Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.
By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.
An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America.
That wouldn’t be a problem for an openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience. But for NPR, which purports to consider all things, it’s devastating both for its journalism and its business model.
What began as tough, straightforward coverage of [Trump] veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency.
Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. At NPR, we hitched our wagon to Trump’s most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff.
Schiff, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s guiding hand, its ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.
It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. Unfortunately, it happens. You follow the wrong leads, you get misled by sources you trusted, you’re emotionally invested in a narrative, and bits of circumstantial evidence never add up. It’s bad to blow a big story.
What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection. Especially when you expect high standards of transparency from public figures and institutions, but don’t practice those standards yourself. That’s what shatters trust and engenders cynicism about the media.
Russiagate was not NPR’s only miscue.
In October 2020, the New York Post published the explosive report about the laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer shop containing emails about his sordid business dealings. With the election only weeks away, NPR turned a blind eye. Here’s how NPR’s managing editor for news at the time explained the thinking: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”
But it wasn’t a pure distraction, or a product of Russian disinformation, as dozens of former and current intelligence officials suggested. The laptop did belong to Hunter Biden. Its contents revealed his connection to the corrupt world of multimillion-dollar influence peddling and its possible implications for his father.
The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.
When the essential facts of the Post’s reporting were confirmed and the emails verified independently about a year and a half later, we could have fessed up to our misjudgment. But, like Russia collusion, we didn’t make the hard choice of transparency.
Politics also intruded into NPR’s Covid coverage, most notably in reporting on the origin of the pandemic. One of the most dismal aspects of Covid journalism is how quickly it defaulted to ideological story lines.
Over the course of the pandemic, a number of investigative journalists made compelling, if not conclusive, cases for the lab leak. But at NPR, we weren’t about to swivel or even tiptoe away from the insistence with which we backed the natural origin story. We didn’t budge when the Energy Department—the federal agency with the most expertise about laboratories and biological research—concluded, albeit with low confidence, that a lab leak was the most likely explanation for the emergence of the virus.
Instead, we introduced our coverage of that development on February 28, 2023, by asserting confidently that “the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a natural origin for the virus.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how- … icas-trust
From the horses mouth.
As I have warned for years now... NPR, CNN, MSNBC is no longer news.
It is biased propaganda... meant to inform you what to think, and not think.
It does not exist to tell the truth... it does not exist to ensure America's commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness persists.
It exists today to push an ideology... an agenda... like in Communist China, you are either part of the Party narrative and support it fully, or you are its enemy and punished for it
Today the focus is primarily on toppling those who can fight back against it, the likes of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Once they have been vanquished, the ruling Party will have its way with the rest of us, much to our detriment.
If you think some of the things you've seen from our government (the Biden Administration) are extreme today, you better buckle in for the ride that is to come after November 2024 when they no longer have to concern themselves with an election.
"Today the focus is primarily on toppling those who can fight back against it, the likes of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Once they have been vanquished, the ruling Party will have its way with the rest of us, much to our detriment."
By the way the same non-news status can be given to Breitbart and Fox, by the way. It is the alternative presented by people like Musk and Trump that makes me cling to the status quo fervently.
You're right about Fox and Breitbart, but they're not presented as a national public radio service.
GA
Understood, but the ubiquitous nature of both makes it certainly appears as such.
Fox and Breitbart are two different animals. Fox is the mushy moderate. Breitbart is not.
If you must use the analogy…
There are vanilla (yogurt) voters who believe that Haley, the globalist, was a good choice for America.
She was not, given that she is a sell-out.
I wonder what delicious flavors Breitbart might be compared to?
Perhaps Rum Raisin or whole cream Chocolate.
I stopped listening a couple of years ago. There was some controversy with a too-slanted NPR story. In the end, NPR made a public statement saying they would allow some of their reporters to also be activists.
As your quoted article says, we all knew NPR had a Left lean, but it wasn't so bad that it distorted an issue, and they did have some good stuff. Now, they are open about their bias.
I'm sure Google has the statement NPR made about allowing "activist reporters" somewhere, but I'm too lazy to look.
GA
Its funny that the noted shift timeline began, according to the article, in 2011.
I myself used to listen back in 2006-2009 I noted how many of the stories were about a struggling foreign woman, or disabled woman, or minority arts student... in general always giving a perspective on how hard things were for unfortunate individuals that had to fight in a system biased against them... it got old listening to how 'unfortunate people' had it as I (and my wife) both worked full-time jobs so we could always be in debt in NY.
Leaving NPR in the rear-view mirror, like leaving behind NY, only improved our lives and mental wellbeing.
The Trump Campaign colluded with Russia, beyond a doubt at this point. Only the rubes in the MAGA cult deny that - when the numerous meetings between the campaign chairman and a member of Russian intelligence are listed in a bipartisan Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Anyone who still calls it Russiagate should be dismissed as a liar or not smart enough to see facts clearly.
The laptop ended up being a nothing-burger that did not implicate Joe Biden in any way. So, it was simply misinformation and I would argue NPR and others were right not to post about it.
Next, perhaps it's not NPR that shifted, but the viewers who have been radicalized to seek out more sensational and conspiratorial news sources. That those who have been so radicalized refer to themselves as 'America' is just another one of their delusions.
The author doesn't come across as a rube. There's a lot about him in the article that Ken didn't quote. Essentially he's an NPR liberal who's been there 25 years.
He sees Russiagate and the Laptop issues differently than you. Who is wrong?
GA
If you have to ask if passing data and strategy to the Russians isn't collusion, not sure there's really any point in having a conversation.
Make a judgment for once and figure out if what I described is collusion. It really shouldn't be as difficult as you're making it.
Answering shouldn't be as difficult as you're making it. Start there and then you can match credentials and argue the collusion point.
I can use Google as well as most and I wouldn't do it.
GA
So, if I'm reading that last line correctly, you don't think that a campaign's chairman who is meeting with Russian intelligence and giving them campaign strategy and internal polling data, while they are running a social media influence campaign and releasing hacked materials from the DNC is actually collusion?
And then go back and read my posts where I clearly state that I think that is clearly collusion.
What about the first line, the one about the original question: "So . . . you're right and he's wrong?"
GA
The use of the term Russiagate is used to claim that there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians. As I keep stating, repeatedly, there is ample proof of actual collusion. Why is it so hard for you to understand or admit that? Any reasonable person can see it.
My use of "Russiagate" has always been as a label for the controversy, not as a claim of guilt or innocence. The author seems to be using it the same way. Maybe your assumption is what prompts the insistence that I answer your question first.
As I read it, Russiagate and the laptop issues weren't used as examples of true or not true, but as examples of a bias in reporting. As in, why did NPR back off of Russiagate reporting after failing to get an 'official' finding of collusion from Mueller, and why deem the laptop story as simply a distraction unworthy of coverage?
All of the high-ranking intelligence officers who signed off on the Russian disinformation theory in a public 'To the public:' letter thought it was a story worthy of addressing. The argument of whether the claims were true or not is secondary to the argument of whether it is a pertinent news story in the wind-up of a tight presidential election. That is how I read the author's point.
Maybe the original question needed some context: Do you think the author is right or wrong, based on his examples, about NPR's bias getting demonstrably more to the Democratic Left? Do you think that is a good thing for a government and donor-supported platform that is generally viewed (and promoted) as a non-biased public service information source?
GA
I think you could easily make the case that in the laptop example, NPR erred on the side of the nation in not allowing potential Russian disinformation to affect another American election. I think the right is just mad that something that ended up being a nothingburger in terms of Joe Biden, was successfully suppressed by American political allies of the Biden campaign. That's called politics. Notably, at the same time, they have zero issue with him committing business fraud to suppress his own negative media story back in 2016 with regards to Stormy Daniels.
And I believe that any media source that does not go full-on with the right's nonsense will be seen as biased by them. When Fox News failed to jump on board with the election fraud narrative, their viewers jumped to Newsmax - so they made the choice to broadcast known falsehoods, and mocked themselves behind the scenes for having to do so. Right now, the right finds anything biased that doesn't openly lie to them or distort the news to attack their perceived enemies.
Hmmm... 50 high ranking former Intel guys sign off on a letter that spreads deliberate misinformation. And that doesn't bother you?
The information purported to be on that laptop is not worthy of news coverage?
Interesting perspective, it is OK I guess to have a sellout and influence peddler in the White House, so long as he has a D next to his name.
Actually, those 50 high ranking former intel people (there were women among the group, so not all guys as is wrongly claimed here) openly stated that they did not know if it was a Russian operation.
And the laptop story is similar to that catch-and-kill program at the National Enquirer to suppress information about an affair with a porn star, which never seemed to trouble the right. When the sellout in the White House had a R next to his name, it didn't seem to bother his followers either when information was suppressed. Where was the outrage then? It didn't exist, so the right can get off their moral high-horse because they don't really care about candidates suppressing damaging stories by using their allies. In Biden's case, it was 50 former intel officials, in Trump's, it was David Pecker directing the narrative and hiding the truth from the American public.
The difference being that the Bidens didn't commit business fraud to get their allies to offset the narrative.
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.
Based on that, I would say he is.
“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” - Mueller
You're on the wrong track IslandMom. My last response to Valeant (just above your comment), hopefully, added some context to the original question. It was not intended to reargue the years-old controversies but to the point of NPR's shift to activist reporting.
As to the Mueller quote, it's a case of semantics versus public perception. It's probably safe to say that during the time of the investigation—before the report, "collusion" was the word everyone used (as a general label), both Democrats and Republicans. It wasn't until after the report that the sides split and collusion became a specific charge for the Democrats and remained a label for the Republicans.
As a 'red meat' treat, I say the Republicans are more right than the Democrats. ;-)
GA
Sorry, I was posting so I didnt read your comment before. I get your response, but I believe you didnt get his (first comment).
Maybe I didn't get his response. I took it as a specific charge about the collusion 'verdict' when the question was about the author's claim about NPR's bias.
GA
If you don't validate the things I've said about ideology and indoctrination I don't know if anything could...
You are my constant reaffirmation of how bad things have become.
A former journalist from NPR discovered that not one Republican worked for NPR. Zero. He learned that 87% of the journalists at NPR are Democrats. The remaining were not Republican or “conservative.” (I put that in quotes because some conservatives here are classic liberals or Democrats)
Anyway, to the journalist’s credit, he questioned that. He no longer works for NPR. He was a Democrat with a conscience. A few of them exist.
Agree with your statement, that “You are my constant reaffirmation of how bad things have become.”
For those who support “progressive” ideals, one has to wonder: What is it about Marxism that they find so attractive, especially since it has failed time and time again, and has killed millions of innocent people?
That being said, most Democrats are simply uninformed. They willingly surrender their support to the loudest voices… which make up at least 95% of our media.
And Democrats, (such as those at NPR) and in this forum, call those who push back against their rhetoric, “stupid.”
It’s rather astonishing, but history has proven how gullible people can be, even as their cities burn around them.
As you are mine, when collusion is referred to as Russiagate, which was proven beyond a doubt when Manafort was passing internal polling data and campaign strategy to the Russians on multiple occasions.
Leading a thread with such absurdity to undermine what was actually accurate reporting from NPR pretty much shows which of us has the distorted view.
I've tuned in to a few interviews featuring Uri, and I find his perspective resonant. It seems like people are growing weary of the media constantly recycling news to fit certain narratives. Maybe that's why cable networks have been hemorrhaging viewers in recent years. I think many are fed up with opinion-driven reporting, craving more substantive factual reporting over regurgitated fluff.
You changed your post. So, I decided to delete my recent reply… since it no longer applied in any way.
I did change my post. I thought about it and thought although I did agree with some of Ken's OP. I just was not in total agreement with all his sentiments. So just comment on the article.
Don’t know what you mean by, “So just comment on the article.”
But, I do understand that editing our comments is sometimes warranted.
That the author, a well known and respected member of NPR for over 25 years, a very left-leaning individual, has grave concerns about how NPR operates and informs today... is willing to put forth what he has... is noteworthy.
Surely that lends credibility to all that I have warned regarding CNN and MSNBC and all MSM in general... cable networks especially are not held to the standards NPR purports to be held to and they are not run on donations and government funding, but ad revenues.
Pushing ideology and framing 'news' with political bias, if not extreme prejudice, is the way of the MSM today.
Ken, it seems my initial comment may have slipped through the cracks. I mentioned how Uri's interviews struck a chord with me, echoing sentiments shared by many who are disenchanted with the media's penchant for recycling news to fit particular agendas. This, I believe, contributes to the decline in viewership across cable networks. My stance is clear: I'm fed up with opinion-driven reporting and yearn for more substantive, factual journalism.
The article prompted me to delve deeper into Uri's interviews on YouTube, where his views strongly resonated with me and, I suspect, with numerous Americans. While I alluded to issues within the media landscape, I perhaps should have explicitly highlighted my concerns with left-leaning outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and NPR. In my eyes, they've long abandoned journalistic standards.
While I share your viewpoint to a large extent, my comment lacked the depth to fully articulate my position. Yet, my stance on left-leaning media is well-known here; I've been vocal about it, albeit repetitively. I confess I didn't invest much effort in crafting my comment; my focus was on exploring Uri's perspectives. As I shared, I checked out several of his interviews on YouTube.
Uri's courage in shedding light on the corruption he witnessed at NPR is commendable. It's rare to encounter individuals willing to speak their truth unabashedly. I hold this type in high regard, preferring their honesty over the ambivalence of fence-sitters. In many ways, I see you in Uri's mold, unafraid to confront uncomfortable truths.
by ahorseback 7 years ago
Not the sensationalizing "face -book " mentality of todays mainstream news media . Once , there was a time when selling the headline was the profiteering, business method of presenting the mainstream media , Sure profit , selling ,...
by Readmikenow 10 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for...
by Scott Belford 115 minutes ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
by ga anderson 4 years ago
I hope that this does not turn into another Trump thread, but, since his name is mentioned I hold no illusions that it will not.The quote is relative to an article about changing eras between traditional conservatism and political correctness and progressivism.Progressive columnist William Galston...
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |