This weekend, I wrote a column on the continuing controversy at NPR and the bias detailed in a recent bombshell essay by respected editor Uri Berliner. The company has long been criticized for its partisan coverage, including running debunked stories. Now NPR CEO Katherine Maher has responded and appeared to confirm that the publicly supported media company has no intention to bring greater balance to its coverage or editorial staff.
Berliner detailed the complete exclusion of any Republicans among the editors of NPR’s Washington office and various examples of raw bias in favor of Democratic narratives and claims.
Maher responded to none of these specific points in substance. Instead, she attacks Berliner as “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning” to his colleagues by calling out the company for its political bias.
In a memo Friday, Maher told the staff that Berliner attacked not only “the quality of our editorial process and the integrity of our journalists” but “our people on the basis of who we are.”
In dismissing the criticism of bias, Maher adopted a spin common on law faculties where Republicans and conservatives have been largely purged. When confronted on the lack of ideological diversity, faculty often express disbelief that anyone would assume that they are biased simply because they continue to effectively bar republicans, libertarians, or conservatives.
Many also insist that there are more important forms of diversity than ideological or political perspectives. The result is the faculties today largely stretch from the left to the far left in terms of diversity.
Maher offered a similar spin while suggesting (falsely) that Berliner was somehow opposed to a diverse workplace:
“It is deeply simplistic to assert that the diversity of America can be reduced to any particular set of beliefs, and faulty reasoning to infer that identity is determinative of one’s thoughts or political leanings. Each of our colleagues are here because they are excellent, accomplished professionals with an intense commitment to our work: we are stronger because of the work we do together, and we owe each other our utmost respect. We fulfill our mission best when we look and sound like the country we serve.”
Maher’s response was hardly surprising. She was a controversial hire at NPR. Many had hoped that NPR would seek a CEO who could steer the company away from its partisan and activistic trend. The prospect could have brought moderates and conservatives back into NPR’s listening audience. Maher, however, was part of that trend.
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.”
In her latest message, Maher refers to the unique (and controversial) status of being a state-supported media outlet. She noted “We recognize that this work is a public trust, one established by Congress more than 50 years ago with the creation of the public broadcasting system. In order to hold that trust, we owe it our continued, rigorous accountability.”
Yet, she made it clear that both she and NPR will not change or alter the course of the company. Despite a falling audience (that is now composed of almost 70 percent self-identified liberals), Maher made clear that she sees no problem in its exclusion of Republicans as editors or its slanted coverage. Reducing the size and diversity of your audience can be a good thing for editors or reporters if you have the government supporting your budget. You can then play to your smaller audience without any push back on coverage or accuracy.
As discussed in this weekend’s column, the question is why the public should finance this one media outlet over any of its competitors. NPR’s take on the news is largely the same as MSNBC or CNN. That is within its editorial judgment and NPR has every right to slant coverage like many news outlets today from the left or the right. Personally, I wish it would have retained a modicum of balance because I have been a fan of some of its shows. Yet, the media market has changed with consumer demands in favor of more opinion in coverage.
However, unlike those other outlets, NPR is being funded by tax dollars. While dismissing concerns over the exclusion of conservative or dissenting viewpoints, Maher suggests that NPR is still fulfilling its “public trust” with its largely one-sided reporting.
In the end, the real question is not the bias of NPR but the fundamental question of why we should be subsidizing any media outlet. NPR has long held a curious position as America’s de facto state media outlet (with Voice of America). The recent controversy should allow us to have a meaningful debate over the need and danger of a state-funded media.
This column appeared on Fox.com
national palestinian radio
“. . . she attacks Berliner as ‘profoundly disrespectful’ . . .”
Since when has stating the truth been “disrespectful?”
Unless, of course, you’re a naked Emperor or one of his lackeys.
“we are stronger because of the work we do together, and we owe each other our utmost respect.” –
Did she borrow this line from Antifa, ISIS, La Costa Nostra, or some other destructive organization dependent upon omertà? The irony here is too rich for words: the Code Word Police utilizing its own code words. Clearly what is “owed” is strict silence and unwavering allegiance, neither of which has any place in an organization dedicated to honest, professional journalism.
Katherine Maher is a committed hard core Wokster in every sense of the word. Unlike the mainstream media, Americans are actually paying for this 24/7 Democratic propaganda and illustrates why their federal funding must end. Let the DNC pay their expenses…..
If NPR is public-funded and state-supported, are there legal issues regarding whom it hires and fires if based on politics? Obtuse but important query: absent the reporter’s own acknowledgment or otherwise publicly known status, how does NPR know his or her party registration? Is this asked at interviews, or acquired during background checks? How far down the hierarchy ladder does it go? Does it raise First Amendment issues of a public agency’s employment decisions based on political affiliation? (Note to nonlawyers: political affiliation under the Amendment is not identical to party registration.) What of the Democrat who writes a story adverse to a Democrat figure or position based on the facts – horror of horrors: FACTS! – in a given situation?
Legal stuff to ponder, along with content- and viewpoint-discrimination.
I rarely listened to NPR for these reasons, stopped completely long ago, and discovered alt-media.
Relatedly, what is the status of PBS’ Frontline? I don’t watch it, but the show descriptions tend to show a tow-the-party-line bent.
“Each of our colleagues are …”
So she also failed remedial English. I guess hoping for even moderate intelligence at NPR is wishful thinking. (Hint: “each” is singular)
NPRS. National Pravda Reporting Service. Just like their Russian counterpart their reporting is totally controlled and funded by the central government. This lady is so used to marching as she has been commanded that she hasn’t noticed that her half silk stockings have fallen to the tops of her government issued half high heel work boots stamped with the Hammer and Sickle stamp of approval. Not to worry. In case her boots get wet she has a second pair gifted to her by the Great Leader of The Peoples Republic of China who most certainly thinks that he like her has only risen to the top due to his white privilege. She stands with her fellow Comrades applying a sledge hammer to those who would have an opposing opinion. Hers’ is a prototypical position of the American left. Not far but far and mainstream left.
When one’s life is built on lies, the truth hurts.
“Defund NPR”.
Back when Republicans with a spine wanted to stop government funding of NPR, Democrat spinners said that conservatives wanted to kill Big Bird!
Big Bird has found a new nest, and back at NPR, the rot continues to spread.
When our creditors tell us to stop wasting money that our grandchildren don’t have, it will be history.
It is laughable how Maher deflects by trying to flip the script on Berliner. She is a one trick pony leading National Pravda Radio to it’s promised land of govt funded propaganda. If I have to listen to Pravda radio It is purely to know what our enemies are up to. They do not even sugar coat it anymore , let alone try and hide their jingling johnny virtue signaling tripe.
“Each of our colleagues are here because they are excellent, accomplished professionals with an intense commitment to our work: we are stronger because of the work we do together, and we owe each other our utmost respect. We fulfill our mission best when we look and sound like the country we serve.”
That was hysterical. And not in the comedy sense.
NPR does not sound anything even remotely close to America.
Used to be, you could listen to NPR, dismiss their bias and still get the news or interesting articles.
Now? It is so far left it is nauseating. That is why I quit listening, and I used to listen everyday from morning till dinner.
The day Uri Berliner’s essay posted in The Free Press, Bari Weiss interviewed him on it. It was a very good interview.
Someone stated in The Free Press comments section that they came to The Free Press as a NPR refugee.
I agreed.
Mornin,’ Upstate Farmer. Good post, and I particularly like your mention of the statement, “We fulfill our mission best when we look and sound like the country we serve.”
Now we need some brave soul to do the same with NBC and ABC, who feed America every day with partisan, biased, selective news– (vis-a-vis MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc., -which are transparent/open about their bias, so I do not mind them..)
Lin,
Good morning! I hope the day finds you well.
While I like the idea, I do not think that is going to happen anytime soon.
And that is why I am a NPR refugee over on The Free Press.
I think we are going to see more and more people abandoning MSM for independent media like The Free Press, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Sharyl Attkisson. They are actual, real, journalists.
UpstateFarmer said: “NPR does not sound anything even remotely close to America.”
I missed where Maher identified the country she and NPR strive to resemble. You assume it to be America. I suspect that it is an imaginary place, where willing, complacent, and happy slaves are governed for their own good, according to collectivist principles, by an enlightened elite, who steal no more from those slaves than is necessary to maintain the luxurious lifestyle to which their arduous duties entitle them.
(OT)
Iran directly attacked Israel with some 300 missiles and armed drones.
The Biden administration responded that there will be serious *diplomatic* consequences.
In other news:
Man torches neighborhood. Officials respond that he will receive a serious tongue lashing.
Even the heavily Dem-leaning site The Hill has a differing-opinion piece once in awhile.
“…profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”
To invoke an ages-old maxim, “Truth hurts,” doesn’t it?
(Or as Bob Dylan said, “like a rollin’ stone, out on your own…
You’re invisible now, you got no secrets
To conceal, how does it FEEL?”)
The left in its present state spends a great deal of time building straw men and alluding to points of view in the conservative community that don’t exist. They then tear them apart and then proudly proclaim that they have saved civilization. This person from NPR obviously never left her superior atititude behind and never achieved any sort or education, or better yet actual knowledge, of the world that she lives in.
When I left Georgia in 1974 to start my internship, I went to Baylor in Houston and met an entirely different world. You would think both cities would have been the same since both were in the south but they were worlds apart. Atlanta was a black and white city with a gradually increasing number of people from other areas of the United States. Houston, on the other hand, was also southern, but was another whole world. I thought I was somewhat uniques since I had lived previously in California, Japan and Germany and had a world view.
My view was totally false both of the city and the people and my own uniqueness. Houston was black, white, hispanic, with large numbers of people at the Texas Medical Center from central and South America , all areas of Europe, the Middle East, Asia and then we got to meet other traveling roadshows of politicians and physicians from The USSR and the PRC. And also Houston lived on Oil, something with which I had little experience since Atlanta was banking, transportation, mercantile and the center of the civil rights movement.
It gave you a tremendous exposure to life and thought from everywhere. I only wish that most people had that exposure in their lives.
You learned about points of view and the amazing variety that was out there.
Strangely I met many people from medical schools from New York and places north of there and even then I wondered about how parochial those people were and how unknowing they were of the country they lived in and the world. Seems like little has changed.
My experiences and exposure changed me but it still takes my breath away when I experience people who see the same things I saw yet miss almost all of what it means. Sounds a lot like NPR, which I ceased listening to decades ago.
Cancel their funding.
Wonderful story, and well said. People-to-people can have amazing results.
“I was taught to do it. I’ve done it.”
Can also be applied to partisanship.
-Cat
The cure: auction or spin off NPR. Use the proceeds, if any, to pay down federal debt. In this manner NPR could continue in any manner its new owners desire without imposing further costs on taxpayers for continued support.
Someone asked yesterday what the ‘Jewish Left’ is. It is NPR listening women whose husbands work at Bain and McKinsey and Blackrock.
I was the one who questioned the Jewish Left yesterday and some Anonymous person sarcastically asked what the “Jewish Left” is. The Jewish Left is people like Schumer who has bragged about being Israel’s defender for decades and yet turns against them when the party of the left demands it.
The Jewish left is people that are Jewish but hate Bibi as they hate Trump because it allows them to “fit in” with the majority class of white non-Jews that they have been trying to belong to for their entire lives. The hatred of Bibi, actually a member of the WAR CABINET and not a dictator, gives liberal Jews an excuse to sell out Israel. Does anyone thing a) that if Bibi were gone that Israel would have reacted any differently to October 7th and b) if Bibi were gone that the left would be defending Israel in their war for survival. A) if Bibi were gone Israel would be acting exactly the same as they are now and B) the left would still be marching in support of Hamas and trying desperately to keep Michigan in their column by appeasing anti-American Muslims. The same Muslims that were shown on video just last week chanting DEATH TO AMERICA in support of Iran.
The Jewish left are the preening liberals who have done very well in the US, in the West, in capitalist societies all as they tried endlessly to belong and to not stand out as Jews.
I say all of the above as a NON-LEFTIST Jewish person. The Bernie Sanders Jew hating Jews make me sick. The sell out Jews like Schumer make me sick. The Democrats hate Jews and yet Jews vote for them over and over again. Tlaib, Bush, Omar, AOC, Bowman, imagine the questions any Republican would get if these types of hating bigots were in their party.
In the meantime the world teeters on the brink of destruction even as we focus on every other issue of less importance. If we could reach out to us after all is gone, would we commend ourselves for spending our time wisely in the midst of thousands of thermonuclear weapons precisely aimed and a hair tigger away from extinction?
tic tok
william f wade said: “In the meantime the world teeters on the brink of destruction even as we focus on every other issue of less importance. ”
In that same OT vein: I just saw a headline indicating that, two days after his meeting with Mike “Jellyfish” Johnson, Trump is now parroting Johnson by advocating *loaning* rather than *giving* money to Ukraine. Never mind that there is no real difference between the two concepts: Ukraine will lose to Russia; therefore Ukraine will never be in a position to pay back any loan. This is a very disappointing statement from Trump. In his previous term, he listened to the wrong advisors, most of them Deep State warmongers. True conservatives gave him considerable slack for being inexperienced on that stage. This recent statement suggests that he has learned absolutely nothing from that experience, and continues to listen to representatives of Deep State interests over true advocates for the people of this country, who will pay for Deep State adventurism with their hard earned dollars, and, possibly, their very lives.
All retired and active duty flag officers I’ve heard speak disagree with your Ukraine military assessment. The problem has been the slow leaking of advanced weapon donations from NATO countries. When the incoming to outgoing artillery round ratio is 10 to one, advancing is not in the cards. A short term unrestricted flow of weapons to Ukraine would rapidly expose the Russian military leadership Achilles heel and put and end to Putin’s European domination attempt (saving us trillions while revitalizing the American arms industry/jobs).
I am sorry, but if that is the assessment of US Flag officers – they are deluded.
First – it should be absolutely obvious to everyone on the planet at the moment that Russian domination of Europe is an unattainable pipe dream. Russia is a has been military power. We are seeing one of the most bizzarre millitary conflicts ever in Ukraine.
Russia – purportedly one of the most advanced militaries in the world beyond the US has been degraded to using WWII weapons to fight a WWI style war of trench warfare and human wave attacks.
It is pretty self evident tat this time that absent a MASSIVE increase in western assistance – and particularly Western Boots on the ground. Ukraine CAN NOT mount a successful offensive against Russia.
Russian forces are poorly equipped, poorly lead, poorly trained. But they are capable of taking massive casualties on both offence and defense.
Nothing short of western boots on the ground will allow Ukraine to remove Russia from occupied territory.
Conversely it is probable that Russia can not continue to absorb the casualities it is enduring when it is inching forward on offense.
The west is absolutely capable of ending the imbalance in artillery as an example.
I believe Current US production is about 20,000 155mm shell/month.
US arms manufacturers are maximizing what they can produce with the people and equipment they have.
They are wisely – Not expanding.
Why ? Because the war in Ukraine (and Israel) will actually end and there will not be a need for 20,000 shells a month – much less 200,000.
Any “revitalization” of the US economy would be temporary – ending the moment the war ends – unless we started or allowed to start more wars across the world.
The Ukraine war is not an existential threat to the US, it is not an existential threat to Europe,
No one is going to build the war economy necessary to produce the 200,000 shells/month that would bring parity in Ukraine for a world that is not going to need 8,000 shells a month in a year or two.
If you wish to argue that we should gear up to produce enough shells for Ukraine justified by the war itself – you are free to do so.
But unless you are returning to the neo-con endless war doctrine – do not pretend doing so would be more than a temporary sugar high for the economy, ultimately resulting in a recession – as the need for war material collapsed.
I am sure that the majority of US Flag officers are well enough trained to know how – given the full support of the country that the military enjoys when the US is existentially threatened – to Win the war in Ukraine.
That is NOT the circumstances we are in.
Ask them how to win this WITHOUT ramping up US war production by a factor of 10 for a few months to a year and then watching is collapse back down to pre-war levels.
Are you going to repurpose the new equipment used to produce 10 times as many 155mm shells to make garden Gnomes ?
How many of those do you think we need ?
The overwhelming majority of this country wants to see Ukraine defeat Russia.
That does not mean they support shifting to a wartime economy for the short period necessary to do so, and then experiencing the economic shock when that ends, all while paying hundreds of billions of dollars to do so.
It is self evident to most americans that Russia is a paper tiger. That it will take decades – that Putin does not have to recover from this war – even if they win, and that Though Russia appears committed to winning this war – they are doing so at the cost of accellerting their own collapse.
Ukraine may lose to Russia – though that is not likely to happen soon.
This is a very bizzarre war.
The FACT is that Russia can defeat Ukraine – but not without destroying itself.
At the same time even with massive western aide Ukraine can NOT evict Russia from those parts of Ukraine it has occupied.
Ukraine can not sustain the casualties that it suffers when it tries to attack.
Russia can not sustain the causalties it suffers when it attacks.
Current estimates of Russian casualties since the start of this war are between 500,000 and 1 million soldiers.
Successful russian attacks result in casualty ratios of between 8 and 10:1 – even Russia can not sustain that.
Conversely Ukraine MUST maintain casualty rations of 5:1 or better just to survive.
They can do that easily on defense. That can not do that on offense.
Russia has half the population of the US and is enduring casualties at a rate greater than the US in WWII, Korea and Vietnam combined.
The answer for all is PEACE.
Peace was possible but for Biden a few months after this started.
It is still possible. A peace that is tolerable to both Russia, Ukraine and the west is actually possible.
Russia (and Ukraine) need massive western investment to recover. Russia has not been training engineers in the energy field for atleast 30 years. They can not repair the damage done to their energy infrastucture in less than a decade without western help.
Putin is going to require a commitment that Ukraine not join NATO to accept any peace deal.
Frankly, The West should agree to end further NATO expansion entirely. It is unnecessary and a threat to world peace.
Contra many – Russia is NOT going to go through eastern Europe like dominoes.
If they can barely handle Ukraine – they will be obliterated by a real foe – like Poland or Germany or France, or almost any two significant European countries combined.
Russia is a has been world power – they are barely sustainable as a regional power and are only globally consequential because Russia has half the worlds nukes.
John Say said: “It is still possible. A peace that is tolerable to both Russia, Ukraine and the west is actually possible. ”
Agree. When I spoke of Ukraine losing, I wasn’t referring to Russian conquest of the entrire country, but Russia attaining those goals that were critical to Putin when he invaded. Which, afaik, are, as you mention, no NATO membership for Ukraine, and, also, some means of ensuring that the parts of Ukraine that have large minority ethnic Russian populations are governed in some manner that guarantees the safety and security of those populations, whether by independence, annexation, or some other means. Those goals are deemed unacceptable by the Zelenskyy regime, which currently governs Ukraine (thanks to meddling by the CIA and Victoria Nuland), so if Russia does achieve them, the government of Ukraine loses, but the people may well better off.
The ethnic issues are complex. Russian and Ukrainian ethnicities are thinly distinct.
That said the actual evidence is that in those areas occupied or freindly to Russia prior to the war – and especially Crimea – long term affiliation with Russia has been on the decline – and that has accelerated during the war.
Crimea is neither properly part of Russia, or Ukraine – in the past it has been controlled by Turkey.
But its ECONOMIC ties are far stronger to Ukraine than elsewhere.
One of Putin’s aims -= a land bridge to Crimea – was not merely logistical, it was also to occupuy the southern part of Ukraine that Crimea is dependent on. Crimea has a problem – much like Hong Kong for the British.
The British had a permanent lease on the city of hong kong, but only a 100 year lease ont he surrounding areas that were necescary to sustain Hong Kong. Without those surrounding areas – Hong Kong could not even provide its own water.
Crimea can not exist without water and other resources from southern Ukraine.
I would further note that Russia has been “kidnapping” people from these occupied regions – sometimes adults but often children – because Russia has a massive demographic problem. Russia has the 3rd worst demographics in the world – with only Japan and Chine in more dire straights. Barring a miracle – that is already way to late Russia is way past its peak.
It is going to have great difficulty staying together and sustaining any standard of living over the next few decades.
A major part of the deep state war on Trump has NOTHING to do with left right politics and everything to do with the shift in US focus from the mideast, Europe, and Russia, too China and Asia.
This shift is inevitable. But it also will result in disempowering substantial portions of the deep state as The US ceases to care that much about Europe and Russia and the Mideast.
Russia, Ukraine and the Mideast are ALL fundamentally matters of concern for EUROPE – not the US.
Europe needs energy from Russia and the Mideast – the US is energy independent and even if it were not it can meets its needs from Mexico and Canada or slightly further from south america.
It is likely that the US actually faces a bright future – brighter than that of Europe and Russia, and the mideast and China.
But the US is going to be increasingly focused on the western hemisphere and the pacific rim.
Though Brexit is a reflaction that Britians long term interests are with the western hemisphere NOT Europe.