Has NPR lost America’s trust?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uri Berliner's article made it okay for people to say out loud what they have been thinking... NPR has gone down hill. Full stop. They are losing listeners and had to cut staff due to budget shortfalls. The organization is not thriving.

Naysayers who continue to defend the organization say all is great. But facts don't support this and Uri Berliner's concerns clearly resonate with a lot of listeners.

Every last one of them is ultra-left wing and cannot stand people who are different from them. They are not tolerant.

I can’t imagine you have ever met someone ultra left wing. We have our issues with NPR’s bias towards power and the middle. And towards the status quo.

Correct. I'm your normal middle-aged Resistance Lib wine mom, and think NPR is fine. But my friends/colleagues on the actual left think it is institutionalist garbage serving the interests of corporate America. I think they are wrong, but the idea that the "far left" loves NPR suggests the PP has never met someone who is actually on the left.

I've heard the same, and it always kind of leaves me speechless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now even less of a balance left

I would really implore folks to read the response from (fellow white male) Steve Inskeep to the Berliner piece. He takes time to point out the factual inaccuracies in the Berliner article. Not stuff that is up for discussion, just flat out shoddy research that should have gone through minimal fact checking before being published.

If Berliner has resigned, it is at least in part due to being hoisted on his own petard, by accusing NPR of bias while publishing a piece that would never have made it through fact-checking at any reputable paper.

Inskeep’s piece could be entirely and 100% true and yet NPR still looks very, very bad right now when you combine Berliner’s suspension and resignation with the current behavior and past tweets of the new CEO.

The problem is that NPR can’t have it both ways: it can’t selectively demand rigorous fact-checking, which is what it seems to be doing now. I’m shocked at the ham-handed messaging and handling of the new CEO and don’t see how she restores credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now even less of a balance left

I would really implore folks to read the response from (fellow white male) Steve Inskeep to the Berliner piece. He takes time to point out the factual inaccuracies in the Berliner article. Not stuff that is up for discussion, just flat out shoddy research that should have gone through minimal fact checking before being published.

If Berliner has resigned, it is at least in part due to being hoisted on his own petard, by accusing NPR of bias while publishing a piece that would never have made it through fact-checking at any reputable paper.

Inskeep’s piece could be entirely and 100% true and yet NPR still looks very, very bad right now when you combine Berliner’s suspension and resignation with the current behavior and past tweets of the new CEO.

The problem is that NPR can’t have it both ways: it can’t selectively demand rigorous fact-checking, which is what it seems to be doing now. I’m shocked at the ham-handed messaging and handling of the new CEO and don’t see how she restores credibility.

What current behavior of the new CEO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now even less of a balance left

I would really implore folks to read the response from (fellow white male) Steve Inskeep to the Berliner piece. He takes time to point out the factual inaccuracies in the Berliner article. Not stuff that is up for discussion, just flat out shoddy research that should have gone through minimal fact checking before being published.

If Berliner has resigned, it is at least in part due to being hoisted on his own petard, by accusing NPR of bias while publishing a piece that would never have made it through fact-checking at any reputable paper.

Inskeep’s piece could be entirely and 100% true and yet NPR still looks very, very bad right now when you combine Berliner’s suspension and resignation with the current behavior and past tweets of the new CEO.

The problem is that NPR can’t have it both ways: it can’t selectively demand rigorous fact-checking, which is what it seems to be doing now. I’m shocked at the ham-handed messaging and handling of the new CEO and don’t see how she restores credibility.

What current behavior of the new CEO?

The way she handled the Berliner letter has been abysmal. She’s essentially, by her behavior, done more to cement his claims as truth than anything else. It doesn’t matter what Inskeep says: she, by her actions, has endorsed exactly what Berliner wrote. She’s proven him right more than he could have done.

What she should have done is this: state that as America’s public news station, NPR welcomes a diverse group of perspectives. Stated that she is concerned with the allegations raised and is looking into establishing a neutral investigation. Not suspended Berliner as it looks like she is punishing a whistleblower for speaking up. Used facts to prove him wrong, if they exist. Stated online that yes, I’ve made some stupid tweets (because my God are they stupid) but I don’t believe in cancel culture and neither should you so let’s move on (of course, I suspect she does believe in cancel culture so maybe that would not work).

This statement from Maher is rank incompetence at best, and largely just serves to show that Berliner has made some valid points:

https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2024/04/12/1244456600/from-npr-president-and-ceo-katherine-maher-thoughts-on-our-mission-and-our-work

It does not contain any factual analysis, only opinion. It primarily talks about hurt feelings, as if that should be the guiding journalistic principle. It doesn’t address the substance of Berliner’s claims. It says it is making some changes with respect to process, but doesn’t explain why or what the goals are in any real detail. It’s a bunch of whiny gobbledygook and a badly wasted opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uri Berliner's article made it okay for people to say out loud what they have been thinking... NPR has gone down hill. Full stop. They are losing listeners and had to cut staff due to budget shortfalls. The organization is not thriving.

Naysayers who continue to defend the organization say all is great. But facts don't support this and Uri Berliner's concerns clearly resonate with a lot of listeners.

Every last one of them is ultra-left wing and cannot stand people who are different from them. They are not tolerant.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think anyone who is a Republican in 2024 is a total POS. There isn’t a single valid reason unless you’re anti-democracy, anti-diversity, anti-LGBTQ, anti-woman, anti-environment, or anti-fact.

After the last several years, I have no patience for their bullcrap.

DP. Yeah, this is what the PP was talking about. This is the opposite of tolerance.

DP. I will admit to an intolerance of outright lies and insane conspiracy theories. I do not want those repeated ad nauseum on any news source I spend my time on unless there is clear debunking that follows immediately.

If the GOP and the right want to have their views covered, they need to start saying something in the realm of reality. I am happy to listen to *conservative* viewpoints on finance etc. Bring it on. But right now, the GOP is the party of far-right nutjobs. Their lies should not be parroted unchecked.

And, just so you know, I feel the same way about the far-left nutjobs. Fact check them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uri Berliner's article made it okay for people to say out loud what they have been thinking... NPR has gone down hill. Full stop. They are losing listeners and had to cut staff due to budget shortfalls. The organization is not thriving.

Naysayers who continue to defend the organization say all is great. But facts don't support this and Uri Berliner's concerns clearly resonate with a lot of listeners.

Every last one of them is ultra-left wing and cannot stand people who are different from them. They are not tolerant.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think anyone who is a Republican in 2024 is a total POS. There isn’t a single valid reason unless you’re anti-democracy, anti-diversity, anti-LGBTQ, anti-woman, anti-environment, or anti-fact.

After the last several years, I have no patience for their bullcrap.

I'm a gay man and voting for the Republicans this year. I guess I'm a contradictory POS

Or masochistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uri Berliner's article made it okay for people to say out loud what they have been thinking... NPR has gone down hill. Full stop. They are losing listeners and had to cut staff due to budget shortfalls. The organization is not thriving.

Naysayers who continue to defend the organization say all is great. But facts don't support this and Uri Berliner's concerns clearly resonate with a lot of listeners.

Every last one of them is ultra-left wing and cannot stand people who are different from them. They are not tolerant.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think anyone who is a Republican in 2024 is a total POS. There isn’t a single valid reason unless you’re anti-democracy, anti-diversity, anti-LGBTQ, anti-woman, anti-environment, or anti-fact.

After the last several years, I have no patience for their bullcrap.

DP. Yeah, this is what the PP was talking about. This is the opposite of tolerance.

DP. I will admit to an intolerance of outright lies and insane conspiracy theories. I do not want those repeated ad nauseum on any news source I spend my time on unless there is clear debunking that follows immediately.

If the GOP and the right want to have their views covered, they need to start saying something in the realm of reality. I am happy to listen to *conservative* viewpoints on finance etc. Bring it on. But right now, the GOP is the party of far-right nutjobs. Their lies should not be parroted unchecked.

And, just so you know, I feel the same way about the far-left nutjobs. Fact check them.

Which doesn’t seem to be what NPR is willing to do any more. That’s why we are in this mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uri Berliner's article made it okay for people to say out loud what they have been thinking... NPR has gone down hill. Full stop. They are losing listeners and had to cut staff due to budget shortfalls. The organization is not thriving.

Naysayers who continue to defend the organization say all is great. But facts don't support this and Uri Berliner's concerns clearly resonate with a lot of listeners.

Every last one of them is ultra-left wing and cannot stand people who are different from them. They are not tolerant.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think anyone who is a Republican in 2024 is a total POS. There isn’t a single valid reason unless you’re anti-democracy, anti-diversity, anti-LGBTQ, anti-woman, anti-environment, or anti-fact.

After the last several years, I have no patience for their bullcrap.

DP. Yeah, this is what the PP was talking about. This is the opposite of tolerance.

DP. I will admit to an intolerance of outright lies and insane conspiracy theories. I do not want those repeated ad nauseum on any news source I spend my time on unless there is clear debunking that follows immediately.

If the GOP and the right want to have their views covered, they need to start saying something in the realm of reality. I am happy to listen to *conservative* viewpoints on finance etc. Bring it on. But right now, the GOP is the party of far-right nutjobs. Their lies should not be parroted unchecked.

And, just so you know, I feel the same way about the far-left nutjobs. Fact check them.

Which doesn’t seem to be what NPR is willing to do any more. That’s why we are in this mess.

I don't think NPR is perfect. I don't think any news organization is perfect. But I think this hit job is also off the mark and full of inaccuracies. NPR is not as far-left as people are claiming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uri Berliner's article made it okay for people to say out loud what they have been thinking... NPR has gone down hill. Full stop. They are losing listeners and had to cut staff due to budget shortfalls. The organization is not thriving.

Naysayers who continue to defend the organization say all is great. But facts don't support this and Uri Berliner's concerns clearly resonate with a lot of listeners.

Every last one of them is ultra-left wing and cannot stand people who are different from them. They are not tolerant.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think anyone who is a Republican in 2024 is a total POS. There isn’t a single valid reason unless you’re anti-democracy, anti-diversity, anti-LGBTQ, anti-woman, anti-environment, or anti-fact.

After the last several years, I have no patience for their bullcrap.

DP. Yeah, this is what the PP was talking about. This is the opposite of tolerance.

DP. I will admit to an intolerance of outright lies and insane conspiracy theories. I do not want those repeated ad nauseum on any news source I spend my time on unless there is clear debunking that follows immediately.

If the GOP and the right want to have their views covered, they need to start saying something in the realm of reality. I am happy to listen to *conservative* viewpoints on finance etc. Bring it on. But right now, the GOP is the party of far-right nutjobs. Their lies should not be parroted unchecked.

And, just so you know, I feel the same way about the far-left nutjobs. Fact check them.

Which doesn’t seem to be what NPR is willing to do any more. That’s why we are in this mess.

Please give an example of a far-left position that was reported without fact checking. I'm truly asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Correct. I'm your normal middle-aged Resistance Lib wine mom, and think NPR is fine. But my friends/colleagues on the actual left think it is institutionalist garbage serving the interests of corporate America. I think they are wrong, but the idea that the "far left" loves NPR suggests the PP has never met someone who is actually on the left.

Or worse, when those people claim to be Democrats and then talk about how the "far left" loves NPR.

I actually am to the left of you, and think NPR is fine too. Sure, it dabbles in a bit too much both-sidesism, but does less than most other outlets without descending into hysterics. Actual far left types hate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now even less of a balance left

I would really implore folks to read the response from (fellow white male) Steve Inskeep to the Berliner piece. He takes time to point out the factual inaccuracies in the Berliner article. Not stuff that is up for discussion, just flat out shoddy research that should have gone through minimal fact checking before being published.

If Berliner has resigned, it is at least in part due to being hoisted on his own petard, by accusing NPR of bias while publishing a piece that would never have made it through fact-checking at any reputable paper.

Inskeep’s piece could be entirely and 100% true and yet NPR still looks very, very bad right now when you combine Berliner’s suspension and resignation with the current behavior and past tweets of the new CEO.

The problem is that NPR can’t have it both ways: it can’t selectively demand rigorous fact-checking, which is what it seems to be doing now. I’m shocked at the ham-handed messaging and handling of the new CEO and don’t see how she restores credibility.

What current behavior of the new CEO?

The way she handled the Berliner letter has been abysmal. She’s essentially, by her behavior, done more to cement his claims as truth than anything else. It doesn’t matter what Inskeep says: she, by her actions, has endorsed exactly what Berliner wrote. She’s proven him right more than he could have done.

What she should have done is this: state that as America’s public news station, NPR welcomes a diverse group of perspectives. Stated that she is concerned with the allegations raised and is looking into establishing a neutral investigation. Not suspended Berliner as it looks like she is punishing a whistleblower for speaking up. Used facts to prove him wrong, if they exist. Stated online that yes, I’ve made some stupid tweets (because my God are they stupid) but I don’t believe in cancel culture and neither should you so let’s move on (of course, I suspect she does believe in cancel culture so maybe that would not work).

This statement from Maher is rank incompetence at best, and largely just serves to show that Berliner has made some valid points:

https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2024/04/12/1244456600/from-npr-president-and-ceo-katherine-maher-thoughts-on-our-mission-and-our-work

It does not contain any factual analysis, only opinion. It primarily talks about hurt feelings, as if that should be the guiding journalistic principle. It doesn’t address the substance of Berliner’s claims. It says it is making some changes with respect to process, but doesn’t explain why or what the goals are in any real detail. It’s a bunch of whiny gobbledygook and a badly wasted opportunity.

PP, do you think Christopher Rufo would call off the dogs and become an NPR listener if she did any of what you suggest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now even less of a balance left

I would really implore folks to read the response from (fellow white male) Steve Inskeep to the Berliner piece. He takes time to point out the factual inaccuracies in the Berliner article. Not stuff that is up for discussion, just flat out shoddy research that should have gone through minimal fact checking before being published.

If Berliner has resigned, it is at least in part due to being hoisted on his own petard, by accusing NPR of bias while publishing a piece that would never have made it through fact-checking at any reputable paper.

Inskeep’s piece could be entirely and 100% true and yet NPR still looks very, very bad right now when you combine Berliner’s suspension and resignation with the current behavior and past tweets of the new CEO.

The problem is that NPR can’t have it both ways: it can’t selectively demand rigorous fact-checking, which is what it seems to be doing now. I’m shocked at the ham-handed messaging and handling of the new CEO and don’t see how she restores credibility.

What current behavior of the new CEO?

The way she handled the Berliner letter has been abysmal. She’s essentially, by her behavior, done more to cement his claims as truth than anything else. It doesn’t matter what Inskeep says: she, by her actions, has endorsed exactly what Berliner wrote. She’s proven him right more than he could have done.

What she should have done is this: state that as America’s public news station, NPR welcomes a diverse group of perspectives. Stated that she is concerned with the allegations raised and is looking into establishing a neutral investigation. Not suspended Berliner as it looks like she is punishing a whistleblower for speaking up. Used facts to prove him wrong, if they exist. Stated online that yes, I’ve made some stupid tweets (because my God are they stupid) but I don’t believe in cancel culture and neither should you so let’s move on (of course, I suspect she does believe in cancel culture so maybe that would not work).

This statement from Maher is rank incompetence at best, and largely just serves to show that Berliner has made some valid points:

https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2024/04/12/1244456600/from-npr-president-and-ceo-katherine-maher-thoughts-on-our-mission-and-our-work

It does not contain any factual analysis, only opinion. It primarily talks about hurt feelings, as if that should be the guiding journalistic principle. It doesn’t address the substance of Berliner’s claims. It says it is making some changes with respect to process, but doesn’t explain why or what the goals are in any real detail. It’s a bunch of whiny gobbledygook and a badly wasted opportunity.

PP, do you think Christopher Rufo would call off the dogs and become an NPR listener if she did any of what you suggest?

Why does that matter? Why on earth should her goal be to make a listener out of Rufo? She is the CEO. She should be able to stand behind or address tweets that she literally wrote. If she cannot handle her own tweets being surfaced and mocked by someone like Rufo, she should not be CEO. The whole idea that the CEO of a supposedly rigorous public news agency needs to have “dogs” called off is, candidly, insane. If she can’t handle something as milquetoast as her own words being resurfaced, she can’t handle any actually hard editorial process or challenging journalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now even less of a balance left

I would really implore folks to read the response from (fellow white male) Steve Inskeep to the Berliner piece. He takes time to point out the factual inaccuracies in the Berliner article. Not stuff that is up for discussion, just flat out shoddy research that should have gone through minimal fact checking before being published.

If Berliner has resigned, it is at least in part due to being hoisted on his own petard, by accusing NPR of bias while publishing a piece that would never have made it through fact-checking at any reputable paper.

Inskeep’s piece could be entirely and 100% true and yet NPR still looks very, very bad right now when you combine Berliner’s suspension and resignation with the current behavior and past tweets of the new CEO.

The problem is that NPR can’t have it both ways: it can’t selectively demand rigorous fact-checking, which is what it seems to be doing now. I’m shocked at the ham-handed messaging and handling of the new CEO and don’t see how she restores credibility.

What current behavior of the new CEO?

The way she handled the Berliner letter has been abysmal. She’s essentially, by her behavior, done more to cement his claims as truth than anything else. It doesn’t matter what Inskeep says: she, by her actions, has endorsed exactly what Berliner wrote. She’s proven him right more than he could have done.

What she should have done is this: state that as America’s public news station, NPR welcomes a diverse group of perspectives. Stated that she is concerned with the allegations raised and is looking into establishing a neutral investigation. Not suspended Berliner as it looks like she is punishing a whistleblower for speaking up. Used facts to prove him wrong, if they exist. Stated online that yes, I’ve made some stupid tweets (because my God are they stupid) but I don’t believe in cancel culture and neither should you so let’s move on (of course, I suspect she does believe in cancel culture so maybe that would not work).

This statement from Maher is rank incompetence at best, and largely just serves to show that Berliner has made some valid points:

https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2024/04/12/1244456600/from-npr-president-and-ceo-katherine-maher-thoughts-on-our-mission-and-our-work

It does not contain any factual analysis, only opinion. It primarily talks about hurt feelings, as if that should be the guiding journalistic principle. It doesn’t address the substance of Berliner’s claims. It says it is making some changes with respect to process, but doesn’t explain why or what the goals are in any real detail. It’s a bunch of whiny gobbledygook and a badly wasted opportunity.

PP, do you think Christopher Rufo would call off the dogs and become an NPR listener if she did any of what you suggest?

Why does that matter? Why on earth should her goal be to make a listener out of Rufo? She is the CEO. She should be able to stand behind or address tweets that she literally wrote. If she cannot handle her own tweets being surfaced and mocked by someone like Rufo, she should not be CEO. The whole idea that the CEO of a supposedly rigorous public news agency needs to have “dogs” called off is, candidly, insane. If she can’t handle something as milquetoast as her own words being resurfaced, she can’t handle any actually hard editorial process or challenging journalism.

She's the CEO. Her job is actually to stay out of the editorial process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now even less of a balance left

I would really implore folks to read the response from (fellow white male) Steve Inskeep to the Berliner piece. He takes time to point out the factual inaccuracies in the Berliner article. Not stuff that is up for discussion, just flat out shoddy research that should have gone through minimal fact checking before being published.

If Berliner has resigned, it is at least in part due to being hoisted on his own petard, by accusing NPR of bias while publishing a piece that would never have made it through fact-checking at any reputable paper.

Inskeep’s piece could be entirely and 100% true and yet NPR still looks very, very bad right now when you combine Berliner’s suspension and resignation with the current behavior and past tweets of the new CEO.

The problem is that NPR can’t have it both ways: it can’t selectively demand rigorous fact-checking, which is what it seems to be doing now. I’m shocked at the ham-handed messaging and handling of the new CEO and don’t see how she restores credibility.

What current behavior of the new CEO?

The way she handled the Berliner letter has been abysmal. She’s essentially, by her behavior, done more to cement his claims as truth than anything else. It doesn’t matter what Inskeep says: she, by her actions, has endorsed exactly what Berliner wrote. She’s proven him right more than he could have done.

What she should have done is this: state that as America’s public news station, NPR welcomes a diverse group of perspectives. Stated that she is concerned with the allegations raised and is looking into establishing a neutral investigation. Not suspended Berliner as it looks like she is punishing a whistleblower for speaking up. Used facts to prove him wrong, if they exist. Stated online that yes, I’ve made some stupid tweets (because my God are they stupid) but I don’t believe in cancel culture and neither should you so let’s move on (of course, I suspect she does believe in cancel culture so maybe that would not work).

This statement from Maher is rank incompetence at best, and largely just serves to show that Berliner has made some valid points:

https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2024/04/12/1244456600/from-npr-president-and-ceo-katherine-maher-thoughts-on-our-mission-and-our-work

It does not contain any factual analysis, only opinion. It primarily talks about hurt feelings, as if that should be the guiding journalistic principle. It doesn’t address the substance of Berliner’s claims. It says it is making some changes with respect to process, but doesn’t explain why or what the goals are in any real detail. It’s a bunch of whiny gobbledygook and a badly wasted opportunity.

PP, do you think Christopher Rufo would call off the dogs and become an NPR listener if she did any of what you suggest?

Why does that matter? Why on earth should her goal be to make a listener out of Rufo? She is the CEO. She should be able to stand behind or address tweets that she literally wrote. If she cannot handle her own tweets being surfaced and mocked by someone like Rufo, she should not be CEO. The whole idea that the CEO of a supposedly rigorous public news agency needs to have “dogs” called off is, candidly, insane. If she can’t handle something as milquetoast as her own words being resurfaced, she can’t handle any actually hard editorial process or challenging journalism.

She's the CEO. Her job is actually to stay out of the editorial process.

Her job is to make sure NPR continues to be well-respected (something at serious risk now), get funding, and drive the organization forward successfully. All we know about her so far is that she’s punished a whistleblower, her feelings get hurt easily, and she can’t handle being mocked for ludicrous tweets she wrote herself. That doesn’t bode well for the organization at all.

[Anonymous]

Tuned in this afternoon and there was yet another drag queen story …