Has NPR lost America’s trust?

[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?

Rufo is a master at exploiting the giant traps that leftists set for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but NPR, is almost as biased as Fox. The organization doesn't have any conservative on staff or in editorial positions. That is crazy. And the imbalance is reflected in their programming. So many stores about how racist America is and how bad trump is.

The constant editorializing that the hosts do. Even Mary Louise Kelly, who is really good, tends to be really harsh when she interviews a conservative guest. And before anybody starts accusing me of being a MAGA loving trump supporter, I am a Democrat who always thought of myself as being a liberal but now feel out of touch with both the Democrats and NPR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but NPR, is almost as biased as Fox. The organization doesn't have any conservative on staff or in editorial positions. That is crazy. And the imbalance is reflected in their programming. So many stores about how racist America is and how bad trump is.

The constant editorializing that the hosts do. Even Mary Louise Kelly, who is really good, tends to be really harsh when she interviews a conservative guest. And before anybody starts accusing me of being a MAGA loving trump supporter, I am a Democrat who always thought of myself as being a liberal but now feel out of touch with both the Democrats and NPR.

+1
NPR jumped the shark a long time ago. They are now just a shill for Democrats. Which is fine, except for that minor issue of being funded by taxpayers! That funding needs to end, ASAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. Just someone voting to take away the rights of those they love. How many gays will lose healthcare and spousal benefits when the GOP does their next round of hetro only legislation. Will gay couples even be allowed to have kids?

Their legislative goals are clearly stated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. Just someone voting to take away the rights of those they love. How many gays will lose healthcare and spousal benefits when the GOP does their next round of hetro only legislation. Will gay couples even be allowed to have kids?

Their legislative goals are clearly stated

Oh, yay - the unhinged fearmonger has entered the chat.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. Just someone voting to take away the rights of those they love. How many gays will lose healthcare and spousal benefits when the GOP does their next round of hetro only legislation. Will gay couples even be allowed to have kids?

Their legislative goals are clearly stated

Oh, yay - the unhinged fearmonger has entered the chat.
DP

Oh booooo, the annoying gaslighter has entered the chat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but NPR, is almost as biased as Fox. The organization doesn't have any conservative on staff or in editorial positions. That is crazy. And the imbalance is reflected in their programming. So many stores about how racist America is and how bad trump is.

The constant editorializing that the hosts do. Even Mary Louise Kelly, who is really good, tends to be really harsh when she interviews a conservative guest. And before anybody starts accusing me of being a MAGA loving trump supporter, I am a Democrat who always thought of myself as being a liberal but now feel out of touch with both the Democrats and NPR.

+1
NPR jumped the shark a long time ago. They are now just a shill for Democrats. Which is fine, except for that minor issue of being funded by taxpayers! That funding needs to end, ASAP.

A shill for facts…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great question. Anyone?

[Anonymous]

NPR has great reporting. OP is welcome to hang out on the Daily Caller site and wonder why the writers can’t seem to tell the difference between there, their and they’re.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article is crazy long but does a better job of explaining what is going on at NPR and is consistent with what I hear from friends there


https://slate.com/business/2024/04/npr-diversity-public-broadcasting-radio.html[/quote

I thought this paragraph from article was notable: "And that’s what the core editorial problem at NPR is and, frankly, has long been: an abundance of caution that often crossed the border to cowardice. NPR culture encouraged an editorial fixation on finding the exact middle point of the elite political and social thought, planting a flag there, and calling it objectivity. That would more than explain the lack of follow-up on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the lab-leak theory, going full white guilt after George Floyd’s murder, and shifting to indignant white impatience with racial justice now."

[Anonymous]

Nothing proves your rationality better than mentioning Hunter Biden's laptop. Unless it's not understanding lab leaks.

[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.

It is not any inaccuracy in Berliner’s piece which are at issue.

Rather, the issue is NPR has cancelled (call it censorship to be accurate) Berliner over his opinion.

This censorship has compounded all the problems Berliner recently highlighted.

[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.

It is not any inaccuracy in Berliner’s piece which are at issue.

Rather, the issue is NPR has cancelled (call it censorship to be accurate) Berliner over his opinion.

This censorship has compounded all the problems Berliner recently highlighted.

I don't think you understand the definition of censorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great question. Anyone?

I will answer you seriously, but I don’t think you actually want a serious answer. However, I will try.

As one example, NPR has repeated activist positions and language on medicalized transgender healthcare for minors without sufficient fact-checking or investigating. Take a look at this article here:

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/21/1087937431/a-third-of-trans-youth-are-at-risk-of-losing-gender-affirming-care-study-says

Now, I will state up front that I am completely opposed to state bans on medicalized care for children with gender dysphoria. My political position here actually lies with the obvious bias of the NPR article, although I also believe there have been extremely serious flaws in the medical treatment protocols and data support for those. But state bans aren’t the answer to those flaws.

However, I can still see that this article is woefully short on credible fact-checking. By 2022 there were serious concerns being raised globally about the effectiveness of, evidence base for, and treatment pathways for medicalized care for children with gender dysphoria. This article does not address any of that, doesn’t provide context for the larger scientific debates that were globally going on at that point. The article is unquestionably biased in my opinion.

As for a specific example sentence that isn’t fact-checked: “Adolescents using puberty blockers have been found to have a reduced risk of suicidal thoughts.” The cite for that is a study by Jack Turban, a physician whose studies have been widely challenged for data and methodology weaknesses, and who himself is a significant activist. By 2022 the flaws in the Turban studies were known and widely discussed. Other media entities such as the New York Times were citing Turban in 2022, but also giving context about his role. He isn’t a neutral cite, in other words, and isn’t a sufficient fact-check.

The Cass Review in the UK has not been covered or analyzed by NPR, which is itself a glaring journalistic omission, but even putting that aside, the review itself demonstrates that by the time this article was published in 2022, there were significant and credible concerns raised globally about medicalized care for gender dysphoria in children. None of that is addressed in this article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is crazy long but does a better job of explaining what is going on at NPR and is consistent with what I hear from friends there


https://slate.com/business/2024/04/npr-diversity-public-broadcasting-radio.html[/quote

I thought this paragraph from article was notable: "And that’s what the core editorial problem at NPR is and, frankly, has long been: an abundance of caution that often crossed the border to cowardice. NPR culture encouraged an editorial fixation on finding the exact middle point of the elite political and social thought, planting a flag there, and calling it objectivity. That would more than explain the lack of follow-up on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the lab-leak theory, going full white guilt after George Floyd’s murder, and shifting to indignant white impatience with racial justice now."

+1.

The total silence on Hunter Biden's whoring with Asian minors is the icing on the cake. Like there are photos of him doing blow with teenage girls, naked. WTF.