It appears that National Public Radio has solved the problem of the intolerance for opposing views, detailed in an article by award-winning editor Uri Berliner: he is now out of NPR. Berliner resigned after NPR suspended him and various other journalists and the CEO lashed out at his discussing their political bias. For those of us in higher education, it is a chillingly familiar pattern. Editors, journalists, and listeners at the public-supported outlet will now be able to return to the echo-chambered coverage without the distracting voice of a dissenter.
After Berliner wrote his piece in the Free Press, NPR CEO Katherine Maher attacked Berliner and made clear that NPR had no intention to change its one-sided editorial staff or its coverage. Others at NPR also went public with their criticism of him and falsely portrayed his criticism as opposed to actual racial and other diversity of the staff.
In his article, NPR’s David Folkenflik acknowledges that the Berliner criticism “angered many of his colleagues.”
Maher’s response was hardly surprising.
After years of criticism over NPR’s political bias, the search for a new CEO was viewed as an opportunity to select someone without such partisan baggage. Instead, it selected Maher, who has been criticized for controversial postings on subjects ranging from looters to Trump. Those now-deleted postings included a 2018 declaration that “Donald Trump is a racist” and a variety of political commentary.
Maher was unlikely to address the problem. She is part of the problem. Maher lashed out at Berliner, calling his criticism and call for greater diversity in the newsroom “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”
So now Berliner has resigned rather than work at a media outlet where he was shunned and denounced. In a social media post on Wednesday, Berliner published his resignation letter to NPR leadership and stated “I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay.”
It is all-too-familiar to many of us in higher education where conservatives, libertarians, and republicans have been purged from most faculties. This is done through a mix of filling open slots with liberal academics while making life intolerable for those who remain.
For years, a conservative North Carolina professor faced calls for termination over controversial tweets and was pushed to retire. Dr. Mike Adams, a professor of sociology and criminology, had long been a lightning rod of controversy. In 2014, we discussed his prevailing in a lawsuit that alleged discrimination due to his conservative views. He was then targeted again after an inflammatory tweet calling North Carolina a “slave state.” That led to his being pressured to resign with a settlement. He then committed suicide just days before his last day as a professor.
A survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5% identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
The same is true at other schools. A study found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools. A 2017 study found only 15 percent of faculties overall were conservative. Another survey showed that 33 out of 65 departments lacked a single conservative faculty member.
Conservative or libertarian professors are often targeted or shunned on faculties. Activists target every aspect of an academic life that holds meaning for intellectuals from the denial of publications, associations, and speaking opportunities. Few want to risk such isolation and remain silent as other colleagues are hammered and harassed. I have had colleagues who have resigned in frustration. It is simply no longer fulfilling, let alone fun, to come to work. They simply leave.
The result is to achieve precisely what these journalists and academics desired: they are left with little contradiction or opposing voices. Even as revenues and audience numbers fall at NPR, editors and journalists are still personally reinforced by removing voices like Berliner’s. Their views become amplified in the absence of contradiction. At NPR where the audience is now almost 70 self-identified liberals, it is the media version of comfort food. You can now go to NPR and hear the same narratives without challenge.
Regardless of the slant, there remains the question of why all Americans should have to pay taxes to support NPR. Maher and the company just made clear that they will not change their approach or their bias. Yet, they expect all Americans to support them in this effort. However, they would be appalled if the government were to subsidize Fox Radio.
As I have previously written, that is the right of NPR to slant its coverage and certainly the right of listeners to use such sources for news. However, it does not have a right to public subsidy.
Not fair for anyone to lose his or her job over an opinion, sorry. And this is from a society that worships the Gods of fairness, WTF?
I am in the private sector today, after 10 years in academia, for exactly the reasons you describe. The faculty in my department at Purdue – particularly the department chair, could not tolerate those who thought differently and offered alternative views, not just in terms of politics but on issues as mundane as the cheapest way to provide a departmental printer.
I was hired as an Assistant Professor to help start up a public health program mishoused in a PE/Kinesiology department. We really weren’t wanted, which was part of strike one. Our senior tenured public health professor was already looked at with suspicion because (a) he was a Colonel in the Indiana Army National Guard and the Guard’s chief medical officer and (b) was among the first to publish research data showing that the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and health was J-shaped, with the healthiest group in the range labeled “overweight” and the “underweight group every bit as unhealthy as the morbidly obese. Obviously, that raised hackles in an exercise science program. Of the four of us hired as Assistant Professors, three of us had research foci that had NOTHING to do with physical activity or nutrition, which meant we had little ground in common with the kinesiology side. In turn, they failed to realize how little they had in common with our field. One exercise physiologist insisted that one of my fellow PH Asst. Professor’s PhD student, (who had MS’s in urban planning and spatial econometrics) needed to take a physiology class because “how can you study exercise and health without studying physiology?” He was offended when I pointed out that HE studied how exercise impacted the health of the individual, but as public health folks we were concerned with taking what he learned and translating it to the population level and were no more concerned with the microdetails of physiology in the individual organism than he was with the sociology and economics behind how you get a population to change behavior.
I found that being a conservative DID mean discrimination and repercussions. My chair was unhappy that I accepted a research/consulting contract with the Defense Department. I had journal editors refuse to review a paper that found federal funds for local health departments did not spur activity, but local leadership did (ala the findings of Pressman and Wildavsky regarding economic development decades before). I had CDC employees try to pressure me into not publishing results showing government regulation of medical labs was ineffective but private accreditors were associated with improved quality practices. I was attacked for a paper on how political preferences can compromise research ethics as badly or worse than private funding. I criticized the handling by WHO and CDC of the 2009 influenza scare in an interview with CBS, and was attacked by other academics for my criticism of the Patient Protection and Accountability Act both on a PBS panel show and in a paper presented at the Indiana Public Health Association annual meeting. I earned no brownie points when, as a reviewer for an internal grant program, I recommended rejecting funding for a political science professor trying to get funding for a “study” of media bias that was transparently a hack job – she was proposing to ONLY look at Fox News coverage. When asked about suggestions for college level “common readings” on “diversity” issues, I recommended Thomas Sowell’s work on the economics and politics of race as well as the writings of Glenn Loury and John McWhorter. When our program was considering a document for CEPH accreditation, I objected to a section that established racial quotas for admissions and faculty hiring as being illegal- which drew accusations just short of being a Klansman, but on which the black university Affirmative Action Officerbacked me up strongly.
At the same time, I offended the chair by speaking up in faculty meetings as much for speaking up as for content (as a mid-career PhD, I had been a manager with a state health department and on EPA boards before I earned my PhD, which meant I was not an insecure traditional Assistant Professor). Content, however, also played a role. I pointed out a proposal regarding changes in the faculty retirement plan proposed by the senior VP and Treasurer would have the perverse result of reducing net faculty compensation while simultaneously increasing payroll costs due to the tax implications, a comment that offended more senior faculty. When a reorganization was moving us to a brand new College in the University, I offended existing faculty by asking whether, since we were already going to be disrupted by those changes, did it not make sense to consider separating into a department of public health and a separate department of exercise science? I made the infamous printer suggestion – which the chair disparaged and ended up adopting because I was correct.
A third problem was jealousy. My department had a LOT of dead wood in the senior levels when I arrived. In my first year, I obtained more external research funding awards than the existing tenured faculty – COMBINED. To make it worse, almost all the funding came not as a result of a grant application, but because agencies approached me to take on a project. I received snide comments from other faculty that maybe I should switch my career to being a consultant. I was not only publishing more than almost all of them, but my work was getting attention – see the CBS and PBS events above, my flu work was cited in USA today, I was asked to present results on a study of the EMS workforce to the state EMS commission, to serve on a state Rural EMS task force, and two serve on two advisory boards for CDC on bioterrorism preparedness. I was a founding member of the board for an AcademyHealth interest group. My DoD work was related to fleshing out doctrine for humanitarian and medical civil affairs operational lines for the new Counterinsurgency doctrine that was hot news at the time, and had me working an exercise to develop a strategic approach to Iraqafter the surge was completed, which had this lowly Assistant Professor rubbing elbows with Jim Mattis, Isreali general Benny Gantz, Dave Kilcullen (who was an Aussie SAS officer serving as Condaleeza Rice’s COIN advisor, etc.). Doing too well too fast made things uncomfortable for tenured faculty who had retired on active duty, so to speak.
Harassment began. The chair tried to tell me that I couldn’t have outside guest speakers in my classes (like a long-time former Mayor – a close family friend and a Democrat – who would explain to my health policy grad students why everything they believed about how budgeting decisions are made was wrong). He called my grad students together and tried to dig up dirt while trying to smear me to drive down teaching evaluation scores. When one of my MPH candidates was voted by departmental faculty to receive a three year fellowship to continue on to PhD work he turned in a different name to the Dean. He frustrated me by condescendingly calling me a “young guy just starting your career” at a point where I had been working in the field for two decades. Finally, he tried to tamper with my contract to prevent me from applying for tenure, and when I filed a grievance after the College ombudsman told us that I had the strongest case on a tenure issue she had seen in two decades as a department chair and ombudsman, he lied in submissions to the grievance committee and P&T committee, costing me the decision in each. I did not see his response until AFTER the grievance was decided, and despite providing his own WRITTEN documents proving he lied, could not get the Dean and Assistant Provost in charge of the committee to reconsider (he happened to be a former President of the Faculty Senate). This despite meeting or exceeding every one of the written criteria for tenure!
REGARDING ABOVE:
We’re supposed to believe this anonymous spent 10 years in academia? Yet the quality of writing is so dull you have to wonder ‘who’ really wrote it and ‘why’ it was posted.
It looks like someone just hammered at their keyboard in a deliberate effort to post something very long and boring to discourage readers from scrolling any further.
Further down is a commenter using the name ‘Shirley Hodges’ for another real-life experience story. We’ve never seen Shirley’s name before. One suspects she’s the same poster as the one above.
If you’re under the impression that the writing style of academics is generally lively and interesting then I would submit that is YOU who has not spent any appreciable amount of time in academia
I wrote this in response to anonymous above
I am in the private sector today, after 10 years in academia, for exactly the reasons you describe.
Your comment was one of the more fascinating and intelligent posts I have read on this forum in years. It was very refreshing even if I disagree with most of what you wrote. Who cares? It was thought provoking.
Thanks for that.
As an aside, it helps when you’re in academic medicine, to have one foot planted firmly in patient care, face to face interactions. As I say, “you can smell the patient”. In my case I find patient care grounds me and gives me standing to call bullsh** when I encounter it in medical academic circles. Not one person pushes back for the simple reason that few want to smell the patient. As Catholics say, get your hands dirty, interact with the smelly sheep.
If Americans interacted with each other vis a vis daily affairs, interpersonal skills, and listened to each other mano a mano, we would have little need for Left vs Right, conservative vs liberal, and political parties
forward and onward
Professor Turley Writes:
Those now-deleted postings included a 2018 declaration that “Donald Trump is a racist” and a variety of political commentary.
………………………………..
Here Turley implies that Ms. Maher is undeniably biased and incorrect for declaring Donald Trump a ‘racist’. As though all objective Americans would agree Trump is no such thing.
Yet between 2011 and 2016 Donald Trump was widely seen as leader of the so-called ‘Birther’ movement.
On numerous occasions throughout those years, Trump publicly doubted that Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii. And even ‘after’ Obama released his birth certificate, Trump continued casting doubt.
Was Trump ‘racist’ for spreading this misinformation? Or was Trump simply misinforming because he enjoys stirring mischief?
Then, in 2016, Trump referred to the presiding judge in the Trump University fraud case as that ‘Mexican judge’. The judge in question was actually born in Indiana.
Was Trump racist for dismissing that judge as ‘Mexican’? Or was Trump merely insulting that judge with no racist intent?
After losing the 2016 Popular Vote to Hillary Clinton, Trump claimed, with no evidence, that ‘millions of illegals’ voted. And on the first Monday of his presidency, Trump demanded a special commission to investigate voting by ‘illegals’. That investigation went absolutely nowhere; producing no evidence whatsoever.
Was Trump being racist for claiming Hillary’s Popular Vote was due to ‘illegals’? Or was Trump just a sore loser trying to excuse his lack of Popular Votes?
During Trump’s first year in office far-right forces staged a torchlight parade in Charlottesville Virginia that touched off a weekend of violence in that college town.
In addressing the disturbance, Trump said there were ‘fine people on both sides’. Though it looked to at least half the country like the far-right forces were actual Nazis. Presumably the torchlight parade conveyed that impression!
Fast forward to the 2020 election which Trump bitterly disputed. Trump false claims typically centered on cities with large Black populations. Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta and Milwaukee were all hotly contested by Trump’s lawyers.
Was Trump racist for singling out Black population centers in his false claims? Or did Trump just think those areas would be easy to flip?
Currently Trump has harnessed an unofficial group of red state sheriffs to make sure ‘illegals’ don’t vote this fall. Never mind that Trump never proved his 2016 claim about ‘illegals’ voting. Trump is merely establishing ‘illegals’ as the bad guys in case he loses again. That’s not ‘racist’, though. Ha,ha,ha–
When did Mexico become a race?
Well, African is a Race
I worked for the attorneys that represented all the trusts that support NPR. Most of them were part of the Carter and Clinton Administration, cabinet members in fact. There were objections about NPR being a Democratic forum. Pretty accurate. Now it’s like they are celebrating the fact that they won something, or pulled one over on the public. That’s what this gentleman encountered. Wholesale jubilation that now they were immune to criticism and they can do whatever they like. In other words, the inmates running the asylum.
NPR is a communist front which should not receive a dime from the government.
Jonathan: You column reminds me of the Brazilian song “Samba de Una Nota So”–translated to “One Note Samba”. You’re stuck on one note–NPR. And you cry and moan that faculty at Harvard and other universities are overwhelmingly “liberal”. Same for law schools and probably where you work. And who is to blame? Could it be that “conservative” ideas just don’t appeal to students and faculty these days? Can’t be that you shout! No, it must be conservatives are being “purged” from faculties. Any evidence for that claim? Nope. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. In your previous column about Colter’s speech at Cornell I pointed out that Prof. Randy Wayne invited Coulter to speak. Wayne is definitely very “conservative”. He’s been at Cornell since 1987. Never “purged”. He’s very vocal in his views. So let’s dispense with all your nonsense and discuss some other important news.
Like DJT’s criminal trial in Manhattan. The court is “dark” today but jury selection will continue tomorrow. Seven jurors have already been selected. Nevertheless, DJT is moaning and complaining about the jury selection process. On “Untruth Social” today DJT complained: “I thought STRIKES were supposed to be ‘unlimited’ when we were picking our jury? I was then told we only had 10, not nearly enough when we were purposely given the 2nd Worst Venue in the country…”
Apparently, DJT was napping when his lawyers tried to tell him that under NY law each party is entitled to 10 peremptory challenges and unlimited challenges for cause. Of course, DJT thinks he is special and should be given an unlimited number peremptory challenges. Sorry, Don, you’re not special and that’s not the law in NY. But the MAGA crowd was furious that the same legal standards for jury selection were being applied to their leader.
DJT is never satisfied. Remember when DJT filed to have a bench trial in the NY civil fraud case. He wound up with Judge Engoron. And throughout the trial DJT complained about the judge: “If we had a jury we would win the case very easily–this is the beginning of Communism!” DJT complains about everything. He’s like the spoiled petulant child who always wants his way!
So whether it is before a judge or now a jury DJT continues to complain. But, Don, you did get 2 juries in the E. Jean Carroll cases and you lost both times. In fact, you have lost EVERY jury trial. But DJT now complains he can’t get a fair trial in NY–“Everyone in NY hates me”. But, Don, no one forced you to set up shop in NY. You could have started your real estate business just as easily in Florida or Texas. But you chose NY because you liked the “high” life there–all the beautiful women, all the parties where you could hob nob with celebrities and people like Jeffrey Epstein. So stop complaining because you don’t like the jury selection process in NY! You made your bed and now you are going to have to lie down in it!
You’re making his point. Then you point to a single example and pretend JT was saying there were zero conservative voices, as if you had some Gotcha moment. It’s this inability to see, much less process, what other people are saying that’s the root of the problem. And you mask it by hiding in numbers.
Probably the single most significant Theme of this blog is Free speech.
If that is the one note Turley wishes to play – I am very happy to join him.
It is an absolutely critical note.
I know this is beyond you mentally, but free speech is absolutely critical to a thriving and prosperous country.
If you want a rising standard of living – you need freedom – the more the better and particularly free speech.
Do you honestly want more of the mess that was created as the result of our piss poor policy responses to Covid and the supression of any argument outside the official narrative ?
Not only did you choke off ordinary people with excellent questions – but half the top scientists doctors and epidemiologists in the world.
While Dr. Atlas is not an epidemiologist – though his qualifications exceed most of those in the NIH or CDC or FDA, he and a growing body of others like him – including the swedes understood from the START that the damage of ill thought out central planned covid policies was far greater than covid itself.
Masks did not work.
Lockdowns did not work.
School closures did not work.
These and myriads of other policies had little or no effect on Covid but had immense negative impacts elsewhere.
The economic impact was bad and we still have knock on effects.
The impact on mental health was enormous.
The We have lost more than a year in the education of children that they will not get back and most of it was for the poor.
Drug abuse has spiked.
Ignoring the adverse effects of the vaccine – other health problems have killed and will likely kill more people than covid, because of delays to treatment as the focus of health care shifted to Covid.
In almost every possible way we got Covid wrong.
We are still processing data on Covid, on Vaccines, on adverse impacts on treatment.
But it is already evident that the accepted treatments sold to us by the “experts” Really only that subset of experts that weilded government power to silence their peers, all either failed entirely – worse than the problems they sought to address, or that at best they worked far worse and had far more problems than we were told.
I am still tracking vaccine studies. It is beyond any doubt that the Covid vaccine was 1-2 orders of magnitude more dangerous than any vaccine we have ever allowed in general use. It is not yet clear that it was beyond a doubt net negative for ALL, but it is beyond a doubt that younger people, and middle aged people without other covid health risks should not have received the vaccine. And the possibilitiy is that futher analysis may prove worse than that. the Covid vaccine is strongly related to heart problems. More than two doses appear to be causing autoimmune problems. It is possible that the net long term results will be that the vaccine was on net harmful for nearly everyone.
Though my point is NOT specifically about the vaccine or about specific treatments or policies.
My point is that the supression of speech, the failure to hear from all sides resulted in much worse decisions that we were harmed by.
Covid was a perfect storm of bad decision making – many of those bad decisions are easily predictable in hindsight.
Virtually all where criticized at the time- and the critics silenced.
It should be self evident that the people who should be making health decisions in our govenrment are not the ones who were given power,
But those who were silenced who subsequently proved right about nearly everything.
The point is that when you censor “misinformation” – the result is WORSE decisions.
If Turley’s “One Note” is “free speech – then he should play a sympohony.
You are correct that Trump is misrepresenting our Jury selection system. Merchan is NOT doing something unusual with respect to the numbers of pre-empotories that each side is allowed.
But you are otherwise entirely wrong.
One of the reasons that this trial needs to be TRULY public – like Supreme court oral arguments, like the Willis hearings is so that WE – not biased pundits get to judge the proceeding.
Our jury selection has been fubar long before Trump. You can not get on a death penalty case if you oppose the death penalty – that automatically means you do not have a jury of your peers. Worse still – even when a case involves the death penalty – these cases rarely result in a death penalty – but you still end up with a jury that reflects the values of pro-death penlaty groups – not your peers.
Personally I favor ZERO pre-emptory challenges. Certainly the State should NEVER have a pre-emptory challenge to a juror.
A criminal defendant is entitled to some limited ability to say – my instincts say – that person should not be on the jury.
The STATE should NOT. The state must take the jury as it comes.
I personally would also significantly limit exclusion “for cause” – if you are related to a a participant – a victim, a witness, a defendant.
If you or an immediate relative has an interest in the outcome – you should not be allowed on a jury.
If you have a demonstrable serious mental illness you should be barred.
Separately if you have a bias against the defendant – you must be excused – and the defendant MUST be allowed to explore that thoroughly in voir dir. Conversely a Bias against they state or for the defendant – escept where there is a financial or similar benefit regarding the outcome should NOT bar you from the jury.
But that is NOT the system we have. Not for Trump not for anyone.
78% of those polled think this is all rigged and is election interferance – that should mean 3/4 of this jury should find Trump innocent absent some evidence that has NOT been made public – and there is no such evidence.
Even in manhattan 15% of the population supports Trump. That is low – but it means 2 jurors out of twelve should be trump supporters.
But the DA has 10 premporties – he will have no problem assuring that no Trump supporters get on the jury – no matter what.
Conversely Trump faces a jury pool that is 85% opposed to him. 10 premptories means it is likely that the jury will NOT reflect the country, it will NOT Manahattan, Bragg will with near certainty be able to get a 100% covertly trump hating jury.
Trump has thus far been careful not to attack the jury or jurors – only the unfairness of the process.
He was asked repeatedly by reporters about the jury and his reponse was to ask him again in 2 months
But he has criticised Bragg and the Judge
Trump overstates many of his claims.
Every legal scholar has not found there is nothing here – but most have, and those who have not are the ones that have been repeatedly wrong
Chicago lawyer Richard Porter does an excellent job of making mincemeat of Bragg’s save.
Bragg is claiming fraud where no one was harmed – the case here is weaker than EnMoron’s case – there is not even the possibility of someone getting harmed here.
Whether you like it or not the social contract only empowers govenrmetn to protect us from ACTUAL HARM.
The illegality of murder and the legality of self defense rest on the fact that Govenrment may criminalize harming others.
But can not criminalize your own protection of yourself from harm.
As the declaration of independence says – Governments are created to protect our rights.
Braggs claim – dubious even on the surface is that Trump lied to himself in filling out his checkbook. A personal document that but for Bragg would never been seen to others. The claim that Trump lied to his checkbook is ludicrously stupid. But even if True there is no crime. No one is actually harmed.
There are no tax consequences to the way Trump recorded his checks. There is no misrepresentation to government of information government is entitled to have. As Dershowitz has pointed out – Braggs core claim – that Trump had to be specific about the purpose of his expenditures for NDA’s – makes not only all NDA’s but all settlements a crime.
The campaign finance claim is ludicrously stupid. Micheal Cohen has already plead guilty to campaign finance violations for this event.
Cohen’s guilty plea is PROOF not only that Trump did not violate campaign finance laws – but that Bragg’s theory of the case is a LIE.
For Cohen to violate Campaign finance laws – the payments to daniels must come from Cohen, and the payments TO Cohen must be legal services.
Regardless the legal arguments against this nonsense are mostly irrelevant – becaus those of you on the left DO NOT CARE about the law.
You want to convict Trump because you hate him – because he holds up a mirror to your soul and exposes you as rotting and corrupt as you are.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/04/16/ny_gives_trump_the_anne_boleyn_treatment_150804.html
Dennis – you rant about Trump, but you miss the point.
What is the purpose of jury selection ? What is the purpose of premptory and for cause challenges ?
The purpose of jury selection is to get a fair jury that will follow the fact and the law.
But if we cared about he facts and the law – this case would not go forward.
Regardless, the rules for jury selction exist to allow the selection of a fair jury.
If they fail to do so – then the rules and the laws are wrong.
Trump is using this trial politically. He is inevitably going to win this – and the other cases against him on ap0peal – unfortunately possibly years from now – because the cases are lawless politically biased lawfare and election interferance.
Something democrats claim to oppose – while doing it in spades.
Trump is outside the courtroom engaged in the only campaigning that you left wing nuts have left to him.
He is busy campaigning in NYC and seeking to bring New York into play in the 2024 election.
It is unlikely that he can win NY, but it is likely that he can force Democrats to have to put in effort to defend it.
If Trump has to be trapped in NYC for the next 2 months – then Democrats are going to have to worry about Trump campaigning to Win NY.
While again that is unlikely – it is also something Democrats CAN NOT AFFORD. Losing NY ends the election PERIOD.
Regardless, you have separately given Trump a public forum every morning and every evening as he comes and goes to the trial.
And he is using it. He is railing at the corrupt trial, the lawfare of democrats – and he is winning – 78% of people being this is election interferance, that the trial is rigged.
If Trump loses – it is unlikely this case will impact the election – but a hung jury or an acquittal will be disastrous – and this case is non-existant.
It is also increasingly self evident how desparate Democrats – YOU are – without a felony conviction – this election is over.
Biden’s polling has improved slightly – but mostly that is because RFK jr has weakened – Trump’s numbers remain solid. Trump’s support remains rock solid. It is also possible that Biden’s support is increasing because many many democrats who oppose Biden on Israel or other things are still not going to vote for Trump. There is an open question as to whether Muslim americans vote For Biden or not.
If they stay home Trump wins the rust belt – and particularly michigan.
But Bidens problem is that he is not only losing in all swing states – but there are likely 8 swing states this year – to blue states that were NOT swing states in 2020 are this year.
Democrats are wigged out that Nevada may go winner take all. The situation is so bad for Biden that that One electoral vote from Nebraska may be the difference between winning and losing the election – and that is Biden’s BEST case scenario.
Anyway you can expect Trump to attack Biden to attack Democratic election interference to attack lawfare and to attack Biden’s abysmal border policy every morning and every evening.
And Biden’s immigration policy;s are not playing well even in NYC.
Dennis – YOU have given Trump a public forum – every morning and every night for so long as this trial goes one.
YOU are constantly ranting – misrepresenting what he has said – regardless YOU are proving that YOUR lawfare is successfully getting Trump the opportunity to be HEARD.
You are free to rant about what he has said – or about what you think he has said.
But no matter what – 2-3 times a day for the next 2 months you have Given Trump a bully pulpit – and NOT some stadioum with 80,000 supporters in KAnsas that thye left wing nut media can ignore. But at the Manhattan courthouse – where left wing nut reporters are drawn like flies and where they thrust microphones in his face in the hope he says something stupid, and then like you they air what he says because in their own delusion they think that things that actually make sense to ordinary people are stupid and so they air what he says.
People are seeing hundreds of peaceful Trump protestors in front of the courthouse in Manhattan every day.
They are seeing thousands as he goes to Harlem or other places in the evening.
You have also accidentally rigged your own Trial – this will NOT be the Chauvin Trial with Maxine Waters Ranting on the courtroom doorsteps.
The NYPD and SS will coordinate to keep this peaceful.
Worse still – so long as Trump supporters control the area in front of the court house – violent efforts by the left to displace them will look very bad.
You have spent the past 3 years hoping for a right wing bombing or something similar.
But the greatest risks of violence this country actually faces are from the left.
What do you think the effect of a violent riot by those on the left infront of the Manhattan court house will be ?
What do you think the effect of an assassination attempt will be ?
You worry that Trump’s words might persaude his supporters to do something stupid.
But it is the left that burned our cities in 2020.
It is the left that attacked courthouses and the WH.
It is the left that burned police stations and looted.
It is the left that violently tried to stop the Kavaugh hearings in the capitol
It is the left that tried to assassinate a supreme court justice.
A burned out left wing nut drug addict even tried to attack Pelosi.
your playing into Trump’s hands everyday.
Every day for the next Month Trump is going to get 203 oportunities to speak to a public and more importantly to democrats on the MSM about immigration, and about election interferance and lawfare.
He is going to be speaking about issues that super super majorities of the country agree with him on.
And like moths drawn to the flame – you are going to cover it – and it will be reported on the Left wing nut MSM.
And everyday we will get to hear nonsense from you trying to spin the Trump purported faux paux of the day into something that it is not.
Regardless, YOU are doing an excellent job of wining the election for Trump.
People are not stupid – every single other aspect of the Democrats campaign has FAILED.
You are DESPARATE. People smell blood in the water and the sharks are circling.
Perception matters a great deal. You seem to think that Trum MUST win this trial – that might be true. It might not,
We really do not know. There is a growing body of evidence that losing will not matter or may even benefit Trump.
You rant about the Carrol Case – or the EnMoron case or …. – have ANY of those given you a political benefit ?
Have any of those dented Trump ?
You MUST win this case to have any hope of surviving in November.
but it is far less claer that Trump must win.
Trump is NOT behaving like a desperate man.
But he is wearing the role of a martyr quite well.
Regardless, when this is over – whatever the outcome – remember that this is all on YOU.
You did this.
Dennis
You gobble up President Trumps Campaign speeches like a hungery (and very stupid) baby bird. And yes, all of his court Room monologues are campaign speeches. PDJT is delivering exactly the message he wants to those voters, like our host, who are finally admitting the Democrat Party of their Parents, the leftist progs agenda, is ruining the Nation. Those are the voters who will turn out in mass, the Elect President Trump in November.
When Trump started doing business in NYC and New York State, they were different than today. Rockefeller had been governor for many years. Another Republican was elected governor in 1994. Ronald Reagan carried New York state twice. Rudy Guiliani was elected Mayor of NYC on two occasions and barely lost on a third occasion. Bill Buckley almost won the mayor’s race in the mid-60’s. In those days, he could have gotten a fair trial. (Actually, a farce like this one would never have even been started.) In the insane atmosphere of woke New York, no Republican, except possibly Adam Kinzinger, could get a fair trial now.
HE (Uri Berliner) did the only thing He could do,
because they’re wrong and They can not admit They’re wrong.
So he has to bite the bullet. There really isn’t any other way … for Him.
Let NPR be hypocritical (at the least) He doesn’t have to be.
Remember this:
“I’m not fighting the War on Stupidity anymore”
“I’m not fighting YOUR War on Stupidity anymore”
“There is no shame in walking away from Stupidity”
‘Been There, Done That’ more than a few times. You have a good Mind Uri Berliner, and a strong will, find a way to use it.
Your not alone – in fact You’re in good company.
By the Way, You are very welcome to scribe the comments at this Blog as an ‘at home activist’ if you find the time. 🪶
Just wanted to add a note:
If you find Yourself in this situation,
Make the Break, because They will have to suffer Themselves.
An adage:
It was ‘broken’ before I got here,
It will be ‘broken’ after I’m gone.
Ain’t global communism great?
A true “public education” provider should not be government funded. If the public – in the form of donations – keeps it going, it then matches the meaning of “public” so much better than government bureaucrats.
It should not have a corporate point of view. To serve all the public it must remain truly indifferent about politics. Skeptical about everything. Give the lone dissenter a voice and let them politely interact with a speaker for the consensus. Serve the public as a whole.
Old.George
You are correct on all points. That’s why the Founders avoided funding education. They understood history, and the evil, govt pushes through govt schools. The Constitution addressed this though the 10th amendment, but the people willingly sold their freedom to educate their children, is exchange for 30 pieces of silver from Washington DC.
No more money for education from DC
Unions need to be outlawed for public employees. Even FDR knew that would be a disaster.
These two simple steps would be a start in the right direction, to regaining our educational footing.
Maher has demonstrated her deep understanding of what is meant when liberals promote tolerance and diversity exactly as did Mohammed bin Salman when he revealed Saudi core values in its treatment of Jamal Khashoggi.
One takes orders or one gives orders.
If Turley is truly enraged about political bias with media organizations, then why is he stone cold silent about OAN agreeing to settle Smartmatic’s multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit yesterday over their false 2020 election claims? Turley literally spent several years posting about Nicolas Sandman’s defamation lawsuits against the Washington Post, NBC, & CNN.
As Turley acknowledged when Sandmann settled with the Washington Post; “In agreeing to the settlement, Sandmann’s counsel stated that his client ‘agreed to settle with the Post because the Post was quick to publish the whole truth—through its follow-up coverage and editor’s notes.’”
Public records clearly show OAN, Fox News, & Newsmax weren’t quick to publish the whole truth about Smartmatic & Dominion voting machines. Yesterday’s settlement terms between OAN & Smartmatic were undisclosed—as were the settlement terms between Sandmann & the Post, NBC & CNN.
When Turley’s employer, Fox News, paid $787.5 million to settle Dominion’s defamation lawsuit, they also terminated Lou Dobbs & Tucker Carlson. Fox News still faces a $2.5 billion defamation lawsuit from Smartmatic.
Always enjoy whenTurley offers his views about the chilling familiar pattern of political bias within media organizations.
Your description of Professor Turley conclusively proves that NPR is not biased at all, and they didn’t suspend a guy who called out their bias, and the CEO didn’t post ridiculous left-wing twaddle, and NPR has always been middle-of-the-road, and NPR is not publicly funded.
OldManFromKS,
LOL!
And, well said!
UpstateFarmer, always enjoy Turley defenders offering their insights into why the Professor is so notably & predictably selective in his outrage. My initial comment offered absolutely no opinion of NPR.
Your rush to judgment is duly noted, UpstateFarmer.
Stone cold silent. You come here for enjoyment?
I come here because I’ve been led to believe this website has a tolerance for opposing views.
You come here because you cant get laid…at a gay bath house in West Hollywood…teeming with horny homersexuals….
Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Oh, and “Asylum” is a lie and a fraud; every “asylum” claim must be revoked and reversed if the related countries of origin indicate the claimants are welcome to return; all the way back to 1860.
Oh, and we have a Cuban guarding the border who just allowed 10 million Mexicans, Haitians, Central and South Americans, Africans, etc., conduct a cross border invasion en masse into America.
Americans should have impeached and convicted him.
Oops!
Looks like they’re not very good Americans in the Senate.
Whatever shall actual Americans do?
Give their country away?
“You come here because you cant get laid…at a gay bath house in West Hollywood.”
Ah, yes, another fine example of the eloquence & unabashed intolerance we’ve come to expect from Turley’s strongest defenders on his website. I can only imagine how proud Professor Turley is when his loyal fans reflexively go into attack mode when anyone dares offer any dissenting opinions.
Ah yes, the bitter bottom bloviates because he can not withstand a dose of her own medicine. Suck it cupcake since no one else will …
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA……,,iii
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Really appreciate Turley’s defenders clearly proving beyond a reasonable doubt how utterly intolerant Turley’s most prolific posters are of anyone who dares articulate any opposing views on Turley’s blatantly partisan website. Professor Turley has taught you well. Thanks for all your ridiculously laughable responses. Cheers!
Only someone with Turley Derangement Syndrome would be fixated the way you are. Why not just address the topic at hand? Whataboutism is as predictable as it is boring and unconvincing.
The liberal professors give ‘A’s and receive high scores on student evaluations while the “forgotten” professor grades students on their merit and receives low scores on the student evaluations. The result is the “forgotten” professor will give ‘A’s to keep his job and will perish into obsolescence from stagnating his intellectual curiosity.
If Turley is truly enraged about political bias with media organizations
You lie constantly. There is one thing our host is pointing out. Tax dollars should not subsidize NPR.
I wish Berliner had just kept working there, and became a thorn in NPR’s side. I think it was cowardly of him to resign, and at his age, unless he had a far better job offer, he should have stayed put. Nonetheless, let me be the first to say :
Ich bin ein Berliner!
New NPR CEO Gave Ted Talk Asserting “Truth” is a “Distraction”
“Acknowledging that Wikipedia writers are “not focused on the truth, they’re focused on something else, which is the best of what we can know right now,” Maher suggested the “truth” was not a priority.”
https://modernity.news/2024/04/17/new-npr-ceo-gave-ted-talk-asserting-truth-is-a-distraction/
@Upstate
I honestly do not care what NPR does or believes; I just don’t want to give them my money without my consent. And I would really like their entitled leadership to feel the full effect of this stance. We do not need them, it is quite the opposite, and the time for parley died when these idiots were installed in important positions. We don’t need to fund their ****, and I really, honestly. would like to see how they do on their own without government $$$.
James,
You get no disagreement for me!
Well said!
All I can say about this is: Sometimes the jokes write themselves!
It is remarkable that journalists that were apoplectic about alleged Russian influence in USA elections, never the less feel it is perfectly ok for themselves to influence elections through their reporting choices.
Did you say Russia, Russia, Russia, Hillary, Obama et al.?
_____________________________________________________________
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director,1981
Hi Prof. Turley,
Prof. Mass of UW, also covers DEI issues at UW, see
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-huge-dei-establishment-is-undermining.html
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/17/npr-editor-resigns-after-suspension-for-exposing-bias-and-intolerance/
Sincerely, Dan Harrison
The NPR CEO tweets are great fun and support my thesis that parody, satire, and fiction can no longer compete with reality (she’s a better Titania McGrath than Titania McGrath), but the fact that this intellectually vacant and ideologically excited midwit was chosen to lead one of the few remaining viable legacy news orgs is also an important marker for NGO teleology and where things are headed.
There’s no reason that NPR has to care about its mission, reach, or whether its listener base is shrinking. NPR can regress into smug self satisfaction, focusing primarily on the wants and needs of its employees and a small segment of the public that is closely ideologically aligned.
The narcissism and self entitlement of NGO employees is a constant force that threatens to pull these orgs off course and concerted leadership effort is required to ward off entropy and chaos.
The decision to elevate a veteran NGO midwit who loves therapy culture and mimetic ideological nonsense as CEO signals that NPR has no interest in righting the ship and is leaning into the chaos. A diminished NPR that can’t make basic sense of the world is of course a loss to the public.
The entitled people who diminish institutions always have hysteric counter narratives to launch about how it just shows that they’re willing to bear the costs of their principles and are following a higher calling, but it’s easy to see that that’s just laundered narcissism and that the stupidity, incompetence, and derangement of over socialized mediocre people who have found their way to positions of power is shredding institutions and leading to all sorts of broad negative externalities.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1780430616787374254.html
This is precisely the rationale in equity that the American Founders and Framers employed when they provided MAXIMAL FREEDOM TO INDIVIDUALS and SEVERELY LIMITED AND RESTRICTED GOVERNMENT.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) and wackjobs can be communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) and wackjobs in private and on their own time and without effect on normal people.
Double dip;
I follow the professor, and I read these comments every day, and there is no question, even with the paid shills, the vast majority of us think all of this is tyrannical, aristocratic, boosheet. These people are so blind, they do not fully understand what they are invoking, and they absolutely are, every day, worse and worse. I have never seen anyone digging their own graves like the modern left. It may take some time, but none of this is going to end well for them or their private and privileged culture. At this point the lies. the boosheet, the totalitarianism; sorry, but i honestly believe the time has passed for that on this earth. And it *isn’t* ironic to me that it’s coming from the left. They have always been the fascist, racist, classist pieces of cr*p the rest of us have had to deal with. Not new, and not gonna fly anymore. Enjoy your wealth as very wealthy pariahs, modern dems. quite literally, none of the rest of us are impressed or give a s*** anymore. The blinders are off.
If you consider yourself to be a ‘JFK’ dem; wake up. That s*** is as dead as he is. Stop dragging the rest of us down with your insular idiocy.
[Q]”These people are so blind, they do not fully understand what they are invoking, and they absolutely are, every day, worse and worse.” [/Q]
They are powered by absolute certitude. They know they are right and the worst of them are not open to the possibility that their beliefs are incorrect, facts and logic be damned. They hold their beliefs with the same strength as the most zealous religious true believers irrespective of culture or hundreds of thousands of years of history.
Such tendencies are baked into our DNA, like the need to stand upright, the need to speak, the capacity for fear, the need to belong, the capacity for mercy and empathy, the capacity for cruelness and blood thirsty-ness etc.
The same emotional needs that drove the Aztecs, Spartans, Romans etc. is found in each of us and is a mostly-adaptive characteristic derived from millions of years of evolution. One can’t beat then. One can only help to subdue the truly destructive of those impulses or channel them, and then only temporarily.
Brian,
Welcome to the good professor’s blog and thank you for the interesting comment.
“They hold their beliefs with the same strength as the most zealous religious true believers irrespective of culture or hundreds of thousands of years of history.”
And that right there is why I consider woke leftists to be one of the greatest threats to America. They are “true believers” that will double or triple down on their cult like behavior even when overwhelming facts counter that belief.
Dennis, Natasha, Sammy are perfect examples of their “true believers” cult like mindset.
Individually, they are cultist simpletons.
But in a large group, they are a mindless raging monster.
I read the article looking for one thing and I found it in the last line:
“However, it does not have a right to public subsidy.”
Elite is an interesting term. Usually it seems that people bestow it on themselves or to others in their circles. Sort of like the despicable little cliques we all saw in grammar school and later in high school. These people are so out of touch with real life that if they were to appear before a guillotine they would think the party had been called to celebrate them. I live in a university town but I always insisted that we live on the other side of the river where you have little contact with faculty except for those faculty who don’t like living near other faculty either. It’s so refreshing and pleasant.
It’s really breathtaking sometimes how stupid and uninformed these elites are. Their bias and prejudice seems to know no bounds. Katie Couric’s recent interview was a real case in point.
GEB,
Well said.