The new CEO for National Public Radio (NPR) has become instant news over social media postings that she deleted before the recent announcement of her selection. Katherine Maher is the former CEO of Wikipedia and sought to remove controversial postings on subjects ranging from looters to Trump.
Shannon Thaler at the New York Post reassembled Maher’s deleted postings including a 2018 declaration that “Donald Trump is a racist” and a variety of race-based commentary. That included a statement that appeared to excuse looting:
She is also quoted for saying that “white silence is complicity.” She has described her own “hysteric white woman voice.” She further stated: “I was taught to do it. I’ve done it. It’s a disturbing recognition. While I don’t recall ever using it to deliberately expose another person to immediate physical harm on my own cognizance, it’s not impossible. That is whiteness.”
She further stated “I grew up feeling superior (hah, how white of me) because I was from New England and my part of the country didn’t have slaves, or so I’d been taught.”
The concern is that Maher will further the advocacy journalism at NPR in framing the news to advance social and political agendas. NPR employees have already objected to efforts to maintain a neutral tone in reporting and declared “civility is a weapon wielded by the powerful.” The most interesting question is how NPR will implement its controversial policy on allowing journalists to join in protests.
NPR declared that it would allow employees to participate in political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.”
The rule itself shows how impressionistic and unprofessional media has become in the woke era. NPR does not try to define what causes constitute advocacy for the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” How about climate change and environmental protection? Would it be prohibited to protest for a forest but okay if it is framed as “environmental justice”?
NPR seems to intentionally keep such questions vague while only citing such good causes as Black Lives Matter and gay rights:
“Is it OK to march in a demonstration and say, ‘Black lives matter’? What about a Pride parade? In theory, the answer today is, “Yes.” But in practice, NPR journalists will have to discuss specific decisions with their bosses, who in turn will have to ask a lot of questions.”
So the editors will have the power to choose between acceptable and unacceptable causes.
Maher will now play a role in determining what causes advance “human dignity” that justifies reporters crossing the line to join the protests. Given her own past advocacy, NPR may have found the perfect adjudicator for advocacy journalists.
I’m waiting for all our favorite fellow-commenters to come in and denounce the good professor’s post.
But let me refer them to two external considerations (because I am limited to two–there are lots more)
1. NPR altered the role of “public radio” journalism when it encouraged social activism among journalists in its newly-implemented ethics policy, “It’s OK for Journalists to Demonstrate.”
https://www.npr.org › sections › publiceditor › 2021 › 07 › 29 › 1021802098 › new-npr-ethics-policy-its-ok-for-journalists-to-demonstrate
2. NPR is rated by independent sources as Left or Lean Left.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-media-bias#what-this-rating-means
“AllSides Media Bias Ratings reflect the average judgment of all Americans, not just a panel of insiders.” This means that as the average American’s views shift left or right, their ratings also shift right or left, assuming a constant bias for any given outlet, which of course may not be the case. Just pointing out that these are relative ratings, not absolute ratings.
BTW, you can post more than 2 links in a comment by breaking the live link and posting a link as
allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods
instead of
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods
Sure. Here’s some for you, more to your liking:
“Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and accurate news reporting.” https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
How bizarre that you consider that more to my liking.
(I was pointing out a rating that refers to objective criteria, -not, as you say, “the average American’s views shift left or right, their ratings also shift right or left, …Just pointing out that these are relative ratings, not absolute ratings.” (your words).
sorry for any confusion.
All Sides doesn’t use “objective criteria” for its bias ratings. As I quoted from them, “AllSides Media Bias Ratings reflect the average judgment of all Americans, not just a panel of insiders.” Average judgment involves averaging subjective ratings. That it’s quantified as an average does not turn it into something objective.
They elaborate “Editorial Reviews are designed to be multipartisan [i.e., ‘a multipartisan panel of six to nine reviewers from the left, center, and right’]. Because bias is in the eye of the beholder, each reviewer has a subjective opinion on the source’s bias. Often there is broad agreement; other times, reviewers share evidence and deliberate.” “In a Blind Bias Survey, average Americans across the political spectrum read headlines and articles from a media outlet and provide an overall bias rating for the source, without knowing what source they are rating. … We then look at how every Bias Group (people who self-identify as Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right or Right using our Rate Your Bias Tool) rated the source’s reporting on average. We then calculate an average bias rating across all groups.” My point was that someone’s self-identification as Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right or Right is subjective, their ratings are subjective, what it means to be Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right or Right can change over time, and as that changes, the placement on a bias scale may also change, though of course it could also be that the relative bias of a news outlet has changed over time. For example, in a number of the comments here, people say that they used to like NPR but now find it biased. Is that because NPR became more biased, or is it because these commenters became more biased, or both? It is hard to disambiguate.
I don’t believe that there is such a thing as an “objective” bias scale, only subjective scales that attempt to be more balanced or make little attempt at balance. All Sides attempts to be balanced but still uses a subjective scale, because — as they themselves note — “bias is in the eye of the beholder, each reviewer has a subjective opinion.”
GoodLord, you lost on a different subject, and now you come out swinging and waxing prolix over this one?
Did you happen to notice that I was NOT referring to Allsides.? I gave you a third reference, mediabiasfactcheck.com, from which I quoted (@2:18).
Not worth it, ok?
I didn’t see this until I finished writing/posting my 5:57 comment, where I noted my mistake.
In case you hadn’t noticed, our values are different. What’s worth it to *you* is a matter of *your* personal values. What’s worth it to *me* is a matter of *my* personal values. Stop telling me that I have to share your values (or, tell me because you want to, but know that I don’t have to share your values).
LOL that you think I “lost on a different subject.” A different commenter was able to change my view on part of what I’d argued, but you were still wrong about your main argument there.
-that “different commenter” was me. I’m the one who “changed” your view.
GO back and look at the update. THe only thing I would change about my comment regarding Sam is that I should have used, “e.g.,” instead of inadvertently implying that the E.O. was what Sam was referring to. In any event, even if, arguendo, Sam was referencing the ex-post-facto ASA, it still comes back to my CORRECT conclusion that (since you now admit that ASA is a tolling provision-my original point), he was substantively, ergo, referring to extensions/tolling.
thanks again.
( “different commenter:” I had intentionally masked as “Anonymous”). it worked.
Sorry, I only just noticed that your second link was to a different organization — my mistake. But their methodology section also makes clear that they’re using subjective processes: “the concept of bias is inherently subjective and lacks a universally accepted scientific formula…. It’s crucial to note that our bias scale is calibrated to the political spectrum of the United States, which may not align with the political landscapes of other nations.” That last sentence makes my point using variations among countries rather than variation just in the US but over time.
They go on to claim “our methodology employs a series of objective indicators to approximate it,” but they don’t make explicit what these “objective indicators” are. Perhaps that’s what they mean by “political orientation, factual integrity, and the utilization of credible, verifiable sources,” but this calls on us to trust their assessment of the facts of a situation, trust their assessment of whether a source is credible, etc. For example, consider the diverse views on whether Shokin’s firing was part of an illegal quid pro quo in part to benefit Burisma, or was instead a widely supported (across nations and political parties) act that would, if anything, lead to more investigation of Burisma rather than less. What does “factual integrity” mean in this case, and which sources are credible? They also don’t say much about who their raters are.
Seems to me that, like All Sides, they attempt to be balanced. But as they say, “bias is inherently subjective.”
About 2-3 generations in America particularly, but also in the entire West that hate, misinformation and the lies have been taught and promoted by the progs/marxs/commies and the left, being taught, swallowed this ideology hook line and sinker. Hate and no empathy brings us the like of every dictator in religion, philosophy and now we have a combination of hate/no empathy so we get HAMAS, Hezbollah,Houtis etc. doing the Nazi thing all around the planet. And to make matters worse, the West in particular, will not, cannot, won’t stand up and tell the history of this planet in full truth to show who is the “bad” and who isn’t!!!!!
Open your eyes. Hate, misinformation and lies exist are promoted by some people of all political persuasions.
“The concern is that Maher will further the advocacy journalism at NPR in framing the news to advance social and political agendas.”
WOW. Now the public has put on its 3-D glasses to finally see the “color-blindness” of we chickens who came home to roost on this website two years ago, citing NPR and MSM, but were discredited and denounced by [you know whom], also on this website.
Public television reports left wing propaganda now, they make no effort to be fair at all. As a taxpayer I am not happy seeing my tax dollars pay for reporting that is pure left wing propaganda most of the time. But also, it’s amazing that America could be split politically – half of America are blue States, the other half red, yet public television only reports left wing propaganda for blue state audiences. I think it probably has come time to stop subsidizing public television, and public radio. You can get all the left wing propaganda you want want from CNN and MSNBC, aud nauseum. Like PBS, CNN and MSNBC make no to do fair political coverage – along with repeatedly lying to viewers about all matters large and small, while also ignoring stories that don’t mesh with the stations blatant support of Democrats (mess at border, the Biden family corruption, complete ineptitude of Joe Biden as a President). If the GOP takes over the House and the Senate and Joe Biden gets the pink slip he so richly deserves, I would like to see the federal dollars flowing to public television to stop, or at least get cut back to nothing. Public television is a mouthpiece for the democrats – it was no created for that purpose, but Congress has not monitored PBS very well, they should have been insisting that PBS – subsidized by US taxpayers – reflect the values of all Americans, not just a narrow subset of wealthy left wing types.
Another day, another column that’s light on legal analysis. This seems designed more to feed “the age of rage” that JT so often complains about.
Turley has been clear that Free speech is a critical topic on this site.
Once again, John, you don’t pay attention to details. I didn’t say that the topic is legally irrelevant. I said the column is light on legal analysis. Don’t you understand the difference?
I wonder what would happen if the elites held a war and the “white people” declined the invitation? Why would anyone want to defend a nation that’s constantly calling them “racist”, “supremacist” and doesn’t judge their children on merit but on color?
Margot: “Why would anyone want to defend a nation that’s constantly calling them “racist?”
+++
They don’t. Recruitment in all military services has plummeted and it is almost entirely whites whose families usually provided recruits that are turning away.
Part of it is because of anti-white racism that is causing young men to say “F*** em!” And part of it is the wussification of the military. Members of my family had been involved since King Phillip’s War and on both sides of the Civil War but not now. For similar reasons interest in university has declined for looking like a bankrupting fraud that cranks out useless diplomas while overtly hating whites and America. “F*** em” sounds better every day.
Margot, Young,
I come from a family with a long history of service.
Those families are usually the ones who continue to serve.
Not any more. No one wants to be part of the all new, all woke US military, nor serve under Biden.
Funny thing, there are some who are blaming those families for NOT sending their sons and daughters to enlist. Of course, they will not step up.
Upstate,
Somebody in the military was alert to the problem. A recent recruitment ad featured all white men. But I doubt anybody trusts it any more than beer drinkers trust macho Bud Light ads. The woke military leaders have badly damaged the brand.
Sad to say, similar attacks on police officers of all ethnic groups have discouraged good people from joining many urban police departments. Who is willing when your local government and court system may be a greater danger than bank robbers.
What was done to Officer Chauvin and the other police officers with him is a national disgrace. The Supreme Court had a chance to bring actual justice to those men but they seemed to hide behind the black robes hanging in their closets. They looked like cowards to me.
We need competent, proud military and capable, proud and respected police forces and the folks who can fill those ranks are discouraged and turning away.
“So the editors will have the power to choose between acceptable and unacceptable causes.”
This is not public broadcasting. This is propaganda. Pravda, the Russian newspaper, has always been what PBS is trying to be. Propaganda, but the people of Russia know that, while the Democrats in America don’t.
And the difference between her mental indoctrination by the prog/left and that apparent in all others in the media/education industry is what? We all know of the tainted nature of these industries and how they have destroyed the civilized and educated society that was once a part of our culture. If we do not disinfect our national cultural entities soon we will lose the battle to sustain western culture forever.
I saw Barbie, and I didn’t dislike it because it was ‘edgy’; I disliked it because it was a braindead and oversimplified distillate of something complex made for people no one wants to challenge to think outside of their echo chambers, it took zero real chances. It could gave been great and biting satire, it was more like a 14 year-old’s social/justice/grievance essay that is actually played out by a toy line. It was boring and trite. That it resonated with people over 30 was just a tad depressing, but that’s where we are, I reckon. Oh, and my wife and I saw it separately, she echoed my thoughts about it – wasted opportunity.
The great irony is that Barbie is actually the Hollywood-diluted, cookie-cutter film. It has more in common intrinsically with macho films of yore made by committee (which seldom won Oscars, BTW, but did great at the box office) than anything else in the running, and that’s a concept the critical thinking impaired can’t seem to grasp: it’s the intrinsic things, not the veneer. Woke doesn’t seem to understand that it is hypocritical parody or bast*rdization.
Again, guess this is where we are. Perhaps the tide is turning, though. A bit. I personally think people will be mostly embarrassed about woke in the future, pretend they didn’t adopt borderline fascist positions, and regard movies like Barbie the same way people regard Steven Seagal movies today. The pendulum swings.
I liked it. I agree with all your criticisms and at moments it was cringeworthy.
It was childish, over simplified.
But it was worth watching.
What is was NOT was a great movie.
It was not award worthy. Frankly I though Gosling was carboard and one of the least interesting parts of the movie.
Every movie does not have to be schindlers list.
Barbie was an improvement over the totally dull and uninteresting nonsense that often comes out of hollywood today.
Absolutely it could have been much better.
Absolutely it should not be getting any awards.
It is certainly not in league with Openheimer – Cillian Murphy is the next generation of great irish actors, and may be one of the greatest.,
in the tradition of Peter OToole, Sean Connery, Liam Neison, Peirce Brosnan,
@John
I don’t expect every movie to be a masterpiece either, but this one was touted as the most salient satire ever created and is up for a host of Oscars. 😉 Sort of like how Black Panther was the first film to ever have a black cast. 🙄😂 Hollywood marketing hyperbole is nothing new – the dearth of matter between people’s ears on such a scale is. 😂 I have never seen people (not you) go to such lengths to appear to be the ‘hip ones’ out of terror of embarrassment in my life. It’s actually kind of amusing.
Anyway, that’s the context. Barbie was no better or worse IMO than something like ‘Legally Blonde’. Which I liked a lot, BTW. And again, sorry folks for posting on the wrong thread.
Well, I posted this on the wrong article. 😂😂 Good job, me.
James,
I was tracking, no worries! 🙂
Yes, let’s defund everything that some taxpayers object to. Will anything be left?
Not much, I hope.
Nope, the role of government is not to provide perqs for select citizens.
The role of government is to establish the rule of law.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Adam Smith
Another Woke Nut Case at NPR – I use to like NPR many many years ago but stopped listening in 2010.
Another day, another column that’s light on legal analysis but instead feeds the “age of rage” that JT so often complains about.
Somehow the system marked this as spam. Retrieved.
Do you think her family, friends, and co-workers are just a little embarrassed by her. Instead of turning her frown upside down, as they advise children to do, she turned her snobbery upside down and now hates a different group. But hate is hate. The big question is why didn’t she immediately step down and give her job to a member of one of the oppressed minorities she loves to bang on about. Wanker.
Removed her controversial tweets and comments? Isn’t it remarkable how the strength of one’s convictions can be so situationally contingent? If you believe your stuff, stand behind it… but then, I repeat myself.
“Courage of your convictions” would include defending those convictions openly. Insults and censorship, like deleting one’s words, are the recourse of those who don’t really believe in their convictions, actually cannot support them, or fear testing them at all. We see all three in the woke contingent, the progressive mindset that knows with certainty what is right, what is true, and what is best for you, but can’t let you think to the contrary. Thus the ultimate question – what are they afraid of?
“Removed her controversial tweets and comments? Isn’t it remarkable how the strength of one’s convictions can be so situationally contingent? If you believe your stuff, stand behind it”
🙂
NHTPR. National Half of The Public Radio funded by all of the public.
If it’s the Washington Post or the Huffington Post pushing an agenda they are free to do so. However if it’s a so called news provider pushing an agenda with my tax money I can recognize that I’m paying for the propaganda that they put out. They’re doing it and I didn’t even get a kiss. I wonder if I take them to court will I win 83 million dollars. I’ll wait thirty years to state my case just before an election to tell everyone how they entered my wallet without my permission.
I’m aware there are many woke causes in the govt budget but that’s going to change in 2025.
Obama, and no doubt Biden, used money collected as fines to fund advocacy groups that the regime favors.
I’m not a regular listener to NPR, but sometimes turn them on over the weekend to listen to This American Life or a similar offering. There’s a 50/50 chance I might listen. This weekend, I understand, there is a commemoration of the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. I tuned in to This American Life a few minutes late. They were presenting a story about an Egyptian family who works for AlJazeera. They were living in Gaza and delayed getting out of there. Life there became quite a struggle. But, finally they left for Egypt to stay with the wife’s parents. I thought the selection of this particular story for this weekend was very inappropriate. It is a sign of what you can expect from this new boss.
There was another story directly about the link between the Holocaust and the Hamas Oct. 7 attack. Apparently you didn’t hear that one.
Holocaust Remembrance Day comes annually, but this year it hits differently because of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel. More Jews were killed that day than on any single day since the Holocaust. …
DEROSE: [Kean’s grandfather] survived and told stories about living in fear of death. One lesson Kean heard over and over from her grandparents was that it could happen again. And so Holocaust Remembrance Day and her life’s work are in part, for Kean, about proving them wrong, especially this year following the October 7 massacre of more than 1,200 by Hamas terrorists.
KEAN: This day is an important reminder that the whole world needs to come together now more than ever to stand up and speak out against all forms of hate.
RICHARD HIRSCHHAUT: It is not the Holocaust, but there are very clear connective threads that remind us of the Holocaust because of the experience of October 7 – a pogrom, really.
DEROSE: For Richard Hirschhaut with the American Jewish Committee, those threads include Jews hiding in safe rooms, being shot, mutilated.
HIRSCHHAUT: The sort of evil that was perpetrated upon the Jewish people and millions of other innocents during the Holocaust is not a distant memory. …
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227247649/holocaust-remembrance-day-rings-different-after-the-oct-7-hamas-attack
A significant portion of the private censorship of the internet is funded by government grants that started in the Obama administration.
defund NPR/PBS. Let them compete in the marketplace
NPR should not be funded by federal tax dollars. In my lifetime, it’s not been politically neutral.
I think they are partially funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
They are already sometimes so horrid I turn the radio off while driving. Interesting stories but from a total woke persepctive.
I have partaken of their literary and cultural offerings in the past, that is until they became marginalized as to the entire gamut of culture and chose to push the indoctrination campaign that their prog/left masters required of them. Now I won’t even turn on their station or listen to their propaganda (that is all that they do now).
The self-delusion at NPR is monumental, especially with regard to claims of being “unbiased” with respect to domestic political reporting and being “non-commercial”. I don’t think that they understand how harmful it is to local public radio stations when people, such as myself, cease their support of NPR because of the national “news” programs.