institution is a public policy research organization committed to seeking solutions to problems facing society. Our core mission is to serve the public good. In order to fulfill that task and generate solutions that have impact, we often work with diverse segments of society that have a stake in its welfare — government, academe, philanthropies, civic leaders, and the private sector.
Given our overarching goal of improving the governance of communities at all levels, we are all the more conscious of our obligation to improve our own governance, including the terms of our relationships with donors. To that end, we welcome engagement with the media and other consumers of our products, including when they have constructive criticisms and suggestions. In responding to feedback, we strive to meet the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
It is in this spirit that on behalf of Brookings, I am responding to the New York Times (NYT) articles from earlier this week (“Researchers or Corporate Allies?” on August 7, 2016 and “Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant?” on August 8, 2016) that questioned the integrity of our work funded by corporations. While the reporters raised some valid questions, the overall picture they draw is tendentious. In the detailed response to the articles below, we deal with both aspects of the Times coverage.
Public policy research and journalism have in common some core principles, including a commitment to objectivity, a respect for facts, and an open mind. The two articles do not reflect those principles. The reporters spent more than seven months on the story, poring over a massive volume of internal documentation (most that they obtained on their own, some that Brookings provided), and our senior management spent many hours cooperating with their inquiry.
The reporters are, of course, entitled to their opinions. But they had clearly made up their minds about conflicts of interest between think tanks and the corporate world before they sought our views and responses. In the interviews and in the resulting articles, it was apparent that the reporters were determined to bend their story to support a misguided accusation that Brookings, along with similar organizations, is promoting corporate, commercial interests rather than furthering the public good. They disregarded or slanted evidence that did not conform to this preconceived conclusion. That is the opposite of objectivity.
The reporters could have shed constructive light on an important challenge of the day: donor relations in all non-profit sectors — from think tanks and universities to arts, social service, and humanitarian organizations — have become increasingly complicated in an era of largely restricted grant-making. As we noted in an article published in February by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “today’s philanthropic environment calls for a new, forceful agreement between donors and non-profits that clarifies and fortifies the boundary of the no-go zone.”
The headline of the first Times article asserts that think tanks are “blurring the line” between business and research, thereby contaminating the latter. In our discussions and correspondence with the Times, we demonstrated to the reporters a clear line does exist — namely, the distinction between a corporate donor’s business interests in a community (i.e., its for-profit activities) and its societal interests (i.e., its commitment to use its influence and its investments to advance the social, civic, economic, environmental, and cultural interests of the community as a whole). The former is entirely a corporate undertaking, in which Brookings has neither interest nor expertise, while the latter is exactly where we contribute — individually and, more importantly, as a catalyst that brings diverse sectors together into networks of stakeholders who share a commitment to improving their communities.
All stakeholders have interests — or what the reporters referred to as “agendas.” Our interest is to gather the facts, listen to knowledgeable parties, analyze the situation, and try to come up with solutions that benefit the community as a whole.
The Times, both in its interviews with us and in its articles, not only rejected this distinction — it dismissed our view of its importance. Again, the reporters are free to take issue with our understanding of our own work. But it is hard to see how their long and detailed articles can avoid addressing a fundamental precept of the institution they are reporting on.
Another commonality between journalism and public policy research is independence. It is at the core of both professions’ reputation for quality and integrity, which, of course, go hand in hand. Our donors and the public, including the reporters and columnists who turn to us for help in their work, expect us to meet our own standard.
With that obligation always in mind, we have instituted strong policies that are regularly reviewed and updated as we strive to ensure transparency, accountability, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. Given the complicated world in which we live and the breadth of policy challenges to address, we do not claim a perfect record. As we acknowledged to the lead reporter, there have been instances when we should have done better. Indeed, in the cases the Times identified, we had already taken corrective measures — including updating our policies and procedures — by the time he came to see us. The articles presented these anomalous missteps as examples of standard practice.
All of us at the Brookings Institution, along with many of our colleagues in similar organizations, not only expect public scrutiny, we regard it as an important check on what we do, how we do it, and how our work is perceived. Think tanks, along with the news industry, are going through a period of disruptive change in the political, economic, and social environment — as well as, in our case, the philanthropic one. As we adjust to these new realities and complexities, we do our best to be at our best. And when we fall short, we try hard to fix the problem and apply the lessons moving forward. In light of the values we share, we hope that the Times and its readers will take seriously our side of what we regard as their flawed story.
