Bias at NPR (II)
A verteran NPR editor has written an essay highly critical of what he claims is a progressive ideology bias at NPR. The response by NPR executives has not been impressive -- to say the least.
A week or so ago I discussed a particular NPR story that I felt was reflective of a general anti-Israel bias in NPR’s reporting of the war – a bias that was itself (I argued) reflective of a more general progressive-ideological bias that has increasingly permeated all NPR content during the past five years. It turns out that my posting was quite timely, because yesterday (April 9), Uri Berliner, a long-time reporter and editor at NPR, published a scathing essay about that kind bias at NPR – an essay that has been garnering a lot of media attention..
The TLDR on his lengthy (about 3500 words) essay is the argument (bolstered by reference to specific events behind the scenes at NPR) that soon after the death of George Floyd, there was an explicit change (dictated by the new top executive at NPR at the time) in the mission of NPR from objective truth-telling to the promotion of social justice. Berliner details a host of examples of biased reporting by NPR since then, and he also notes that, somewhat ironically, the increasing capture of NPR by DEI ideology has resulted in both a reduction in the average number of listeners and a lessening of the diversity of the NPR audience. Basically, the NPR audience is increasingly consisting of people who have a lot in common with most NPR staff — college educated, living on one of the coasts, and supportive of progressive politics.
Berliner’s entire essay is well worth reading, as is listening to the podcast interview with Berliner by Bari Weiss (the essay was published by Weiss’s Free Press).
What has been the response by NPR itself? Posted on the NPR website today is an article by “NPR Media Correspondent” David Folkenflik under the enticing headline “NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust”. Folkenflik writes:
“NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.”
OK (I thought when reading this) – we’re about to get a full-throated and detailed, footnote-dense, response to Berliner’s claims. H’mm. Not exactly! The Folkenflik article continues (the “she” in the text below is Ms. Chapin):
"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world.. ...
A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.”
Well then – I guess THAT put Berliner in his place! I particularly like the “no further comment” comment — after Chapin said essentially … nothing.
Then a bit further down in Folkenflik’s article, he writes:
“Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.
Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.
"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."
When I read that I wondered if Mr. Alfonso had actually read Berliner’s article – because if he did, he certainly didn’t comprehend it. Berliner’s main thesis is that there is a lack of IDEOLOGICAL diversity within the ranks of NPR’s staff, and that there is a need for much more of THAT kind of diversity at the organization. Berliner didn’t claim, when criticizing what he claims is the undeniable evidence of bias in NPRs reporting of the Middle East conflict (my previous posting discussed one specific, and very clear, example of that bias), that there are no NPR journalists who have put their lives at risk when reporting on the war. What he was criticizing is the obvious anti-Israel BIAS of their reporting.
And Berliner didn’t criticize anyone because of the color of their skin. Again – his criticism is that there is insufficient VIEWPOINT diversity at NPR, not that there are not enough white people or too many people of color.
Basically, the critical responses to Berliner’s essay by those at NPR have so far consisted of vague, essentially contentless, circle-the-wagons “we’re actually all really great here” statements by NPR’s chief news executive and totally off-the-mark irrelevant-to-Berliner’s-actual-thesis responses by another senior editor. None of that bodes well for the possibility of more systemic change at NPR. It is really sad that another previously great organization has been hijacked by progressive ideology — especially an organization that is supposed to be non-ideological.