This weekend, I wrote a column on the continuing controversy at NPR and the bias detailed in a recent bombshell essay by respected editor Uri Berliner. The company has long been criticized for its partisan coverage, including running debunked stories. Now NPR CEO Katherine Maher has responded and appeared to confirm that the publicly supported media company has no intention to bring greater balance to its coverage or editorial staff.
Berliner detailed the complete exclusion of any Republicans among the editors of NPR’s Washington office and various examples of raw bias in favor of Democratic narratives and claims.
Maher responded to none of these specific points in substance. Instead, she attacks Berliner as “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning” to his colleagues by calling out the company for its political bias.
In a memo Friday, Maher told the staff that Berliner attacked not only “the quality of our editorial process and the integrity of our journalists” but “our people on the basis of who we are.”
In dismissing the criticism of bias, Maher adopted a spin common on law faculties where Republicans and conservatives have been largely purged. When confronted on the lack of ideological diversity, faculty often express disbelief that anyone would assume that they are biased simply because they continue to effectively bar republicans, libertarians, or conservatives.
Many also insist that there are more important forms of diversity than ideological or political perspectives. The result is the faculties today largely stretch from the left to the far left in terms of diversity.
Maher offered a similar spin while suggesting (falsely) that Berliner was somehow opposed to a diverse workplace:
“It is deeply simplistic to assert that the diversity of America can be reduced to any particular set of beliefs, and faulty reasoning to infer that identity is determinative of one’s thoughts or political leanings. Each of our colleagues are here because they are excellent, accomplished professionals with an intense commitment to our work: we are stronger because of the work we do together, and we owe each other our utmost respect. We fulfill our mission best when we look and sound like the country we serve.”
Maher’s response was hardly surprising. She was a controversial hire at NPR. Many had hoped that NPR would seek a CEO who could steer the company away from its partisan and activistic trend. The prospect could have brought moderates and conservatives back into NPR’s listening audience. Maher, however, was part of that trend.
Shannon Thaler at the New York Post reassembled Maher’s deleted postings including a 2018 declaration that “Donald Trump is a racist” and a variety of race-based commentary. That included a statement that appeared to excuse looting.
She is also quoted for saying that “white silence is complicity.” She has described her own “hysteric white woman voice.” She further stated: “I was taught to do it. I’ve done it. It’s a disturbing recognition. While I don’t recall ever using it to deliberately expose another person to immediate physical harm on my own cognizance, it’s not impossible. That is whiteness.”
She further stated “I grew up feeling superior (hah, how white of me) because I was from New England and my part of the country didn’t have slaves, or so I’d been taught.”
In her latest message, Maher refers to the unique (and controversial) status of being a state-supported media outlet. She noted “We recognize that this work is a public trust, one established by Congress more than 50 years ago with the creation of the public broadcasting system. In order to hold that trust, we owe it our continued, rigorous accountability.”
Yet, she made it clear that both she and NPR will not change or alter the course of the company. Despite a falling audience (that is now composed of almost 70 percent self-identified liberals), Maher made clear that she sees no problem in its exclusion of Republicans as editors or its slanted coverage. Reducing the size and diversity of your audience can be a good thing for editors or reporters if you have the government supporting your budget. You can then play to your smaller audience without any push back on coverage or accuracy.
As discussed in this weekend’s column, the question is why the public should finance this one media outlet over any of its competitors. NPR’s take on the news is largely the same as MSNBC or CNN. That is within its editorial judgment and NPR has every right to slant coverage like many news outlets today from the left or the right. Personally, I wish it would have retained a modicum of balance because I have been a fan of some of its shows. Yet, the media market has changed with consumer demands in favor of more opinion in coverage.
However, unlike those other outlets, NPR is being funded by tax dollars. While dismissing concerns over the exclusion of conservative or dissenting viewpoints, Maher suggests that NPR is still fulfilling its “public trust” with its largely one-sided reporting.
In the end, the real question is not the bias of NPR but the fundamental question of why we should be subsidizing any media outlet. NPR has long held a curious position as America’s de facto state media outlet (with Voice of America). The recent controversy should allow us to have a meaningful debate over the need and danger of a state-funded media.
This column appeared on Fox.com
“profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning”
But did she ever say he was wrong?
“Each of our colleagues are here because they are excellent, accomplished professionals with an intense commitment to our work…”
Ok, so I’m a grammar Nazi. But I do find it ironic that people who no doubt consider themselves superior to the rest of us can’t write a paragraph without breaking the simplest rules of basic grammar.
Oh, and I didn’t correct her “they are” because she probably wants that particular pronoun instead of “he” or “she” or “he/she.” Don’t get me started on THAT.
I won’t watch PBS TV news coverage, due to it’s biased editorial stance, it’s just as biased as MSNBC or CNN ( I don’t watch these stations either. I consider both to be comic book versions of TV journalism)). There is no “balance” to PBS’s coverage at all, you get left wing Democratic propaganda. It’s A-Okay to publish left wing stuff – we have a free press in America – but PBS is being financed by MY tax dollars. Half of America is conservative now, the election results tell you this, the houses of Congress are 50-50 liberal conservative. Yet PBS and most other media outlets – the majority – ignore conservative views and keep doing these one-sided stories pro- Democratic stories. I grew up watching Walter Cronkite, yes TV news was liberal then, but they made some effort to tell both sides of the story. PBS makes NO effort to do fair coverage, the station preaches to the liberal choir. As a viewer you can only takes so much of that. One thing I’ve noticed about PBS is that it is top-heavy on DEI type employees. Have they hired a white male to work at PBS in the last 20 years? Is it possible to go overboard – get carried away – with DEI hiring? Yes, I think it is. Clearly the fact that women and African American tend to be Democrats, often strong Democrats – is skewing news coverage at PBS and other media outlets. PBS and other media outlets need to hire more men, and more conservatives, if they did this the coverage of politics would be more balanced. Men, of course, tend to be conservative and tend to vote Republican these days. Conversely, more women vote for the Democrats and are liberal on many issues. Because newsrooms are now jam packed with DEI hires news coverage has become too slanted. PBS and other left wing liberals tatiosna re losing viewers over this.
Curiously he didn’t say it was a lie…
I used to listen to a NPR program called All Things Considered. Guess I was wrong.
delmaracer: No, you were not. I was still in school during those years, but later able to ascertain that the programs’ hosts were so neutral and impartial that it was hard to tell which guest or political view they favored.
They solicited commentary from both sides, and stayed neutral. I vaguely remember Susan Strasburg (sp?), (who was clearly on the Left, but was so good during her interviews) and I remember Diane Rhem likewise, who treated both sides with respect and honest attentiveness during political topics.