There is an explosive essay at the Free Press by longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner that is the must-read of the month. If you haven’t read it yet, I recommend you do so promptly. Because no matter what else you think is wrong with America, there is nothing more threatening to democracy than the demise of true journalism.
Is there bias in mainstream media? Yes, of course. What Berliner, a multi-decade veteran of NPR and certified liberal Democrat, did was laid out a powerful case about how NPR reporting (1) drifted toward pro-Democratic coverage with three airtight examples, (2) has no Republican employees among its top DC execs, and (3) is getting worse.
At the heart of the matter is the 30 percentage point drift to the left in the past twelve years. Berliner explains:
“[In 2011], 26 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.”
His three case studies of biased reporting are especially damning. They are:
Russia Collusion (a huge story in 2016-2019 in which NPR featured one Dem congressman 25 times claiming evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow handlers but “when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse.”)
Hunter Biden Laptop (a major 2020 election-eve story that was widely suppressed because “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.”)
Lab Leak of Covid (“The lab leak theory came in for rough treatment almost immediately, dismissed as racist or a right-wing conspiracy theory. [NPR] became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the lab leak had been debunked by scientists. But that wasn’t the case.”)
Each of these claims deserve a response, either an honest rebuttal or a mea culpa. Instead, we get word salads. NPR’s own reporting about the Berliner fallout, for example, leads with “It angered many of his colleagues, led NPR leaders to announce monthly internal reviews of the network's coverage, and gave fresh ammunition to conservative and partisan Republican critics of NPR, including former President Donald Trump.” Really? That’s the big impact that it gave “fresh ammunition” … a very weird metaphor. To be clear, it’s a good bit of reporting. Yet what it reports is that NPR and its CEO are offering diversionary gaslighting defenses rather than addressing the substance. Because he outed former CEO John Lansing’s obsession with white privilege as the primary problem in American society and diversity as the “North Star” of NPR’s mission, Berliner’s critique is now being framed as an attack on diversity. It’s vapid identarianism.
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."
In a separate NPR story about this matter by David Folfenik, there was a bit more detail about the tone of the debate and “heated pushback” in NPR’s newsroom.
"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."
Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."
I’ve yet to see anyone defend or even explain the partisan imbalance. In the face of 87-0, is imbalance even the right word? Intolerance? Puritanical extremism?
Consequences
After his Free Press essay was published on April 9 (nine days ago), Berliner was promptly suspended by NPR, publicly castigated by the new CEO, then resigned.
My frustration with the news media coverage of this story is the gauzy defense of NPR that doesn’t directly address any of his arguments. For example, this Washington Post story is both longform and wafer-thin. The reporters dutifully quote NPR personalities such as Steve Inskeep (We are not all Democrats, I an many others are independent voters), Leila Fadel (“factually inaccurate take on our work that was filled with omissions”) and more. None of them dispute the leftward drift of the NPR audience, newsroom, or coverage. They basically practice whataboutism, when for example, Inskeep implied that Berliner’s essay offered no viewpoint diversity either —because it was only one perspective. What?
The consequences of this expose’ are far from over. I am hopeful, as ever, because biased media sources will lose audience and something better will arise. I believe that famous verse from scripture: knowing the truth will set us free.
Then again, the new CEO of NPR gave a TED talk recently in which she said, “Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.”
My advice? Listen to classic 70s rock. It does wonders for the soul.