Recently, we discussed how National Public Radio CEO Katherine Maher made the conclusive case before Congress why funding for NPR should be terminated. Not to be outdone, Maher seemed to return to CBS to build her case further against her state-sponsored media outlet. Objecting to President Donald Trump’s criticism of NPR, Maher explained that “from my perspective, part of the separation of the First Amendment offers is to keep government out.” Precisely.
The portrayal of NPR as unbiased and balanced is laughingly absurd. Indeed, many of us objected to Maher’s selection after years of declining audiences and increasing criticism. Maher had a long record of far-left public statements against Republicans, Trump, and others.
This is the same CEO who attacked a respected senior editor who tried to get NPR to acknowledge its bias and restore greater balance on the staff.
Uri Berliner had watched NPR become an echo chamber for the far left with a virtual purging of all conservatives and Republicans from the newsroom. Berliner noted that NPR’s Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans.
Maher and NPR remained dismissive of such complaints. Maher attacked the award-winning Berliner for causing an “affront to the individual journalists who work incredibly hard.” She called his criticism “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”
Berliner resigned, after noting how Maher’s “divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR” that he had been pointing out.
Many of us were watching the CBS interview given the years of alleged bias at NPR, including spiking stories like Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Little of that history appeared relevant for CBS even though it was the record cited by those seeking to cut off funding. Instead, host Margaret Brennan omitted much of the complaints and kept the questions general and relatively benign:
“The language in there says government funding of news media and this environment is outdated and unnecessary, corrosive to the appearance of independence, and Americans have the right to expect if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting, that it’s fair, accurate, unbiased and nonpartisan. How do you respond to the implication that your news coverage is not?”
She then focused on issues like the use of woke language:
“The White House faults your editors for avoiding the term biological sex when discussing transgender issues. They apparently want you to use the term pro-life and faulted your use of the term ‘anti-abortion rights’ to refer to activists.”
Maher was able to avoid the type of tough questions that she faced before Congress and claimed to be defending an independent media.
For critics, CBS interviewing NPR on media bias is itself bemusing. Host Margaret Brennan has been repeatedly criticized for bias from her handling of the presidential debate to her recent pushing of the “baby hoax.”
CBS is also under fire over its controversial editing of the interview with Kamala Harris to remove an embarrassing word salad response on Middle Eastern policy.
After the Maher interview, Scott Pelley produced another controversial interview. He featured Democratic lawyer Marc Elias as an example of lawyers being attacked by Trump. Yet, he never mentioned that Elias was not only a court-sanctioned lawyer but also a key figure in the infamous Russian dossier scandal. It somehow skipped Pelley’s mind, or he did not think viewers should know.
The greatest irony, however, came from Maher herself in reminding listeners how important it is to keep the government out of the media. She is running a state-supported media outlet and has been protected for years by Democratic allies.
In the end, NPR’s bias and contempt for the public over the years are well-documented. But this should not be the reason for cutting off such funding. Instead, the cutoff should be based on the principle that democracies do not selectively subsidize media outlets. We have long rejected the model of state media, and it is time we reaffirmed that principle. (I also believe there is ample reason to terminate funding for Voice of America, although that is a different conversation.)
Many defenders of NPR would be apoplectic if the government were to fund such competitors as Fox News. Indeed, Democratic members previously sought to pressure cable carriers to drop Fox, the most popular cable news channel. (For full disclosure, I am a Fox News legal analyst.)
Ironically, Fox News is more diverse than NPR and has more Democratic viewers than CNN or MSNBC.
The CBS interview should be the final capstone on this debate. It is time to heed Katherine Maher. It is time to keep “government out” of the media. It is time to end the funding of NPR.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Only Congress has constitutional authority on spending money.
Republicans control Congress. If Congress wants a diverse leadership at NPR, why aren’t the Republicans doing it?
I don’t care about “diverse leadership at NPR,” I care about cutting government spending on nonessential programs like CPB, PBS, NPR. Let their audience fund them.
“Only Congress has constitutional authority on spending money. ”
How, pray tell, did Congress acquire “constitutional authority” over spending taxpayer money on functions that are not authorized to the federal government by that Constitution?
I quit listening to NPR quite a long time ago, but I recall that the Monica Lewinsky imbroglio was not mentioned by NPR for a very long time. My memory says maybe eight months, but that was a long time ago. For decades now NPR censors information embarrassing to Democrats. We don’t need to pay for that.
Maher jumped from Wikipedia to NPR. How? Wikipedia is an obvious psyops. So is NPR nawadays.
Ms Maher sounds like an old comedy routine with Lily Tomlin on the phone. “Is this the person to whom I am talking” has become “We need funding from the government for broadcasting in order to keep the government out of broadcasting”. Throwing in Scott Pelley and Margaret Brennan just means that Ms Maher has a background chorus and is trying to project this as a Greek Tragedy. She just to needs paper mache masks to complete the picture.
Ms Maher has about the same effect as Rosie O’Donnell has while talking about mental health issues.
I thought Parody was a way to criticize or lay bare a question. Instead It has become the major expressive artform of the progressive movement and its supporting media shills.
Thats the Greek Tragedy.
Maybe we should take the $1000 bonus being giving to self deportees and extend it to the mainstream Media. I have many destinations all picked out with accompanying literature that I could send them.
Oh look, geb just back to 2025 with his super duper 60’s time machine.
Please go back and stay.
Maher and her crew of NPR executives are simple grifters. Maher’s salary at NPR is ~ $520,000 per year. Seven other senior executives make over $400,000 per year. That’s about $3.5M per year for the top 8 NPR executives. But NPR is so financially troubled! Local NPR stations are mostly funded by local contributors, but a portion of that money goes to DC.
Here are the compensation figures for the top 8 NPR executives in 2022:
$520,714: Steven A Inskeep, Host, Morning Edition and Up First
$443,991: Jonathan D Hart, Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel (to 10/31/20)
$441,525: Scott Simon, Host, We and Up First
$427,455: Peter D Sagal, Host, WWDTM
$416,434: John Lansing, President and CEO
$416,208: Michael Smith, Chief Marketing Officer
$412,942: Michel Martin, Host, Morning Edition
$401,677: Rachel Martin, Host, Morning Edition
The NPR executive salary structure in 2025 is similar. https://paddockpost.com/2024/05/11/executive-compensation-at-npr-2022/
WOW Government work pays quite well
No wonder the USA is broke
I wonder what Radio Network Executive Pay Comparables are used to justify the NPR Exec Salaries?
The Television Network Execs make way more, considering the Advertising Commercials revenue they sell.
The Radio marketplace is completely different. Small Local Radio Stations have lost their relevancy a long time ago and have faded away much the same as Local News Print. Big Fish gobbled up Small Fish and today the ‘Networks’ rule the Airwaves. Even College based Radio Stations have bit the dust (Ones most likely to support NPR broadcast).
—
In 2025, ESPN’s executive salary structure varies significantly by role. For example, an Executive Vice President at Espn Enterprises Inc averages $397,753 annually. Salaries for roles like Director and Manager can range from $94,037 to $107,129 per year. Vice Presidents at ESPN average around $269,307.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Executive Vice President (ESPN Enterprises Inc): Average $397,753 annually.
Director: $107,129 per year.
Manager: $94,037 per year.
Vice President (ESPN): Average $269,307.
—
In 2025, the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Radio Corporation’s executive salary structure, like that of other major media companies, is likely to be influenced by factors like overall company performance, executive experience, and market demand. While specific figures for ABC Radio’s executives are not readily available, industry averages and trends can provide a general understanding.
Executive Compensation in the Media Industry:
High-Level Executives:
Top executives like CEOs, Presidents, and other senior leadership roles typically earn substantial salaries and benefits, often in the range of $500,000 to over $2 million annually, depending on their responsibilities and the size of the company.
Vice Presidents and Directors:
These roles often command salaries between $100,000 and $300,000, with the exact figure depending on experience, location, and the specific department they oversee.
Other Senior Roles:
Salaries for other senior-level positions, such as CFOs, CHROs, and CIOs, typically fall within the range of $200,000 to $500,000.
—
In 2025, Sinclair Broadcast Group’s executive salaries ranged significantly, with some executives earning well over $1 million in total compensation. For example, the CEO, Christopher S. Ripley, had a total compensation of $9,632,015, while Lucy A. Rutishauser, the CFO, earned $3,649,414.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown of some key executives’ compensation:
Christopher S. Ripley (President and CEO): Total compensation of $9,632,015, including $3,449,250 in total cash.
Lucy A. Rutishauser (Executive Vice President / Chief Financial Officer): Total compensation of $3,649,414, including $1,650,000 in total cash.
Robert D. Weisbord (Chief Operating Officer and President / Broadcast): Total compensation of $4,222,095, including $3,144,323 in total cash.
David B. Gibber (Senior Vice President / General Counsel): Total compensation of $2,231,325, including $1,216,688 in total cash.
It’s important to note that these figures represent total compensation, which includes base salary, bonuses, stock options, and other benefits. The specific components of each executive’s compensation package may vary.
—
In 2025, Westwood Holdings Group’s executive compensation structure includes the following: Brian O. Casey, CEO, receives a total cash compensation of $1,498,469 and a total compensation of $2,101,369. Fabian Gomez, President and COO, receives a total cash compensation of $804,173 and a total compensation of $1,219,758. Leah Bennett, former President of Westwood Wealth Management, received a total cash compensation of $341,667 and a total compensation of $695,888.
For a more detailed breakdown, here’s a summary of the salaries for each individual in 2025:
Name and Title Total Cash Compensation:
Brian O. Casey, CEO $1,498,469 – Total Comp $2,101,369
Fabian Gomez, President and COO $804,173 – Total Comp $1,219,758
Leah Bennett, Former President, Westwood Wealth Management $341,667 – Total Comp $695,888
—
In 2025, iHeartMedia’s executive salaries are publicly available and vary significantly based on role and experience. For example, the Chairman and CEO’s total compensation was reported as $12,948,720. Other top executives, such as the President and CFO, had total compensation around $12,618,203. More general executive positions like Executive Vice President, Finance, had total compensation of $3,598,507. These figures include cash compensation, bonuses, and stock options.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown of iHeartMedia executive compensation in 2025:
Chairman and CEO: Robert W. Pittman had a total compensation of $12,948,720.
President, COO, and CFO: Richard J. Bressler had a total compensation of $12,618,203.
Executive Vice President, Finance, and Deputy CFO: Michael B. McGuinness had a total compensation of $3,598,507.
It’s important to note that these figures are from 2025, so they may not reflect current or future compensation levels, says Salary.com.
—
In 2025, SiriusXM’s executive compensation structure includes a base salary for executives, as well as potential bonus opportunities based on performance. For example, Jennifer Witz, the CEO, received a total cash compensation of $7,000,001 in 2025, with a total compensation of $7,164,547. The company also restructured its performance-based equity awards, focusing on free cash flow with a relative TSR modifier. Additionally, Mr. Baer’s annual base salary is $1,000,000, and he is eligible for a bonus up to 150% of his base salary.
Speaking of biased media, what about this new Administration starting up its own censorship campaign? Weren’t they outraged at Biden’s use of govt. to wage infowarfare?
“Lawrence Livermore National Labs and Other Facilities Banned From Using Climate Terminology”:
https://www.independentnews.com/news/livermore_news/llnl-other-facilities-banned-from-using-climate-terminology/article_70d928af-712b-41e7-9086-5eabe609651d.html
JT, would you like to comment?
What they’re not supposed to use is what has also been dubbed “alarmist” terminology.
It looks like an attempt to prevent leftist meme phrases from propagating through government agencies. That is not entirely a bad thing.
It does not look like it will in any way prevent the neutral presentation of data. As examples: the types, reliability, and distribution of different energy sources in use in the US and elsewhere, the pollution and energy waste associated with building and maintaing wind turbines or solar cells, or the ecological side effects of energy sources.
As a senior who was never a listener to NPR but a frequent viewer of PBS when the broadcast signals are strong enough, the American public deserves publicly supported media, even if it is rather biased in the liberal direction. It’s needed to offset some of the plethora of extremist capitalist advertising and pro conservative programming on the major networks which are misusing the public airways for higher profits, especially since the conversion of broadcast TV from analog to digital. Am I the only one who’s noticed (rough calculations) that we now have about five times as many broadcast channels with about thirty times as many stupid, repetitious commercials disrupting and requiring excessive editing of mostly outdated movies and rerun TV programs? My primary complaint with PBS is how it seems to promote monarchy over democracy with all of the British programs they run, apparently for financial reasons. If not public radio and TV then what shall we spend the mere pittance of saved money on, more unnecessary drug research to combat epidemic chronic diseases caused by FDA approved food poisoning and mainstream medical errors, more WAR?
The new model is “pay to avoid commercials”. If we had a micropayment system, we might be in a much better place by now.
For decades, PBS and NPR were commercial free, and they’ve only backtracked slightly with very short (5 sec.) spots recognizing sponsors.
There is nothing in the Constitution stopping the People from funding public TV and radio. There are dangers in terms of government interference with content, and those attempts should be dealt with via lawsuits. Those lawsuits should also be available to be filed by citizens against ANY media org that tries to dupe the public for political effect, whether privately or publicly owned.
The First Amendment does not go so far as the freedom to manipulate through deception. We know this to be true because of defamation law, which defines a reasonable limitation on 1A, and has been with us since the Founding.
Thanks, but where in the Constitution did the Founders prescribe the federal government to favor extremist capitalist free speech over moderate socialist free speech?
“. . . the American public deserves publicly supported media . . .”
If you want to support that media, nobody will stop you.
The collectivist pronouncement “the American public deserves” is always followed by: And government will force you to support it.
Beware those who claim to be the Voice of the Public. Their aim is to control and loot you.
Public-supported media does not have to include public funding, which is the point. As for PBS airing British programming: such programs are generally of very high caliber, although “monarchist” is not how most people would characterize any of it.
Thanks, too, but most people don’t read between the lines and view between the pixels like I do.
“the American public deserves publicly supported media, ”
If by “publicly supported” you mean funded through Federal government by taxpayer dollars in clear violation of the strictly limited Federal powers described in the Constitution, G0 Fvck Y0urs3lf.
spot on
Turley likes to say that outfits like NPR or even Colleges and Universities have “purged” conservatives and Republicans from their staff or faculty. There’s a more better and more rational explanation for these so-called “purges.”
He doesn’t consider the possibility that conservatives have kind of moved over to their own news ecosystem. Conservatives don’t seem to like to have to adapt their conservative worldview to reality, so they prefer to hang out in the Fox News ecosystem, where conservatism makes a lot more sense. They don’t like their ideas or views challenged, debunked, or even mocked. Staying in their safe information silos and attacking the left is much easier than facing certain realities.
Giorgio, you’re such an expert mindreader of all those big, bad old conservatives. Bravo.
Perhaps you could tell us why conservatives/Republicans were “purged” from NPR or colleges and Universities.
Differing viewpoints from the HR activists. Also, make sure your name is right before you post, Sore-ass.
-Rabble
” make sure your name is right before you post,”
Dimwit needs to be sure which name is he using for which post to do that…
Although this may be true, it is also true of the progressive and liberals who have been hacking their wears on CNN and the other alphabets for quite some time. They have rolled the roost on their own and driven away, shamed, and vilified conservative thinkers speakers to the point where we are now
There are distinct cultures within conservatism. One is ethical, open-minded, curious and positive-thinking in its approach to problem-solving. This branch descends from William F Buckley, refrains from ad-hominem forms of attack, and are skilled in negotiation and meritocratic debate.
There is another branch which are low-info and low-ethics. They indulge primitivist tribal instincts of “us vs. them”. They traffic in wild exaggerations and phony conspiracy theories, the point of which is pure, unadulterated infowarfare and identity signaling. They don’t believe in blind rule-of-law, but rather a double-standard where guilt and innocence are filtered through a lens of tribal loyalty. It’s OK to cheat in elections in order to win, and losing is strong evidence that the other side cheated, blah, blah, blah. Issues aren’t solved unless by total capitulation on the part of the “other”, and holding to a fantasy of achieving dominance-submission is a core tribal belief.
It’s hard to even apply the same word “conservative” to both groups and their disjoint cultures.
Anon, your binary analysis of conservatism is weak. Essentially you are stating that concervatives are either smart or stupid, a nonproductive approach. Nature is diverse and so are “conservatives.”
If you want to dissect stupid take a look at Leftist policy positions. Note: I am loosely equating anti-American with stupid.
Binary is for computers
I agree that the left has its own version of “stupid”. Their culture is the same as the conservative version, based on tribalism, shallow thinking and reflex negativity. You’re right, it’s not a strict dichotomy from the smarter ones…it’s shades of gray.
OldFish,
Stupid leftist policies, biological men in women’s sports, pornography in elementary school libraries, supporting violent criminal illegals, forever wars, violent criminal biological men in women’s prisons, mutilation of children, just to name a few.
OldFish, He didn’t say that there are only two variaties of conservatives. He’s correct that there are distinct ‘flavors’ of conservatives. The more pragmatic and rational ones are in the minority in our highly polarized political climate. It’s not the “smart and stupid”; it’s more like the more open-minded and the ignorant. That’s not a slight on the latter, and it’s just a fundamental reality. Even the left has an ignorant variety.
And anyone who doesn’t agree with Leftist policy positions is unreasonable, impractical, ignorant, and stupid?
OldFish,
In their minds, yes.
Katherine Maher + Donald Trump = Perfect Storm.
Simple.
Libs hate the truth.
If NPR had really been unbiased and non-partisan, no one would have called for defunding. I wonder if they really believe their own rhetoric or if they are just so used to creating their own narrative that lying=truth to them?
I would have. There is NO justification for confiscating money from taxpayers to fund the production of media content. There is no way to make it value neutral. It’s ALWAYS going to have slant. That includes PSAs.
Does that apply to government exercising their own internal media production?
Here’s a story about the Dept. of Energy under Secy. Chris Wright ordeing the censorship words and phrases pertaining to climate change, and forcing his censorship mandate on our large, scientific labs. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss:
https://www.independentnews.com/news/livermore_news/llnl-other-facilities-banned-from-using-climate-terminology/article_70d928af-712b-41e7-9086-5eabe609651d.html
So now they claim without Government money, they will go broke.
Where did you get that? The local PBS and NPR stations are supported mostly through donations and advertising. It’s just the centralized NPR radio news bureau in DC that is highly dependent on federal funding. The locals will be better off without the infowarfare arm in DC.
Enjoy.
PBS is at risk of financial ruin if the federal government eliminates funding, according to the PBS CEO, Paula Kerger. A recent executive order from the Trump administration, aiming to cut federal funding for PBS and NPR, has sparked significant concerns about the future of public broadcasting
Bravo Professor.
Modern Republicans can’t host or repot in an honest newsroom because they lie so often. It is just not viable. And NPR does portray opposing views when there are legitimate opposing views. Obviously they can’t have a climate change denier or an anti-vaccination proponent on.
This comment is self-refuting.
And also, along with George (or Georg, apparently), a misspelling of their usual handle. I wonder if this troll is forgetting how to post under the same pseudonyms, so in his rush to get his misinformation out, he is now misspelling his monikers.
-Rabble
“Obviously they can’t have a climate change denier or an anti-vaccination proponent on.”
Human-driven climate change is not “settled science.” Open debate about honest facts IS science. It is the climate alarmists who cannot handle honesty and truth.
Asto your vaccine outlook, humans have evolved and survived over millions of years without vaccines. Vaccination is a recent and short-term behavior. There are very likely effects on the population that are unexpected, even not observed and attributed. AGAIN, open discussion is essential.
Questioning, always questioning, even those things that most consider settled issues is not denial, it is essential.
OldFish,
Well said.
“Open debate about honest facts IS science.”
Generally agree. I would prefer it stated that science is controlled experimentation in an honest attempt to refute claims.
“an honest newsroom”
Exactly Where TF do you claim to have identified such a venue? Wonderland? Oz?
There seems to be a level of desperation among Progressives in general, including politicians, much of the judiciary and the news media. They’re clearly not accustomed to being challenged.
Maher is absolutely correct; the federal government should explicitly acknowledge this, crediting her, take her at her word, and get the government out of NPR altogether. In other words, stop funding it, as she so inadvertently and rightly suggests is the answer
She wants to keep the government out. Everyone is on the same page. They can fund via donations or advertising. ZERO from government was always the correct answer.
Well said
Seen this before, same arguments etc. Looks like Turly is recycling his posts.
Nothing to see here folks, keep moving.
Bring on the clowns!
Don’t bother, they’re here.
Welcome karen!
By responding, you proved you’re a clown.
Any relation to Maher?