NPR (IV): The organization demonstrates its claimed openness to criticism by ... suspending Uri Berliner for one week without pay.
Berliner's essay prompted NPR to engage in so much self-reflection that they decided the best way to address Berliner's criticisms was by ... suspending him.
Well – the story just keeps getting better. In the past few days, old tweets posted by the new NPR CEO (Katherine Maher) have surfaced (well, were unearthed by Christopher Rufo and others) showing that, at least in the past, she was unapologetically woke and anti-Trump. One of Uri Berliner’s criticisms of NPR, for example, related to NPR’s unquestionably biased reporting on gender issues. What chance is there that they will start to take a more balanced, objective, and evidence-based approach to reporting on that topic when, a couple of years ago, Maher had tweeted that she loved Hilary Clinton but wished Clinton would not use the progressive-verboten words “boy” and “girl” when referring to ... boys and girls.
In my previous posting on the NPR brouhaha I noted several instances in which Maher’s response to Berliner misrepresented Berliner’s criticisms. Let me add one more. Maher wrote in that letter:
NPR's service to this aspirational mission was called in question this week, in two distinct ways. The first was a critique of the quality of our editorial process and the integrity of our journalists. The second was a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are.
OK – that’s actually three distinct ways, but who’s counting. More to the point, Berliner never critiqued the integrity of the NPR journalists and never criticized them on the basis of who they are - not at a personal level at least. What Berliner criticized was the lack of viewpoint diversity ACROSS the entire organization. That is very different from criticizing individual staff members because of “who they are”. And of course, when Maher is talking about who the NPR people ARE, she is referring to the race, gender, ethnicity, and gender orientation of staff members. In other words, it is MAHER who is slotting staff into categories based on their identity characteristics, not Berliner.
But as I frequently do, I digress.
Of greater relevance to recent (the past five days) events, it is worth noting that, in CEO Maher’s letter to the NPR staff, she also wrote that:
Asking a question about whether we're living up to our mission should always be fair game: after all, journalism is nothing if not hard questions.
and
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. When we are asked questions about who we serve and how that influences our editorial choices, we should be prepared to respond. It takes great strength to be comfortable with turning the eye of journalistic accountability inwards, but we are a news organization built on a foundation of robust editorial standards and practices, well-constructed to withstand the hardest of gazes.
A common quality of exceptional organizations is humility and the ability to learn.
What better way could there be to demonstrate NPR’s humility, its ability to learn, an openness to having their work questioned, their strong willingness to look inward, and their willingness to hold themselves accountable, than to … suspend a 25-year staff member who publicly critiqued the obvious progressive bias of the organization! Admittedly, the ostensible reason for Berliner’s suspension was that he did not receive permission from NPR higher-ups before writing for The Free Press (where his critical essay was published). OK – so suspending him had NOTHING to do with appeasing the many NPR staff members upset with Berliner? That doesn’t pass the smell test, especially not given Berliner’s seniority and length of dedicated service to NPR.
Interestingly, and to NPR’s credit in this case, news of Berliner’s suspension was first reported by David Folkenflick in an article for the NPR news site, published a little before noon today (April 16). Some quotes from Folkenflik’s article, and my comments, are below.
Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is among those now targeting NPR's new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the network. Among others, those posts include a 2020 tweet that called Trump racist and another that appeared to minimize rioting during social justice protests that year. Maher took the job at NPR last month — her first at a news organization.
In a statement Monday about the messages she had posted, Maher praised the integrity of NPR's journalists and underscored the independence of their reporting.
"In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen," she said. "What matters is NPR's work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests."
Given Maher’s history, it certainly does seem to be the case that she is an unlikely choice for someone who might change the culture at NPR — a point that Berliner made when discussing his suspension with Folkenflik.
In an interview with me [Folkenflik] later on Monday, Berliner said the social media posts demonstrated Maher was all but incapable of being the person best poised to direct the organization.
"We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner said. "And this seems to be the opposite of that."
One criticism I have with Folkenflik’s article itself relates to his characterization of The Free Press.
The Free Press is a site that has become a haven for journalists who believe that mainstream media outlets have become too liberal. In addition to his essay, Berliner appeared in an episode of its podcast Honestly with Bari Weiss.
I don’t agree with Folkenflik here, and I suspect Bari Weiss wouldn’t either. Indeed, I’m guessing that most, though certainly not all, who have been published by the Free Press consider themselves “classical liberals”. They do tend to be people who are displeased with the ideological PROGRESSIVE (which is NOT “classically liberal” by any reasonable definition of the term) hijacking of so many previously classically liberal institutions.
Folkenflik spoke with a number of NPR staffers before publishing his article today. Based on those interactions, he wrote:
His [Berliner’s] essay and subsequent public remarks stirred deep anger and dismay within NPR. Colleagues contend Berliner cherry-picked examples to fit his arguments and challenge the accuracy of his accounts.
Funny, because Maher’s response to Berliner’s essay did not include any evidence that ANYTHING Berliner had written is not true. And anyone who thinks that reporting on NPR is NOT decidedly progressively biased is either delusional or has not been listening to NPR during the past five years.
At NPR, some of Berliner's colleagues have weighed in online against his claim that the network has focused on diversifying its workforce without a concomitant commitment to diversity of viewpoint. Recently retired Chief Executive John Lansing has referred to this pursuit of diversity within NPR's workforce as its "North Star," a moral imperative and chief business strategy.
But Lansing’s definition of diversity did not include viewpoint diversity. If some NPR staffers are aware of “a commitment to diversity of viewpoint”, they have not provided any evidence of that in response to Berliner’s criticism, and certainly Maher’s response to Berliner did not provide any evidence of a commitment to that kind of diversity.
NPR investigative reporter Chiara Eisner wrote in a comment for this story: "Minorities do not all think the same and do not report the same. Good reporters and editors should know that by now. It's embarrassing to me as a reporter at NPR that a senior editor here missed that point in 2024."
This comment by Eisner is bizarre. At no time did Berliner claim that minorities all think the same. One would expect an NPR investigative reporter to do better than that. Eisner would be well advised to actually read what Berliner wrote before commenting further.
On Friday, CEO Maher stood up for the network's mission and the journalism, taking issue with Berliner's critique, though never mentioning him by name. Among her chief issues, she said Berliner's essay offered "a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are."
Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story.
So once again, this time in her communication with Folkenflik, Maher has failed to substantiate her claim that Berliner had offered “a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are”. Berliner is correct. Maher DID denigrate him by making that claim, because (as I noted earlier in this posting), based on any reasonable reading of Berliner’s essay, Maher’s claim is patently false.