In a scathing account from within National Public Radio (NPR), Senior Editor Uri Berliner blasted the company for open political bias and activism. Berliner, who says that he is liberal politically, wrote about how NPR went from a left-leaning media outlet to a virtual Democratic operation echoing narratives from figures like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.). The objections have long been voiced, including on this blog, but this account is coming from a long-standing and respected editor from within the company.
Beliner details how NPR, like many media outlets, became openly activist after the election of Donald Trump to the point that the company now employs 87 registered Democrats in editorial positions but not a single Republican in its Washington, DC, headquarters.
In his essay for The Free Press, Berliner notes that after Trump’s election in 2016, the most notable change was shutting down any skepticism or even curiosity about the truth of Democratic talking points in scandals like Russiagate. Berliner said that NPR “hitched our wagon” to Schiff and his now debunked claims.
Berliner says that he was rebuffed in seeking a modicum of balance in the coverage about the coronavirus “lab leak theory,” the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the 2016 Russia hoax.
As discussed on this blog, NPR repeated false stories like the claims from the Lafayette Park riot. Berliner gives an account that is strikingly familiar for many of us who have raised the purging of conservative or libertarian voices from our faculties in higher education:
“So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference. I got a few messages from surprised, curious colleagues. But the messages were of the “oh wow, that’s weird” variety, as if the lopsided tally was a random anomaly rather than a critical failure of our diversity North Star.
In a follow-up email exchange, a top NPR news executive told me that she had been “skewered” for bringing up diversity of thought when she arrived at NPR. So, she said, “I want to be careful how we discuss this publicly.”
For years, I have been persistent. When I believe our coverage has gone off the rails, I have written regular emails to top news leaders, sometimes even having one-on-one sessions with them. On March 10, 2022, I wrote to a top news executive about the numerous times we described the controversial education bill in Florida as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill when it didn’t even use the word gay. I pushed to set the record straight, and wrote another time to ask why we keep using that word that many Hispanics hate—Latinx. On March 31, 2022, I was invited to a managers’ meeting to present my observations”
Former NPR analyst Juan Williams stated in an interview this week that, as a strong liberal voice (now at Fox), he found the same bias at NPR. Williams was fired by NPR as this shift seemed to go into high gear toward greater intolerance for opposing views.
Despite these criticisms, NPR has doubled down on its activism. For example, when it came time to select a new CEO, NPR could have tacked to the center to address the growing criticism. Instead, the new CEO became 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. Those deleted postings included a 2018 declaration that “Donald Trump is a racist” and a variety of race-based commentary. They also included a statement that appeared to excuse looting.
NPR has abandoned core policies on neutrality as its newsroom has become more activist and strident. For example, 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.
The bias seemed to snowball into a type of willful blindness in the coverage of the outlet, which is supported by federal funds.
After the New York Post first reported on Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020, NPR declared that it would not cover the story. It actually issued a statement that seemed to proudly refuse to pursue the story, which was found to be legitimate:
“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”
Berliner’s account is reminiscent of the recent disclosures from within the New York Times. Former editors have described that same open intolerance for opposing views and a refusal to balance coverage.
Former New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet has finally spoken publicly about his role in one of the most disgraceful chapters in American journalism: the Times’ cringing apology for running a 2020 column by Sen. Tom Cotton. Bennet said publisher AG Sulzberger “set me on fire and threw me in the garbage” to appease the mob.
Former New York Times editor Adam Rubenstein also wrote a lengthy essay at The Atlantic that pulled back the curtain on the newspaper and its alleged bias in its coverage. The essay follows similar pieces from former editors and writers that range from Bari Weiss to his former colleague James Bennet. The essay describes a similar work environment where even his passing reference to liking Chick-Fil-A sandwiches led to a condemnation of shocked colleagues.
None of this is likely to change the culture at NPR any more than such discussions have changed faculties in higher education. Raising the virtual elimination of conservative or Republican voices on faculties is met by the same forced expressions of disbelief. While mild concern is expressed, it is often over the “perception” of those of us who view universities as intolerant or orthodox.
Of course, there remains the question of why the public should give huge amounts of money to a media outlet that is so politically biased. News outlets have every right to pursue such political agendas, but none but NPR claim public support, including from half of the country that embraces the viewpoints that it routinely omits from its airways.
JT is rightly concerned about NPRs reporting. But if anybody is shocked by this, well, just how protected are you. But there is no mention of FOX. Didn’t JTs workplace get sued by a company about biased reporting? Perhaps biased at fox is an understatement. Wasn’t the settled amount something approaching $1 billion? So JT runs a story about NPR bias, but has no mention of the station he works for that, based on its recent settlement, and ongoing allegations of defamation, can hardly be called a news station at all.
Big difference. NPR is government funded. Fox is a private company.
Rupert Murdoch has turned over control of FOX to his two liberal sons. But. Still. Private. Not. Public
iowan2 said: “Rupert Murdoch has turned over control of FOX to his two liberal sons. But. Still. Private. Not. Public”
True. However, it’s pretty clear to me, that going back considerably before Rupert Murdoch’s retirement, Fox featured “right wing” points of view out of market pragmatism, not as any reflection of philosophical convictions, as many of its fans seem to want to believe. Market Watch and Barron’s are also News Corp outlets, by way of Dow Jones & co, and both are about as leftist as it is possible to be and survive, for media reporting on the financial markets. The WSJ, also part of DJ/News Corp isn’t exactly on the right, itself. But as John Say will undoubtedly chime in if I don’t add this – that is how the market does and should work. If there are two political viewpoints: “X” and “Y”, and virtually the entire media industry is presenting only viewpoint “X”, it is quite probable that a single major outlet that almost exclusively presents viewpoint “Y” will be highly successful. It just very much annoys me when Fox is characterized as some kind of heroic organization because of its perceived political orientation, particularly after it axed Tucker Carlson for not towing the Biden administration’s line in the sand wrt COVID. People need to think for themselves, not ascribe wisdom and near infallibility to some annointed authority to avoid the effort.
Just to be clear, the people commenting here think that the because NPR gets public money and FOX is private, NPR is the bad guy here with biased reporting but FOX calling itself a news organization is OK even though they have admitted they lied in their reporting? And FOX still has more law suites to contend with, and very likely admitting that they did not report news, they reported BS?
So you prefer lies to biased reporting?
NPR is leftist (not-ahhh, they’re center left…pri is left and somethin somethin is closer to comrades.., blah-blah) propaganda garbage that is not biting the jewish hand that fed it for decades, and Fox sucks, but is moot in this discussion.
Whataboutism doesn’t make your opinions or npr’s valuable, both are societal liabilities it would be better off without.
I dont watch Fox.
I did, past tense, listen to NPR.
Another big difference is that the notion that Fox News is biased has been reported on, is well-documented, and now contains legal precedent. Due to all of the reporting on Fox News biases, it’s generally accepted as a biased institution. If you state a fact heard from Fox News, your audience might look at you suspiciously. If you state that you heard the same fact on NPR, the New York Times, and any of the alphabet networks, your audience often lends that fact more credibility. Uri Berliner basically shreds the idea that NPR is a straight news network.
Rilaly
That used to be the perception.
Until the Russia hoax, the Covid 19 lies, proved all the MSM is nothing but the Propaganda organ of the DNC.
FOX today has far more credibility.
Iowan2,
Well said.
As Uri Berliner points out, not just NPR but MSM as a whole, all ignored or tried to bury the Russian Hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop, and when they were confronted with the truth, they fell silent or pretended their previous reporting did not exist.
Just as Uri Berliner points out.
I heard his interview on Bari Weiss’ podcast. He “loves NPR” and think NPR should continue to get tax dollars because it is needed in small towns. Why do small towns, or any towns, need to hear biased news? He says he has been fighting this since 2011. Since he has been losing that fight, what does he still love about it—the bias?
Liberals almost never resign in protest, they just keep collecting the checks and pretending that they want change.
J G Gordon said: “I heard his interview on Bari Weiss’ podcast. He “loves NPR” and think NPR should continue to get tax dollars because it is needed in small towns.”
Bias aside, I think that is still an abysmally stupid (or disingenuous) statement by Weiss. How many folks in small, rural towns today can *only* economically get news or entertainment via over-the-air radio? I own some off-grid property adjacent to a very small village of maybe 200 people, way out in the boondocks in a geographically large county that boasts a total of 5000 residents, but if I wanted, I could easily have internet and/or cable media at a reasonable cost. I’d wager there are very few small towns that lack comparable options.
The fact there are no registered Republicans on their editorial staff is completely understandable. I cannot imagine going into any office fully staffed with narcissists screeching like Gigi or Fishwings. Makes me cringe just thinking about it.
You’re right. It’s so much better to associate with people that openly hate anyone in the LGBTQ+ community.
Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss, Dave Rubin, Peter Thiel, Richard Grenell, Mary Cheney, George Santos and more, all of which are hated by the Left
Then there are the countless times leftists like Alec Baldwin call gays c0cksuckers when they get caught in their hypocrisy
I am a paid subscriber to The Free Press.
Nellie Bowles, Bari’s wife, writes TGIF column is one of my favorites.
Don’t confuse disagreeing with a grooming pedophile lifestyle with hate.
Jim22,
Well said.
But if you do not support all of LGB-whatever, you are a hater.
I also support Gays Against Groomers.
That’s the point, isn’t it Jim22. It’s they who hate anyone that doesn’t support their godless worldview.
I used to love Morning Edition and All Things Considered. While they were consistently to the left of me politically, they did offer a variety of voices and some semblance of balance in coverage. As Prof. Turley noted, that went out the window with Trump and both programs became unlistenable when the content was remotely political. I haven’t tuned to either of our local public stations in years and stopped donating as well. It’s a shame what happened to NPR.
Aside from the tiny amount of govenrment funding NPR receives – which I oppose regardless of political bias.
If NPR had zero Political tilt – they STILL should not be government funded.
Government has no business picking winners and losers int he market – that is OUR job.
Free markets are like elections – being held every day all the time.
Each of us gets to decide what is important enough to us to “vote” with our money.
Whether we buy Trump Bibles, or Disney Trans princesses. We decide what matters to us.
We factor in politics – and everything else that is important to us.
It does not matter whether we are choosing to buy a Starbucks chai spice con panda restricto americano
or pampers. We are signally with our purchases what matters to us and how much it matters.
We are communicating to producers how important pampers are to us.
We are communicating whether we like the politics of our beer.
NPR, Fox, NYT, … are all free to shape their coverage as they please – and we are all free to decide who we wish to listen to
I have heard the “tiny” amount of funding, defense. To me that only means they wont miss that tiny amount. But it ignores things like the Cancerous NGO Hydra. Non Governmental Agencies that carry out the work of govt, without the icky bother of transparency. NGO’s are supposed to be non profits funded by tax deductible donations. But a big part of the funding is awarded by govt grants. And while the federal line item for NPR is small, it does not capture all the money that goes to them through other entities that are funded by the govt, that are pass throughs to NPR.
@ John Say, from reading your post I assume you lean libertarian. Free market solutions don’t always work. How do you deal with monopolies in a free market? Does the government get involved or do customers who are not given a choice due to monopolies have some sort of power to overcome a monopoly?
Exceedingly powerful companies who become monopolies stifle any competition that would lower prices or offer better choices. How would a free market system “fix” the monopoly issue when those kinds of companies rig the free markets to their advantage? I see it as the financial equivalent of gerrymandering.
Most news organizations today are owned by large corporations and conglomerates seeking to the news “market”. It seems that to gain any sizable advantage profit wise bias plays a big role. We live in an extremely polarized political environment and bias is more profitable than neutral objectivity. Fox News exclusively caters to the ‘conservative market’ and it promotes itself as biased against other news organizations because the others are not “fair and balanced” or “liberal biased” organizations.
NPR is not becoming more biased because the conservative point of view is being ignored or “dropped”. NPR didn’t fail to engage conservatives. Conservatives disengaged from honest journalism because it got involved in sensationalism and conspiracy theories that are easier to accept and believe. People want their news to confirm their own biases and conservative media delivers it in a way that closes their minds to the competition. So anything outside the their bias must be false or untrustworthy.
George said: “How do you deal with monopolies in a free market? Does the government get involved or do customers who are not given a choice due to monopolies have some sort of power to overcome a monopoly? ”
If you could show me an example of a monopoly in a truly free market, we could discuss this as a real world issue, but I’m pretty certain you cannot. Most huge monopolies that I have observed have required some form of government regulation, in conjunction with corruption, or other, similar market intervention, to create and retain the monopoly. The intervention by government is most often characterized as required to “protect customers”, but in reality, the interests it protects are those of the corporatists, and the government functionaries those corporatists are bribing. I’m convinced that in a market free of government coercion, establishing and maintaining a monopoly would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of competition. I strongly suspect that, given a large enough profit potential, competition can only be forestalled by tremendously high barriers to entry of the kind that only government can erect. A corollary of that is the idea that if such a monopoly did exist, it would be because it was doing such a good job for its customers, at such an affordable cost, that competing with it at a profit was not feasible. Again, absent real world examples, this discussion needs be only theoretical.
I stopped listening to them after Donald Trump became the 45th President. I tuned in and (virtually every time) within ten seconds the subject changed to Donald Trump. It reminds me of a certain individual who posts here who is obsessed with the 45th President.
I also noticed the new CEO was the CEO at Wikipedia. Google and Wikipedia serve as the bulk of sources that are referenced for information. The fountain is polluted.
Caveat Emptor!
NPR=Pravda
Very little of NPR’s funding comes from government today.
But NONE of it EVER should have come from government.
As others have noted NPR is cratering.
Free markets work.
Unfortunately, NPR is NOT cratering. It’s facing many of the same challenges as other forms of terrestrial radio (e.g., streaming) and there are certainly stations who are facing financial headwinds (both Boston stations are seeing significant declines in underwriting. But NPR’s reach remains massive, and its ability to shape opinion far exceeds that of news orgs like Fox News, which reaches maybe 1% of the American audience every night. NPR’s audience is far bigger than that. The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism is an excellent source for understanding media markets (Pew is another untrustworthy organization, but this little corner of it does solid research). This link will take you to some serious data on NPR and its reach: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/public-broadcasting/?tabId=tab-8715c914-e732-4605-92f5-2f2714f71841
How does NPR do against say a Rush Limbaugh? Comparing radio to TV (Fox) is not an apt comparison.
Rush Limbaugh the paragon of truth? Wow, get a life.
hullbobby, knowledgeable estimates suggest that Rush would get between 15 and 20 million listeners per week. That’s a somewhat lower number than NPR, but still very impressive. Rush did so because of his popularity and the broadscale reach of his syndication network. In this way, NPR is comparable, because there really aren’t too many populated places in the nation that aren’t covered by an NPR signal. Sadly, though, there’s no more Rush.
far exceeds that of news orgs like Fox News, which reaches maybe 1% of the American audience every night. NPR’s audience is far bigger than that.
Then advertising is more than enough to support their programing
Tiny amount of funding from Govt
Larger audience then FOX.
Seems that tiny amount is a bribe to keep them down on plantation.
John Say said: “Very little of NPR’s funding comes from government today.”
I’ve not done the research, but perhaps you have. Does NPR receive dispensation from any regulations that a fully commercial provider of political content would be required to meet? Because, while disguised, that would also constitute a form of “government funding”.
“. . . while disguised . . .”
Which it is. (And I have done the research.)
NPR’s government accounting is an Enron-like shell game, to perpetuate the lie that it only receives some 1% of its funding from the government. The fact is that it receives a large percentage of its funding from the government, via local cutouts (licenses and fees) from countless regional public radio stations.
I appreciate the recent revelations from an insider finally fed up with the bias. But I must ask, why now? Why did you tolerate it and maneuver around it for so long? NPR has been a cesspool of bias and Progressive activism for decades. Defund it 100%.
There was a nice pair of graphs on X this morning that showed that desktop and mobile applications traffic for NPR are cratering. I wonder why. It has been 2-3 decades since I listened to a news program on NPR. I hate getting angry while I drive my car so I just listen to the Margaritaville channel on Sirius XM. It makes for much more listening pleasure.
One almost has to wonder as to whether there are “Dead Zones” around all the major cities where no critical thinking is allowed. There used to be a near dead zone in south Alabama between Montgomery and Mobile where you could hear no radio at all. I used to drive that route periodically between Atlanta and Houston. The dead zone around major cities now is even worse.
My first experience with open, unashamed media bias was in the lead-up to the 2016 election. I was listening to one of the NPR talk shows, I think
it might have been ‘Fresh Air’, and the host was interviewing 2 journalists about covering the election. At one point, they baldly stated it was their duty as journalists to cover the election in such a way as to ensure Hilary Clinton wins…. Whaaaat? Did journalists actually say it was their duty to be biased in their reporting?
That, for me, was the turning point. It’s been down the leftist slippery slope of integrity in journalism ever since.
No taxation without representation.
NPR biased? Shocked I say, shocked!
It has always amazed me how intelligent people can be hoodwinked so easily. I think it may be like something I heard years ago about what happens when someone is interviewed for a job. The professor told us that the person doing the interview generally will make her determination of the candidate’s suitability within the first three minutes and often for reasons having nothing to do with merit or competence. The rest of the time the interviewer’s questions and colloquy will go toward affirming that initial impression. I think it’s the same with the media and many democrats and liberals who decide that one candidate is suitable and any other who poses a threat to the hiring of the chosen one is anathematized. How else could anyone think President Biden is suitable for a second term? It cannot be based on merit or competency, both of which are obviously missing. Biden’s candidacy for president can only be “justified” by anathematizing his opponent.
“. . . President Biden is suitable for a second term?”
He can’t even make it up the *baby* stairs without stumbling. And can’t make it through a teleprompter 5′ announcement without mumbling.
It takes a massive amount of evasion to want such a frail creature as your president.
I read Berliner’s account and, while his insider’s account is appreciated, he is much too kind to NPR. The idea that NPR was fine until the election of Donald Trump is, frankly, laughable. They have always been far left bigots and it infuriates me that I have to pay, though my taxes, for this charade of “journalism.”
They drive dissent underground and then are astonished when it reappears, as though ignoring something makes it cease to exist. It is classic putting your hands over your ears, closing your eyes, and singing, “la, la, la.” They will soon be astonished by the results of the election, as they were in 2016. They will be baffled, frustrated, and angry. I wish them as much unhappiness as can be derived from it.
Thank goodness most folks don’t listen to this snobbish drivel that our masters decree we have to pay for but is anyone really surprised?
I listen to them. Their music is fine. Often quite eclectic, and very listenable. I also have Pandora, since it is cheap. It is just their news that sucks. And their stupid stories, of the brave and stunning Lesbian sheep herder, from Chile, who snuck into the United States because of Pinochet, and how she struggles heroically to tend her flock in a red neck town in West Texas, where everybody packs heat, and how she got bit by a rattlesnake, because she wasn’t packing heat at the time, and her partner and wife, Guadalupe, helped her get thru it all, even though everybody in town threw rotten fruit and vegetable at them. That kind of stuff.
One person here made the point that it has always sucked, and been Democrat/Left. That person was right. That is why I stopped sending them money. And Target, and Penney’s, and Gillette, and Campbell Soup, and the AARP, etc.
When I listen to NPR, which is the only station I listen to, I have to turn it off when the news comes on. It is that bad. Stomach turning bad. Once, before I clicked it off, I heard them repeating the “Trump said neo-Nazis are a good people” and this was 3 or 4 years after that had been debunked. I also quit giving them money several years ago, too. Might as well send the money straight to the DNC.
Floyd, same here. I like their jazz music and classical music, but once the news comes on I change the channel.
NPR does some good entertainment productions like, “Tiny Desk Concerts” but they need to get in or out of the news business or Congress should eliminate funding. Their so called News Department is nothing but a political activist organization paid for by taxpayers.
Most, if not all, of these exposes from within NPR, NYT,The Atlantic, etc. are written by liberals/Democrats who are appalled by what has happened with these media outlets and with the whole Democrat Party. It’s not far-right to voice such opinions. There is a growing groundswell against this media capture, intentional censorship, and propaganda.