Major Newspaper Confronted on How it Reports on Charities

Today, an article ran in the Washington Post wherein a veteran’s charity, Paralyzed Veteran’s of America (PVA) disputes an earlier story ran on the front page of the Washington Post on December 13, 2007 (See December 13, 2007 Article) about veterans’ charities “shortchanging veterans.”  PVA believes that the earlier story created an impression that the charity was mishandling donations allegedly because too few of the donated dollars were reaching the organization’s charitable activities as declared by the American Institute of Philanthropy, a watchdog group.  While the charity was not directly named in the December article, an American Institute of Philanthropy report was detailed in the article.  The American Institute of Philanthropy report criticized by name several veterans charities as spending too much money on fundraising and executive salaries, and too little on programming.  PVA was interviewed for the December story but its name and comments were later edited out of the story.  Notwithstanding, the story included a chart created by the American Institute of Philanthropy, which graded veterans charities by name on a scale from A to F.  PVA was included in the chart and had received an “F.”  Little explanation was given in the chart or the story about how the American Institute of Philanthropy awarded the grades.  There was no mention of the criteria used.  The chart only mentioned that, “Letter grades were based largely on the charities’ fundraising costs and the percentages of money raised that was spent on charitable activities.”  PVA claims that the article left the impression that the charity was poorly run, and that an actual donor withdrew a $500,000 donation because of it.  In a letter written to the Washington Post in response to the December article, PVA countered that it met “all 20 criteria that the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance establishes for charities.” 

The key point of this article is the charity’s challenge to coverage of this story by the Washington Post.  Below is an excerpt highlighting the Washington Post’s response:

The PVA has two valid points on Post coverage.  While the story didn’t mention the organization, it was unfair to name it in the chart with only vague detail on how the grades were determined.  PVA officials complained that while Rucker talked to them about the report, their comments were not included in the story.  The comments were taken out in the editing process, which turned out to be a problem because the chart still mentioned the PVA.

What is needed is a much broader look at veterans’ charities and their fundraising and programs — as well as the rivalry between charity watchdogs.  Maryland editor Phyllis Jordan, who supervises Rucker, said, “This is not the last story we’ll write about the veterans charities.  We plan to continue covering this topic fully, as well as other important stories in philanthropy.”  Rucker, who was covering that sector, is on temporary duty at the Maryland General Assembly, but Jordan said he is continuing to monitor the beat.

That’s good, because nonprofit organizations deserve more coverage.  They play a huge role in this country and the region in helping (and sometimes not) people and influencing public policy.

For the complete story, please see the Washington Post Article.  The article includes key links to reports and organizations mentioned.

amt