NPR has lost America’s Trust.

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (36 posts)
  1. Ken Burgess profile image77
    Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks ago

    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      "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.

      1. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        You're right about Fox and Breitbart, but they're not presented as a national public radio service.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          Understood, but the ubiquitous nature of both makes it certainly appears as such.

        2. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          Fox and Breitbart are two different animals. Fox is the mushy moderate. Breitbart is not.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            A Baskin-Robbins moment.

            GA

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

    2. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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

      1. Ken Burgess profile image77
        Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

    3. IslandBites profile image90
      IslandBitesposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      https://hubstatic.com/16991873.jpg

  2. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 2 weeks ago

    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.

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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

      1. Valeant profile image86
        Valeantposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          So . . . you're right and he's wrong?

          GA

          1. Valeant profile image86
            Valeantposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              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

              1. Valeant profile image86
                Valeantposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image88
                  GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What about the first line, the one about the original question: "So . . . you're right and he's wrong?"

                  GA

                  1. Valeant profile image86
                    Valeantposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. IslandBites profile image90
                    IslandBitesposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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. hmm

                    “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

  3. Ken Burgess profile image77
    Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks ago

    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.

    1. profile image0
      savvydatingposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. Valeant profile image86
      Valeantposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image77
      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        You changed your post. So, I decided to delete my recent reply… since it no longer applied in any way.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image77
          Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Don’t know what you mean by, “So just comment on the article.”

            But, I do understand that editing our comments is sometimes warranted.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image77
            Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image77
              Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

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 Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)