That is kind of a fanciful title, I guess. The only people who didn’t realize that NPR has been strongly biased leftward over the last, oh, two decades or more would be those who agree with that bias, so naturally think the taxpayer funded radio network is just “telling it as it is.” Selective editing to make, say, Ted Cruz sound like a far-right nut case, or having a Supreme Court correspondent who is pals with the most liberal justice on the Court are just, you know, “mistakes.”
But having an insider who is obviously a progressive Democrat himself blow the whistle and announce that “the nonprofit radio network had allowed liberal bias to affect its coverage” (Ya think???) meant that attention must be paid, and the furious reaction of NPR’s leadership to that statement of the obvious–-“How DARE he! We’re NPR!”—gave instant credibility to his indictment, again, not that it should have needed any more, if people were paying attention.
Now comes the news of the obvious other shoe dropping: Uri Berliner, the senior business editor who blew said whistle, has been suspended by the network but for just for five days. In an interview with NPR earlier this week, Berliner revealed that NPR said he would be fired if he violated the policy against unapproved work for another media outlets again. Apparently NPR figured out that the Streisand Effect applies, and the more they go after Berliner and deny, deny, deny, the more visible the network’s progressive propaganda proclivities will be.
They figured it out too late, unfortunately. The mask, which was hanging anyway, is off now. NPR can blame any future criticism on Republicans and conservatives “pouncing,” but as long as it is led by a woman whose social media comments mark her as an extreme anti-American social justice activist, the strategy is unlikely to work. Fine, let NPR preach to the metaphorical choir—but I shouldn’t have to pay for it.
Meanwhile…
- Over at Slate, Alicia Mongomery—let me guess: I’m betting, from her fawning over Obama and other hints that she’s black [I Google her…] She is!—weighed in with a thoroughly disingenuous defense of NPR, arguing that the outlet’s problem wasn’t over-wokeness but too much artificial “objectivity.” “[T]he core editorial problem at NPR is and, frankly, has long been: an abundance of caution that often crossed the border to cowardice,” she writes. “NPR culture encouraged an editorial fixation on finding the exact middle point of the elite political and social thought, planting a flag there, and calling it objectivity. That would more than explain the lack of follow-up on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the lab-leak theory, going full white guilt after George Floyd’s murder, and shifting to indignant white impatience with racial justice now.”
Wow. An “all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye” spectacular, with dishonesty on top like a cherry! “Exact middle ground,” like in NPR’s cheer-leading during the phony Russian collusion narrative and the two partisan impeachments? “Lack of follow-up” on Hunter’s laptop? NPR’s “public editor” announced that it was a trivial non-story and not worth covering at all, because, as Berliner persuasively revealed, NPR’s staff was determined to defeat Trump, and there wasn’t a single conservative or Republican to be found. She talks about NPR’s coverage of the Michael Brown shooting with pride, never mentioning that her colleagues swallowed the “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” lie whole.
- Interestingly, Alicia is a disciple of Michel Martin, who allowed me to be ambushed and insulted on her show after I 100% correctly described the inherent flaw in sexual harassment law that allows politically motivated accusations stemming from dimly recalled ancient interactions—like the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco, though that hadn’t happened yet. Michel told me directly in a personal email that she did it—and subsequently blackballed me as an ethics commentator on NPR—because she “thought I was defending Donald Trump,” whom I hadn’t mentioned. Can’t have that!
- I noticed last night, while looking for something to watch during ads on the Red Sox game broadcast, that NPR’s conjoined twin PBS was running a new documentary on Julius Caesar. It was so flagrantly written as a 2024 campaign attack on Donald Trump that I was amazed at its lack of subtlety. Caesar, you see, is a warning about the vulnerability of “republics” to “authoritarian” “strong men” backed by “populism.” Democracy is dependent on “norms” that, when violated, undermine and destroy it. Beware! Beware! The story of the demise of the Roman republic is a stark lesson for the United States in 2024!
Objectivity.
Ethics Alarms 
Over at Slate, Alicia Mongomery—let me guess: I’m betting, from her fawning over Obama and other hints that she’s black [I Google her…] She is!—weighed in with a thoroughly disingenuous defense of NPR …
I see what you did there. You are a very bad man. [/sarc]
Why would you bother with a Slate piece? You know what it will say without reading it. It would’ve been the same thing if the author had been white or Asian writing for Slate. Slate can be counted on to reliably defend a Leftist institution no matter how wrong it is.
Jack wrote:
They figured it out too late, unfortunately. The mask, which was hanging anyway, is off now. NPR can blame any future criticism on Republicans and conservatives “pouncing,” but as long as it is led by a woman whose social media comments mark her as an extreme anti-American social justice activist, the strategy is unlikely to work. Fine, let NPR preach to the metaphorical choir—but I shouldn’t have to pay for it.
No, but you will — as will we all. The Democrats have way too much invested in NPR not to filibuster the hell out of any bill that de-funds them to any degree whatever. Unless the Republicans somehow win 60+ votes in the Senate or the Democrats actually kill the filibuster as they’ve promised to do, NPR will forever be funded.
So the NPR CEO can go right back to writing “woke” tweets and impudently punishing dissent. There is no way Republicans can stop her.
I wonder if there is a First Amendment argument to be had about forcing taxpayers to pay for propaganda (not just speech!) that they disagree with?
Some observations from the employment law side of the house.
My initial reaction to this suspension was that we were likely looking at a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, specifically, the section that relates to protected concerted activity. Employers cannot penalize employees who raise concerns about the terms and conditions of their employment that affect or apply to other employees. Clearly Berliner’s complaints relate directly to issues that concern the entire workforce. It’s also clear that the company is taking action against him for those complaints.
I note that the alleged basis for the five day suspension and the warning is that Berliner wrote for another publication without the approval of NPR management. But this appears to be what we in the business refer to as a “pretextual” reason, i.e., a justification given for the purpose of hiding the real reason for the employer’s actions. The basis for calling NPR’s justification a pretext is that NPR does not apply this requirement in a consistent fashion. As noted in NPR’s own reporting of the Berliner suspension, there is no mention of his speaking with the New York Times without prior approval, for example. I suspect there are numerous examples of NPR journalists speaking with other media outlets without prior approval where NPR did not take this kind of disciplinary action.
Berliner is represented by a union but apparently is not going to challenge the suspension. My impression is that he regards his column as an act of civil disobedience for which he is willing to bear the consequences. More power to him for that.
I think there’s another oopsie in the suspension. He was purportedly suspended for writing for another outlet without prior approval. I’m too lazy to check, but I saw somewhere the piece in Substack was simply an interview he gave.
Berliner has resigned but stated that he does NOT support defunding NPR. This shows how little integrity he has. You can’t say that a taxpayer-funded outlet is completely captured by a partisan group, intentionally slants the news to influence election results, and fails to represent or even view the majority of the American taxpayers as ‘valid’ human beings and then state that you think that all taxpayers should be forced to pay for NPR under threat of imprisonment or violence. No one with any integrity at all can do that. Put Uri Berliner in the Bill Maher club of liberals.
“You can’t say that a taxpayer-funded outlet is completely captured by a partisan group, intentionally slants the news to influence election results, and fails to represent or even view the majority of the American taxpayers as ‘valid’ human beings and then state that you think that all taxpayers should be forced to pay for NPR under threat of imprisonment or violence.”
You can if you’re a lefty, Michael. Lefties know good, better and best.
The power of the state is there to be exercised by our betters to get us to do what they’ve determined in their infinite wisdom will be best for all, even us.
Fine, let him form a club with Bill Maher and Brett Weinstein.
I saw Bill Maher recently state abortion is kind of murder. But he’s okay with that, stating essentially, there are 8 billion people on the planet, and we don’t need more. A pretty breathtaking admission, but a pretty common sentiment and rationalization I suspect among the enlightened. Maybe just straight utilitarianism.
No doubt that is their oft-spoken-amongst-themselves rationale but it cannot be said aloud. Hiding behind euphemisms that their inferiors are too addle-headed to recognize like “choice” “healthcare” and “privacy” is better PR.
Did Mr. Berliner just resign from NPR?
There’s a definite lack of clarity on this issue. I assumed his Substack was essentially his getting himself fired. Then I was informed he had retired, so that point was moot. Then he was suspended, so he must have still been on the payroll. Now he’s resigned?
So reports NYTimes, etc. within last hour
Must “want to spend more time with his family.”
NPR’s reportage: NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns, blasting CEO Katherine Maher : NPR
Republicans pounce.
Something really funny about NPR reporting on NPR.
On a related note, insofar as this guy was the NPR business editor, did he ever notice NPR’s on air people always report any decline in the stock market with obvious glee and are loath to acknowledge when the market is up. It’s hilarious. Di this guy ever actually report any business news? Other than Commies looking to dismantle capitalism, who goes to NPR for their “business news?”
Quicker than I thought, but still inevitable.
RE: Rome, republics, and Caesar (from my own poor memory and no effort at confirming the accuracy of details). Make whatever analogies you wish to PBS’ interpretations of Julius Caesar’s history.
Although things varied over time, Rome was a “republic” in only a loose sense. The emperor was chosen by the senatorial class (who were the wealthy/powerful, and not elected). It was not dynastic position, although it tended to often be, in practice. An “heir” might even be a person “adopted” as an adult by the emperor. A weak successor, or one that displeased enough senators, could meet an untimely end.
Some offices, like praetor, were elected, but even that “democracy” was rigged, with votes counting for less as you went down the social scale of citizens to the plebes. The plebes votes could be bought with bread and circuses, and student loan forgiveness.
NB: If you visit Rome, and want to see the actual site where Julius was assassinated, go to the Largo di Torre Argentina, not the usual well-known “forum”. The senate was meeting there, temporarily, after they accidentally burned down their normal Curia, ironically while cremating an assassinated tribune. Now the space and building remains are inhabited by cats, who are not being assassinated, as there is a cat rescue operation in one corner of the now-below-street-level area.