Harper’s Magazine appears to be competing with The Onion in satire this week. It is awarding its First Amendment prize to NPR CEO Katherine Maher. It is akin to awarding a Second Amendment prize to Gavin Newsom. Maher has long been the very symbol of advocacy journalism and bias. Ironically, she is being given an award after steering NPR into the rocks to keep her job and its ideological bias.
Many of us have written for years about NPR’s biased reporting. Not all of this criticism was made out of hostility toward the outlet — many honestly wanted NPR to reverse course and adopt more balanced coverage. That is why, when NPR was searching for a new CEO, I encouraged the board to hire a moderate figure without a history of political advocacy or controversy.
Instead, the board selected Katherine Maher, a former Wikipedia CEO widely criticized for her highly partisan and controversial public statements. She was the personification of advocacy journalism, even declaring that the First Amendment is the “number one challenge” that makes it “tricky” to censor or “modify” content as she would like.
Maher has supported “deplatforming” anyone she deems to be a “fascist” and even suggested that she might support “punching Nazis.” She also declared that “our reverence for the truth might be a distraction [in] getting things done.”
As expected, NPR’s bias only got worse. The leadership even changed a longstanding rule barring journalists from joining political protests.
One editor had had enough. 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.
Rather than trying to reverse the long slide in its audience, Maher doubled down. She ultimately made the best possible case for defunding NPR. She refused to resign, effectively killing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yet, Harper considers her a model of media.
In a press release on the awarding of the James C. Goodale First Amendment Award, Harper’s declared, “As president and CEO of NPR, Katherine Maher has guided one of America’s most important public media institutions through a period of extraordinary political, legal, and financial scrutiny, reaffirming journalism’s essential role in a democratic society.”
Maher has overseen the continued slide in ratings and revenue. In fairness, NPR’s audience has been declining for years. Indeed, that trend has been most pronounced since 2017 — the period when Berliner said the company began to openly pursue a political narrative and agenda to counter Donald Trump. The falling advertising revenue has led to deep staff cuts to deal with budget shortfalls. The shrinking NPR audience remains overwhelmingly white, older, and of course liberal.
Where others see the demise of a once popular and respected outlet, Harper’s sees a success story in an audience that has shed itself of conservative, libertarian, and moderate listeners — much like the audience of Harper’s.
The award is the latest example of how establishment media has become a ship of fools. Journalists now report for each other as the vast majority of Americans seek alternatives. They then give each other awards and continue to replicate their own views and mistakes. The one thing that they will not do is abandon their bias.
Maher is the greatest example of why these outlets refuse to change. Despite being blamed for killing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by refusing to resign, Maher and her staff still benefit personally from advocacy journalism. They are lionized by the left even as their influence and audience plummet.
According to Harper’s, that record is “reaffirming journalism’s essential role in a democratic society.” If Maher embodies the essence of American journalism, let alone a democratic society, why do so few people actually want to listen to her brand of journalism?
It is Uri Berliner who deserves this award, not the CEO who hounded him out for seeking greater balance at NPR.
Funny how X is spending the whole day responding to comments about him is the definition of insanity.
I’ll second that.
At a time when television broadcasting was an oligopoly organized by three corporations, when public affairs on radio generally consisted of a few minutes of news headlines between music programming, when in a midsize radio market you’d find little jazz and less in the way of classical music, and when in a market of that size all-news stations were atypical, you could make a case for public broadcasting. NPR had a history of having quirky material you could not locate elsewhere. The technology has rendered that service redundant. You might still want NPR and PBS as providers, if it weren’t the detritus of their hiring policies. You don’t get a staff as monochromatic as Mr. Berliner reports without going out of your way to avoid hiring anyone with an alternative perspectives. These are people who fancied a public institution was their sandbox. Time to take it away from them.
Still on crack we see.
The board of NPR hired George McGovern’s quondam campaign manager as its president in 1977. If they ever aspired to be an impartial radio service, that aspiration was shelved 50 years ago. Any element of federal communications law or federal tax law which grants special dispensations to NPR or to its affiliates should be repealed. Ditto PBS and its affiliates.
A long time ago, I used to listen to NPR all day, everyday. Sure, they had their bias but you could ignore it and still get the news. I had more than a few driveway moments too.
Then 2016 happened and they turned into the radio version of CNN panel-O-pundits that would perform gold medal Olympic mental gymnastics to twist and turn anything and everything into Trump’s fault. Even Market Place got in the act. It was so over the top it was nauseating. They also jumped on the DEI, racism, misogyny wagon train too. They ran an ad for a article about exercise and weight loss. I was interested so I stayed in the truck to listen in. It was an article about how exercise was a gateway to white supremacy. Really. America has a obesity problem and they tried to link exercise to white supremacy? It was that stupid.
So, I switched them off. I will tune in, in the truck once in awhile to see if they have changed or not. Nope. No loss on my part.
I did read Uri Berliner’s article about NPR, what he did to try to bring up the issue to management and their response on The Free Press, which I am a paying subscriber. It was quite telling. And all the more reason why to defund NPR. Now, if those who wish to hear biased reporting, they are free to fund NPR and not the general public.
So being a paid subscriber of a leftist media site makes you somehow credible?
I gather being a rude adolescent is how your enjoy yourself.
I gather being a rude adolescent is how your enjoy yourself.
Well the Pulitzer Prize Committee handed our awards for the Russia Collusion Hoax like Halloween candy, so I guess it is to be expected.
an off color term for this behavior is called a “circle jerk”
I’m delighted with Maher’s work at NPR. Her obvious bias has discredited the organization and crippled their funding. She couldn’t have done a better job if she had been hired to destroy the network.
Thanks Katherine!
I don’t mind that NPR and PBS are politically biased and propagandistic.
I DO mind that they continue to carry the deceptive facade of “public media,” connoting an independent balance of views in service to THE PUBLIC.
Cancellation of public funding was meaningless when they were allowed to continue under the same trademarked name. They promoting themselves as serving the “public” at large when in fact they serve a selective ideological proportion of “the public,” -all the while condescendingly stoking distrust, disdain, and disrespect toward the “other side.”
Lin, NPR is like how North Korea officially calls itself the DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea). Obviously they are not democratic any sense of the word.
National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) are privately held, trademarked corporate names. They are not government property.
The term “public media” does not mean a network guarantees perfect mathematical neutrality to satisfy every viewer. It refers strictly to the business and operational model.
They can operate under any name they want. Even if the federal government successfully stripped every dime of federal assistance permanently, the government has no legal right or constitutional authority to seize a private non-profit’s brand name or force them to rename their corporation. Doing so would be a catastrophic violation of trademark law and free speech. Turley would have a fit. Maybe.
WOW! Seven minutes after I post, you were waiting in the wings to pounce, and it took you at least five minutes to read, create, and post your response. Thank you, I’m flattered (which, BTW, is another response you have picked up from me. Keep emulating some of us, it helps us appreciate you more. yours truly, lin.
Waiting to pounce? No. Just responding to your post. Nothing wrong with that.
Why do you think you won’t get a response or expect one? It is a place of discussion and discourse, right? Why would you be surprised? I’ve got my own little pet hanging around every time I post something. The responses are almost immediate. I don’t mind them nor I am surprised by them. Why should you be surprised by my responses?
Emulating some of you? The tag-along “anonymous” keeps emulating me all the time. I mean, your snarky responses are an emulation of me. No?
Its George the crackhead at it again. He’s all over the place. Bouncing off comments .. between his X and anon moniker he’s posted already 43 this morning alone.
So? What are YOU doing?Just heckling and griping.
So? What are YOU doing?Just heckling and griping.
George isn’t it funny how no one plays with you, so you have to seek them out.
You’re seeking me out…every morning. When I’m not around you ask everyone where the heck I am. Missing me and pondering where have I gone to. I’m just posting opinions, criticisms, and rebuttals like everyone else. Except you. You just follow me around like a little pet. It’s endearing, truly.
Oh oh …. Georgie is off his meds …. paranoia has kicked in!
But you are always around. How else would you know “everyone” is asking where the heck you are? You are here all the time. You try to pretend you are different people but no one is buying it. We see through you.
We see through you? Are you stupid or sumptin? You realize you’re commenting as anonymous?
Lin,
Well said.
Even back in the day, they would run these little ads with Steve Inskeep narrating about how NPR was fair, balanced and factual and one had to roll their eyes at the premise.
A few years ago, I was taking my parents to the airport and we were listening into Morning Edition. At the end of the hour, when the show would repeat, my father said,
“None of that was news.”
I also recall an article they ran about how terrible it was to be a “trans” man in a mens prison, interviewing some “trans” man from prison via telephone. They then gave a breath filled report about a organization in the failed state of CA and how that organization was trying to get “trans” men out of women’s prisons. Of course what they failed to mention was the organization was a WOMEN’s organization. And they were trying to protect WOMEN in WOMEN’s prisons from men who gamed the failed state of CA prison system to get into WOMEN’s prisons and rape WOMEN. One woman prisoner got pregnant.
So much for fair, balanced and factual. Thankfully it was the likes of Maher who got NPR’s public funding squashed. Taxpayers should not be paying for propaganda like that.
Considering you’ve got no high diploma and one can assume your old man doesn’t either, what’s your point?
“Hey everybody! no one’s paying attention to us anymore! let’s make up meaningless awards and give them out to people that no one’s paying attention to anymore.
NOW they are award winners! WE are award presenters! paying attention now??? How come no one’s listening to us?? Hello? Awards…”
Turley got one of those a few weeks ago. He was very proud of it too. Funny how he disses awards that he doesn’t get. Kind of like Trump does. Coincidence?
perhaps “kind of like” you “dissing” comments that criticize your unsupported posts, often posted anonymously when you are unsure of yourself?
C’mon X, I thought you were smarter than that. yours truly, lin.
Dissing comments? Anonymously? Nope. Criticizing and responding, sure, but not anonymously. Not my style.
Don’t start assuming things without evidence. Sincerely, X
Imagine this from George: “Don’t start assuming things without evidence.” Ironic, that coming from George. Nothing he writes is believable, no credibility. Just spews lies.
So what are the lies? Point them out.
“Don’t start assuming things without evidence.” Evidence, you wouldn’t know it if it bit you in the arse George.
My problem with you is that whatever Republicans believe, you’ll be on the opposite side of that issue. If Republicans believe Democrats are socialists, you’ll claim Democrats are proud capitalists–not because it’s true (it’s not) but because it paints an equivocal way for Democrats to talk out of both sides of their mouths. You’re a sophist with an agenda. A perfect example of how the left manipulates meaning simply to gain advantage.
Diogenes,
So? Being on the opposite side or arguing an…opposing view is a natural part of public discourse, right?
Would you prefer an echo chamber where your views are never challenged?
Many here complain that I’m just a contrarian, perhaps so. But…I also have my point of view and as this is a free speech blog I will express it just as you express yours. I find it odd that others are literally intolerant of my opposing views and opinions in a blog where Turley is always complaining about viewpoint intolerance on the left.
Republicans are also quite the sophists and talk out of both sides of their mouth. You’re not claiming they don’t are you?
If anyone has a counter argument against my opinions, criticisms, and rebuttals I have absolutely no problem with that, I know it’s part of free speech and healthy discourse. Of course there are the usual trolls and “anonymouses” whose sole purpose is to lob insults and denigrate because they have nothing better to offer.
If you want good-faith discussions I can certainly have them with anyone willing to do it. I don’t expect to change anyone’s minds or change their perception, but I expect at least healthy discussions and disagreements.
You see the “left” as some monolithic entity or group that is disingenuous or dishonest. But refuse to engage in honest discussion and dismiss offhand anything coming from them before considering a valid point, no?
You on crack or somethin?
No, I’m just writing beyond your grade level.
Actually, I tricked you once, and you responded, forgetting that you had signed in as anonymous. Enough. “Let’s walk through getting back on topic. Thanks in advance. yours truly, lin.
George is all over this blog playing anonymous commenting, even to the point he’s talking to himself, claims he’s being stalked.
LOL! I didn’t sign in as “anonymous Lin.” Like I said, don’t make assumptions without evidence.
As for the topic: Is NPR biased? Maybe, but not to the extent Turley claims. His own network, Fox News, heavily relies on advocacy journalism, but he never points that out.
Today, NPR is mostly funded by private donations and local listeners. Since conservatives routinely dismiss and attack NPR, it makes no sense to wonder why conservative views aren’t featured more.
It’s just like higher education. Conservatives bash universities as leftist “indoctrination centers,” so why would they want to be a part of them? It is hypocritical to complain about a lack of representation in spaces you openly boycott. Has any prominent conservative actually tried to work for NPR? It’s hard to see that happening when they are busy loudly condemning it.
I didn’t sign in as “anonymous Lin. Of course not George.
You didnt trick anyone Lin! X is far too smart for that! Just ask him! He comes here everyday to correct Turley! So what if Turley is some law professor! So what if his blog is really popular with people from all over the world! So what if Congress persons and media figures come to his blog to read his articles! So what if his books make top sellers lists and are on multi printings! X is still smarter than Turley! I come here everyday to see X correct Turley! We need more people like X to tell people like me, short, fat, pale, blue hair shaved on one side, nose septum ring what to think!
You tell them X! You dont use other names like Gigi, Wally, Esquire, anonymous like Lin, S. Meyer has called you out on! It is just a coincidence that your comments read just like Gigi and Esquire and anonymous! You would never do that kind of thing! And it is so true that Turley does not get awards from heavily biased magazines like Harpers! He gets some awards from some institutions that have been around for more than a hundred years and have actually made contributions to society, and have big massive, impressive buildings and with a lot of really smart people as members! Harpers and NPR have Democrats! So there!
I’ve never posted as Gigi, Esquire, and Wally. What is apparent is you can’t make a distinction so you just lump anyone who is of the “opposing side’ as one and the same. Mostly due to poor reading comprehension and generally a poor education.
Turley gets also gets awards from heavily biased “think tanks” and “institutions” or “societies”. It’s no different than the Harpers situation. That makes professor Turley quite the naked hypocrite. They have Republicans. Ok. So NPR and Harpers. Cool. So what is really Turley’s point?
By griping about Harper’s choice for the award he implies there’s some dastardly dishonesty about it or there’s something contemptuous afoot. Because…lefty reasons? So? He got an award from righty leaning organizations because….he wrote a book. Ok. Cool.
Sure George, whatever!
I did attend a public school and reading never was my best class. But they still passed me! My parents said I could be anything I wanted and I asked if I could be a unicorn and they said yes! But I also wanted to be a cat too and they said yes to that too! Some days I would goto school with a rainbow tutu and a plastic horn on my forehead! Other days I would have cat ears, a cat tail and mom would paint my nose and put wiskers on my cheeks! I would meow in class all day!
I dont know what a naked hypocryite is but sounds naughty! Why would a heavily biased magazine give a person who announces to the world they are heavily biased against anything that is not left leaning? Please explain it to me X! And use small words! I cannot understand what you are saying sometimes! I attended public schoolings!
“Harper considers her model of media.”
Hunh? She model he ponder?
This is also the equivalent of awading Jack Smith and his band of FBI panties sniffers the Fourth Amendment Award.
There is no such award.
A penny for the old guy.
Such a joke. For the record, i have never been a huge fan of NPR – even if they weren’t blatantly radical in the past, I still found a lot of their programming smug and off-putting. Now, though – sheesh. Madness. They earned every marginalization they have received. The modern left is a dumpster fire, and if they ever hold majority power again we can kiss stability, maturity, and sense goodbye. Good riddance.
Agree. We’ve been consciously removed as a target demographic. As Professor Turley pointed out, “The shrinking NPR audience remains overwhelmingly white, older, and of course liberal.”
i.e. Woodstock boomers. The most entitled, most selfish, most self-indulgent Americans since antebellum.
Diogenes, it’s a good thing you’ve got plenty of options besides NPR. There’s Newsmax, Fox News, OAN, etc.
Geez… look at George X he’s just itching for a fight. Yeah Georgie, put em up.
Fight? Just pointing out some options. Sounds like you’re just itching for a pointless argument.
Still talking to yourself George. Go ahead, its fun watching a Schizophrenic.
Diogenes I love your comments but I do disagree about Boomers being the worst. Yes many Boomers are bad, but at least my generation worked, dated, got a license, got a real education, married and most had kids. Now look at todays little morons who take mommy to job interviews, if they finished their gap years, try to install socialism or communism, march in favor of Hamas over Israel, have no real education, don’t date, don’t drive, never heard or saw a conservative speaker and need trigger warnings on Shakespeare, who they consider a white supremacist.
You might be right, but who were their educators? Woodstock boomers, I’ll bet.
Diogenes, you make a great point, it is mostly my generation that is “teaching” these idiots. But a lot of the teachers are Gen X or Millennials.
James,
As I mentioned earlier, used to be one could listen to NPR, dismiss the bias and still get the news. They tried to spin it as if they were fair, balanced but anyone with an IQ above 70 knew better. Then 2016 and Trump happened, and the bias got so over the top it was nauseating. I quit listening. A few months later, Matt Taibbi ran an article about how bad it was at NPR. He was spot on.
I read Bari Weiss’s resignation from the New York Times and subscribed to her Common Sense newsletter. It got so successful, she was able to launch The Free Press. I have been a paying subscriber for over two years now. That is quality journalism worth paying for.
As the good professor mentions, if a ever slowly shrinking audience wants to pay for NPR biased so-called journalism, by all means. The rest of us will go elsewhere. Gladly.
Elsewhere? Like here and suck up and spew stupidity?
Is this any different than Oslo, December 2009 Obama Noble Peace Prize for, for, for…..
For being gay and black?
being black!
For being a mulatto.
For being elected by the Electoral College while being a mulatto.
For marrying michelle richardson. That deserves an award!
Do not have to go back to 2009. Along the lines of a Nobel Peace Prize recently to Navanethem Pillay. See WSJ:
https://share.google/1H09zKyDNwAZ2FAPO
Obama stole Reagan’s Nobel Prize, and that’s the truth.
Turley focuses heavily on Uri Berliner’s complaint that NPR’s headquarters has 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans, calling it a “virtual purging of all conservatives” and an “echo chamber.”
But…his pesky hypocrisy problem rears its ugly head when Turley ignores the heavy ideological imbalance at Fox News, particularly during its prime-time programming, which features zero left-leaning hosts and operates as a conservative echo chamber.
Fox News is widely recognized by media analysts as a pioneer and primary driver of conservative advocacy journalism in America. Crazy huh?
Turley mocks NPR for its “continued slide in ratings and revenue,” claiming that its audience is plummeting because people reject its biased brand of journalism.
Turley selectively ignores the massive financial impacts of advocacy journalism at his own employer. Fox News had to settle a $787.5 million defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems. Internal emails from that lawsuit proved Fox News executives and hosts intentionally broadcast false election claims to protect their ratings and avoid losing viewers to further-right networks.
Turley claims that good journalism requires a “moderate figure” and “more balanced coverage” rather than pushing a specific political agenda.
Turley’s own legal analysis on Fox News often mimics defensive advocacy rather than objective legal interpretation. For example, during investigations into Donald Trump, Turley regularly acknowledged on-air that prosecutors had strong cases, but then spent the remainder of his segments providing political distractions and defenses to minimize the behavior for Fox viewers.
Oh oh it George X heavily focusing his current lie!
What’s the lie?
Got facts George?
Again, what’s the lie?
Again, what isn’t a lie.
So what is the lie? Obviously you can’t point it out. Silly pet.
Still talking to yourself George?
Paul Simon – One-Trick Pony (Official Audio)
@X
If this were real life and not a blog, you could likely be charged with stalking, George. Find something better to do.
Oh leave him alone, its fun watching him meltdown.
Stalking? As opposed to my little pet “anonymous” who seems to follow me every time I post? He/she has become quite the groupie.
BTW. Criticism of Turley is always, always…fair game.
Someone’s living rent free in your empty head Georgie X.
You got fantasies about anon you’d like to share?
You keep following me around like my pet. It’s only natural that I address you as such. Good boy.
Someone’s living rent free in your empty head George.
George you’ve obviously lost it, claiming you’re being stalked by an anon on a public blog. You’re a laughable old fool.
And yet…you keep stalking me, like my pet. Perhaps you should actually put a name for yourself and distinguish yourself from my blog pet “anonymous” otherwise I will have to assume it’s just you…my little pet “anonymous”.
Anon’s got you chasing boogey men. Keep it coming George. Love watching you meltdown.
You tell them X! X is an expert at everything! He knows everything about everything! Construction, being a land lord, election law, reflecting pools, the Constitution, racism, DEI, college faculty, what other people think, what Jesus thought, and now the media! I cannot understand why he is not a supreme court jurist? And so what if he uses Google and AI to make his points that he cannot by him self? It is not lazy thinking! It just goes to show how he knows everything! We need more people like X to tell people like me, short, fat, pale, blue hair shaved on one side, nose septum ring, what to think!
Uh oh, my pet is jealous again. Sigh. So many moods.
Oh my! Meltdown time is here. You go George!
Mr. Crement’s usual one-note symphony.
You are comparing apples to tire irons. You of course correct on your correct about Fox, but the comparison to NPR is off. NPR relies on public monies for their operation, Fox relies on advertising. NPR should be much more balanced due to their reliance on the public coffers because the money comes from all walks of life and the entire political spectrum. The good Professor is correct pointing out the bias and lack of viewpoint diversity at NPR. When given the chance to back away, they doubled down and lost.
Ultimately, the shrinking viewer base says it all, they are losing their audience by shooting themselves in the foot.
BTW, Fox is comparible to both MSN and CNN. All three use the same business model with their own biased viewpoints. It is fine, except I would prefer none of them call themselves news. They should all call themselves news opinion.
Perhaps rename it “Political Hack in Posing as a Journalist” award.
This is a typical, Leftist dishonest attempt to deceive the public about the meaning of free speech.
Harper’s states that it is honoring Maher for fighting against government efforts “to punish or suppress disfavored expression by others.”
The government did not censor NPR. NPR is still free to express whatever opinions it wants. What the government (congress) did do was cancel public funding of NPR.
There is nothing in 1A that states: And government can expropriate money from some to pay for the speech of others.
@Sam
That’s because the modern left are honest to goodness fascists and part of a globalist regime. I don’t know why anyone expects them to show up one day and not be who they are, it isn’t going to happen. I absolutely believe in a multiparty system, but it has to be grounded on our Constitution; it’s time to let the dnc die.
Sam,
As usual, you missed the point.
“There is nothing in 1A that states: And government can expropriate money from some to pay for the speech of others.”
Are you sure? Because Trump did exactly that recently when he posted his political ads using…government money to pay for his speech. Even Republicans are condemning it.
Oh oh meltdown underway. Raging George screaming at the world….
It’s always easy to deconstruct professor Turley’s dishonesty with the facts.
Turley says Katherine Maher wanted to block people from speaking freely. That is not true. In a past speech, she was simply explaining how American laws work. She said the government cannot control what people post online, so websites have to make their own rules to stop fake news. She was talking about a hard problem, not trying to silence people. Turley likes to leave out pertinent facts to lead a bad-faith argument.
The group that gave her the award did not do it because they agree with her politics. They gave it to her because she kept NPR running during a very difficult time when politicians were trying to cut its money. Protecting news companies from politicians is an important part of free speech.
Professor Turley mocks people who give out awards. He says that groups only give awards to their friends to make themselves feel important.
But Professor Turley did the exact same thing. Just a few weeks ago, he proudly went online to celebrate a big award he won for his own book. It is unfair to mock others for winning awards when he does the same thing. Turley’s hypocrisy is as always….par for the course.
We can disagree about politics, but we should always tell the whole story and treat everyone by the same rules. Right?
Sure George whatever you say.
Awww, my little pet learned that from the blog. How cute.
Looks like anon got you jumping thru hoops George. Jump Georgie jump!
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984
I am going to reply in wokespeak.
George Orwell was a “Nazi” whose memory deserves to be desecrated and cancelled. And if you oppose this award going to the NPR CEO you are a “Nazi” too.
How did I do, s@@tlibs?
antonio
Donald J. Trump or President Donald J. Trump?
Signal gives Free Speech award to Joseph Goebbels. It is the same level of hypocritical bias.
To Gobbels? When was that?
I use to love listening to NPR. Not anymore!!!
Their biased reporting sucks.
They should be required to pay back the millions of dollars that the tax payers forked over to them.
Supporting propaganda outlets with public funds has always been one of the first policies adopted by repressive regimes.
First policies? You got any facts to confirm that?
What planet do you live on?
Um…. What planet do you live on?
Do you got any facts to you want to share? Think hard, come back when you have some.
NPR has been financed by the US Gov since at least 1971. So what US based regime are you referring to? Or are you referring to only foreign regimes, then which ones? Thanks.
How do you feel about the government paid for ads promoting Donald Trump?
Got proof?
The…proof,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-focused-ad-campaign-taxpayers/
You mean just as Obama did in 2010, recall Darrell Issa?
Donald J. Trump or President Donald J. Trump?
Which government?
You mean just as Obama did in 2010, recall Darrell Issa?