NPR Journos Suggested Reading Their Site to Prove They Are Unbiased – This Was a Grave Mistake

In the continuing wake of distemper caused by the revealing Uri Berliner column, the folks at National Public Radio continue to flail in self-defense. While understandably dismayed by the accusations Berliner made, what has been apparent is that so many at this news outlet operate in a deep level of delusion. They seem resistant to introspection on the matter, and their denials are amusingly empty; they are in an echo chamber and incapable of even finding the door.

Many of the rebuttals offered by the NPR journalists have run in one of two ways, and frequently both. One is to focus on the subject of diversity and DEI — a topic broached by Berliner — and then declare the pride they have in the racial and gender construct at NPR. This is pure deflection, as Berliner was not critical of the efforts in this category but used it to underscore the lack of diversity at NPR editorially. He noted that in the editors’ ranks, there are 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans to be found. That reality has gone largely unaddressed.

The second form of defense seen has been the insistence that if anyone actually looks over NPR’s content, they will find out just how unbiased their delivery of the news has been. Well…as the resident media hawk, I took them up on their offer. This will become something they will regret. 

There are the big, looming issues that we are familiar with at this outlet, and those were covered by Uri in his piece – the lengthy coverage of the bogus Russian collusion, all the way through to repeatedly describing Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation as “The Don’t Say Gay Bill/Law” in deceptive fashion. And, of course, there is the infamous incidence of NPR boldly declaring it would not cover the Hunter Biden laptop story in any fashion. (Amusingly, NPR’s media reporter David Folkenflik was on MSNBC decrying the revelations about The National Enquirer stifling negative stories on Donald Trump, despite his own outlet’s catch-and-kill approach to the laptop story.)

So what of the rest of the content to be found? Is there any validity to the stance that it is not a hive of leftist-liberal agitprop? Hardly. In looking over its news coverage from just the past couple of years, there are plenty of indicators that this just might be a slanted news organization.

One of the current problems the network is grappling with is its new CEO, Katherine Maher, and her history of promoting censorship and limiting free expression. Well, we see her hiring is more of a symp tom. For years, NPR has been willing to explore the avenues of challenging the First Amendment (which Maher once said makes her efforts to silence voices “tricky”). It once explored with a journalist from the New York Times how free speech can pose a threat to democracy .

On the program “On The Media,” they hosted authors behind claims that free expression is a problem. It included the writer of “Free Speech Is Killing Us” and a professor who wrote “The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent.” There was also the Director of the Dangerous Speech Project, as well as a philosopher who looked ahead at the dark portent of free speech in our future.

They have shown at NPR a willingness to alter content to fit their narratives. Last fall, an interview with one of Israel’s IDF spokesmen saw his quotes get chopped up because NPR has a standing policy against calling Hamas a terror group and its actions “terrorism.” Anytime the word was used by the IDF there would be a break in the quote and alternate terms inserted. 

The hostility towards Fox News and other conservative outlets is a constant, and in this effort, the outlet invited on members of a new group, Check My Ads. They are tasked with targeting advertisers to compel companies to withdraw ads and funding from news outlets and programs they deem inaccurate or controversial. This is a curious promotion for a news outlet that relies heavily on corporate donations and squeals anytime pulling federal funding is brought up.

In one story about a transgender individual who was evicted from a home, the story framed it as a decision based on their being trans, but they had to go back and edit in additional aspects, such as this person having shot a police officer. We might question how unbiased this might be, based on this fractured report having been filed by its “Social Justice Reporter.” 

There has been a bevy of reports on items that take a decidedly leftist-activist bent, such as riding with Jennifer Granholm on her Electric Vehicle caravan expedition. They entertained one of the “Stop Oil” activists who threw soup on a Van Gogh painting. Then, there was the scientifically challenged claim made that trans athletes do not possess any particular advantage in women’s athletics.

The approach towards entertainment is also reflective. The network gave a glowing review of a film about eco-terrorists blowing up pipelines (“It neither condemns…nor does it present eco-warriors as nutjobs. These are not mad ideologues or parody radicals, but ordinary people whose reasons we can sympathize with.”), yet the hit film “Sound Of Freedom” was said to be a Q-anon thriller and was “fueling controversy over conspiracy theories and its depiction of human trafficking.”

Given this weekend will see the arrival of the annual Nerd Prom, the White House Correspondents Dinner, we’ll also look there. For last year’s event, the outgoing president of the WHCA was NPR’s Tamara Keith, and she came on “Morning Joe” to swoon about the arrival of both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It was a bit of conflicting messaging, as her network at the time was shrugging off the implications NPR was a government-funded entity, yet there she was gushing over the president showing up at their party to pump up the industry that has been propping him up.

Just to get a taste of the objectivity the correspondent Keith delivers, on her regular podcast, she covered the visit Biden made to Ireland. We get the sense this was a “deeply personal” visit for the president, given she dedicated three separate shows to this trip. 

There is also the feeling NPR delivers a bias in its approach to stories when the focus is a Republican. Following the “Don’t Say Gay” method there have been numerous reports about book bans in Florida. Ron DeSantis was also mentioned heavily in a report of a measles “outbreak”. It concerned all of nine cases, all in the same region, and there had been no new cases seen for weeks when NPR filed this report. 

But one thing is certain — NPR will be diligent when the topic turns to emojis. It has detailed the battle in the LGBT𝜋 community over the dinosaur emoji. It has promoted the use of nature-based images in your texts to promote bio-diversity, and they even tackled the dicey manner that using the wrong skin tone in an emoji could carry complex racial implications.

The news network that shudders to think people might regard them as biased had on its program “Left, Right, Center,” the host declaring that a vote for Donald Trump is a vote against the nation. “I as a journalist, believe in democracy,” said host David Greene, reporting from ostensibly the center. “I support democracy. I believe in a free press. Can you believe in democracy without being pro-Biden?” 

But perhaps there is one item that succinctly declares where NPR rests on the political spectrum. Each year, on July 4, the network has the tradition of having various on-air talent reading from one of our most famous founding documents. The outlet, in recent years, has seen the need to include an editor’s note with this presentation, heeding the possible sensitivities of its audience that could become offended by some of its content.

Yes – National Public Radio provides a trigger warning for the Declaration of Independence.