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
Jonathan: So it’s back to attacking NPR? Where will it end? Now it’s about NPR’s “partisan coverage” and its “raw bias in favor of Democratic narratives and claims”. You think “there are more important forms of diversity than ideological or political perspectives”. Like what? Like conservative perspectives. You demand that NPR should have “a CEO who could steer the company away from its partisan and activist trend”. You apparently want a NPR CEO who would purge the company of reporters and staff who exhibit a “liberal” bias and hire more conservatives. Unless that is done you think NPR should be defunded. But isn’t that what you frequently allege about at universities where you claim “conservatives” are purged from faculty. But you seem to think that’s Ok when it comes to NPR–that their “liberal” bias should be purged to make way for more conservatives. Talk about a double standard!
But the reality is that there is quite a bit of diversity in the media spectrum. We have NPR on the “liberal” side–along with a lot of left-of-center publications and outlets like ProPublica, Politico, MeidasTouch network, etc. Then on the right we have Fox (where you work), NewsMax, the New York Post (where you also write columns)–and a host of other far-right outlets and podcasts–all of which push the GOP agenda and DJT’s candidacy. I defy you to claim that what we see on Fox or other right-wing media is not “partisan coverage”.
So stop complaining about NPR’s so-called “partisan coverage”. If NPR has a “falling audience” what are you worried about? Let the viewers and readers decide who they watch and read. They are smart enough to figure out who has a “bias” and the political spectrum that is being pushed. You give the public way too little credit. Personally, I don’t watch NPR–except for the “Tiny Desk Concerts”, a lot of great guest musicians and music. What’s not to like about NPR’s programming!
Cut all funding to NPR.
Clearly missing/avoiding the key point – their bias is taxpayer funded (about 11%) – and should not be.
Generally I agree with your basic premise… “let the viewers and readers decide”! The problem is that the viewers and readers do not know if they aren’t informed!
ACORN was financed with taxpayer dollars and when caught buying votes… they simply disbanded and reorganized without consequence!
PBS has long been culpable of extreme Left Wing bias and even when guilty of providing questions to Hillary Clinton prior to the debate with Trump… no action was taken and the guilty party popped up on MSNBC after the fact!
It is possible that you are just naive or live in a Liberal bubble, certainly not familiar with ad hominem attacks versus addressing the issues, but as an Independent long before it was popular, screwed by both LBJ and Nixon, I think you would be hard put to find someone that accepts responsibility for voting for them!
It may take another 30 years to understand how decisive Obama and Biden have been… that’s what “kicking the can down the road” means, but it don’t tell you what it gets you!
“I mean, sure, looting is counterproductive. But it’s hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression founded on treating people’s ancestors as private property.”
~Katherine Maher
Right you are, Ms. Maher. It’s just so hard to be mad when you go to buy a bottle of shampoo or some deodorant at the CVS and all the shelves are either emptied by looters or behind glass doors under lock and key. It’s counterproductive to get angry about it the stupidity and unfairness of progressive policies. I mean, really.
NPR groupthink hive mind simply views the looting as “reparations.”
It’s their right to take what they want from ‘the white man’ and the ‘patriarchy.’ We oppressors owe them that, at the very least. I mean, really. That’s social justice. It’s how we justify our absurd progressive policies and laws as “just.”
Per the Naturalization Acts of the American Founders, they should not even be here to “view” looting as “reparations” or otherwise consider obtaining any “free stuff” or “free status.”
They shouldn’t be here to COVET, to BEAR FALSE WITNESS, or to STEAL.
They absolutely should have received COMPASSIONATE REPATRIATION a very, very long time ago; the overwhelming desire of all freed abductees is to, quite simply, GO HOME!
Hey George — check your cis white male mobility privilege, k?
I agree with Dennis on the Tiny Desk Concerts.
I remember this as one of the most intriguing musicians I’ve seen:
Just imagine if Gaelynn’s mother aborted this pregnancy because docs told her the baby was deformed? What a loss that would have been. This woman became a talented musician and made her life an inspiring example. Just saying…
I always vote for who NPR,CNN and MSNCC are against. It has served me well.
End Public funding – not just of NPR but of everything outside the narrow legitimate domain of govenrment.
Private actors are free to make biased choices like NPR does, and the market decides whether to reward those choices.
If NPR wishes to be the left wing equivalent of Alex Jones and infowars – they are free to choose to do so.
But NOT on the public dime.
Ultimately anything government funds becomes corrupt. It is irrelevant whether that is politically corrupt or just financially corrupt.
Government is inefficient by design – that is is it should be – The Nazi’s were examples of government efficiency – we do not want efficient government. Therefore we do not want government to do tasks that do not require government.
National defense, Securing the border, policing, and the adjudication of criminal, civil, and tort law are the legitimate domain of govenrment.
Determining what entertainment or news we should hear, what cars we should drive, what dishwashers and stoves we should use is NOT.
@JohnSay
Very much agreed. Let them rely on their own resources and see how far they get. It’s worked out so well for CNN et. al. 😂 I don’t have an issue with them existing; I sure resent being forced to fund them, at least without equal but oppositional representation in the mix. 👍🏼
Gee. Another privileged liberal from one of the most privileged parts of the country projecting their own ignorance onto humanity writ large and purporting to lecture us on what she considers to be all of our original sin. Who’d ‘a thunk it? 🙄🙄
Pfft. Insufferable, petulant, entitled, insular, ignorant could all serve as substitute pronouns for her. I always thought NPR was the (White) Yawn and Pfft Olympics, and that leftist society is a nepotistic/incestuous connection game; was never a fan, this surprises me not in the least. I personally wouldn’t notice if NPR ceased to be.
OOPS!!! someone peeled back the curtain and exposed the nasty truth about this partisan machine. I stopped listening to them in the 90’s after Nina Totenberg was such an ardent supporter of biden as he attempted to destroy Clarence Thomas during his Senate hearings for his placement on the Supreme Court. They were in the bag for the progs even back then. Firing Juan Williams, that hapless liberal who couldn’t debate his way out of a paper bag was the final straw.
If one looks at the sources of funding for NPR you will find that corporate grants, member stations (non-profits) the CPB, and public school districts.
National Public Radio is not balanced, and if its leadership actually believes that drivel, then they are deluded. It is time to shut it down.
Just end government funding. Free markets will take care of the rest.
NPR has become the left wing equivalent of Infowars. That is OK.
What is NOT is that it is public funded.
OOPS!!! someone peeled back the curtain and exposed the nasty truth about this partisan machine. I stopped listening to them in the 90’s after Nina Totenberg was such an ardent supporter of biden as he attempted to destroy Clarence Thomas during his Senate hearings for his placement on the Supreme Court. They were in the bag for the progs even back then. Firing Juan Williams, that hapless liberal who couldn’t debate his way out of a paper bag was the final straw.
Some self-hating people are right to hate themselves. It is her only well-reasoned posture.
Only an average of 1% of the funding for NPR comes from the federal gevernment:
https://www.newsweek.com/where-does-npr-get-its-funding-calls-defund-outlet-met-calls-donate-1529009
Tch, tch.
1% too much.
Anyone who believes that is a tool of the left. Biden got 81 million votes also, HA HA Ace.
Gary Miles, it appears that you have a bad case of dellusionalism.
David B. Benson said: “Only an average of 1% of the funding for NPR comes from the federal gevernment”
Did you bother to read the THe Hill article mentioned in one of the first comments, which describes how CPB has set up what is essentially a money-laundering scheme to get funds that were originally extorted from Federal taxpayers to NPR?
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3950550-the-truth-about-nprs-funding-and-its-possible-future/
Number 6,
That was interesting.
Thank you for posting that.
Interesting how much money is directed to them, and yet the poor quality of their reporting.
I just look at how successful The Free Press has been and the much, much better quality of their reporting all on paid subscribers.
UpstateFarmer said: “Thank you for posting that.”
I can’t take credit. That link was posted in the 6th comment by “Ex Dem”. But David Benson evidently either did not bother to read the information linked from that comment, or summarily disrgarded it, and I didn’t think it to be worth finding a way to link him back to the original comment. I had captured the article as a PDF, and used the link from that.
The CPB serves no legitimate purpose – close it down too.
Vivek Ramaswamy campaigned on eliminating 75% of the bloated government bureaucracy.
Vivek should be given the role of Special Assistant to President DJT with his only job being to implement that promise. Like Javier Milei of Argentina. Slash the bureaucracy. Cut off the USG corruption, fraud, waste and abuse gravy train.
Anonymous said: “Slash the bureaucracy. Cut off the USG corruption, fraud, waste and abuse gravy train.”
I am fairly optimistic that, if elected, Trump will curtail, or at least slow, the growth of the Federal government. Sadly, I have little optimism that he has what it would take to make drastic reductions. I’m not completely convinced he even has the desire to do that. And to appoint someone like Ramaswamy to a post with that kind of purview would require that he had learned how to evaluate advisors in terms of who can and cannot be trusted. His recent statements on Tik Tok and Ukraine lead me to be skeptical of that proposition, as well.
Then they wouldn’t miss it.
Relying on Newsweek for accurate information is akin to indulging in a controlled substance.
Then there should be no problem ending that and eliminating the problem.
Should the government provide 1% of the funding of infowars ?
Most of us understand that it should not.
Real tolerance means not merely tolerating blacks and hispanics, or the disabled, or women,
or gays, or …
It means tolerating people with views that you find “intolerable”.
It means tolerating actual Nazi’s and KKK members – if you could actually find any.
It means tolerating people you disagree with.
It means tolerating people who you are certain are wrong.
It also means never ever allowing government to take a stand or fund ANY view point.
The Freedom of religion clause of the first amendment should be our guide in everything.
There is very little difference between the ideological battles of today than the religious battles of the in Europe after the reformation.
This country was born of people who religious held views hated by the majority of those in the country they came from looking for a place they could practice those views freely. In many instances their views were no less repugnant and unchristian than those they fled.
Our founders grudgingly accepted that they would NOT be able to incorporate their own religion into government and instead sought to protect their freedom to hold their own views from the possibility of Government supressing them or elevating others.
That principle of religious tolerance and divorcing government from ideology religious or otherwise belongs not just in the domain of religion.
Not true – research more. Believing only Newsweek (Progressive Rag) is what clueless people do.
I suspect that this 1% figure does not take into account money that goes to NGOs that create programming for NPR or otherwise support NPR.
Is she Jewish, asking for a Bolshevik I know?
NPR CEO Katherine Maher should be fired. NPR should not recieve public funding.
Just end the public funding. The rest will take care of itself.
The first rule of NPR club is…
‘the question is why the public should finance this one media outlet over any of its competitors….
We shouldn’t! I hope Trump ends tax funding for NPR.
Trump can’t.
Congress can., and must.
I believe that liberal nationalism, is a form of nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom for them but not us, tolerance only if they don’t have mix with others, equality on their terms, and individual rights that they are willing to give us. Down with NPR! It doesn’t represent American values at all.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. The umbrage of it all. These egoistic, self-satisfied, self-aggrandizing scumbags whose livelihoods are funded out of the blood and sweat of the American taxpayer were self-mandated to bring to ruin a United States President and his administration. Absent ‘draw and quartering’ as a punishment for having been participants in the debacle created by the enemies of Trump’s state, they and the rest of their wretched ilk should be cast out onto the dung heap of journalistic history, the entirety of it defunded and dismantled.
Years ago the government was going to protect us from the mafia. Now who’s going to protect us from the government? Independent Bob.
What’s to say.? An inhuman monster gets’s caught being an inhuman monster and whines about being treated like an inhuman monster.. Yes! I count inhuman monsters as inhuman monsters because of their inhumanly monstrous activities.
Civic nationalism, otherwise known as democratic nationalism and liberal nationalism, is a form of nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights, and is not based on ethnocentrism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism Consider this definition when processing this remark above by Ms. Maher: “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….”
In point of fact, civic nationalism – other known as The American Experiment – is a polity defined by unity around a particular set of beliefs. While there’s a number of ways to articulate that set of beliefs, it’s maybe best said this way: e pluribus unum. It is precisely the idea that all of us unite around the historically unique ideas found in our Bill of Rights that “that set of any particular beliefs” that ENLARGES us rather than reducing us, as Maher posits. After our collective subscription to free speech, association, religious expression, etc. it is then we encourage divergence. It appears Ms. Maher rejects the former as a threat to the latter. And it is for this growing rejection that I fear that civic nationalism is failing. Every week, I see something encouraging written by Prof. Turley. I hold my breath they don’t come for him next.
Maher never addressed any of the issues Berliner raised – and there were many. Given that half this country is conservative and NOT being served AT ALL by a network they are supporting against their will, I think all government funding of NPR should be ceased. Let their liberal listeners fund it completely. Let’s see if they put their money, instead of ours, where their mouth is. Were that to happen, I give NPR six months.
How many millions did “Pelausy gave to NPR. when she was Speaker?
We need to start a movement to take the public money out of NPR and its state affiliates. In this day and age there is no reason for taxpayers to be paying for an advocacy arm for the left!