1. Regarding the voter registrations, Berliner never claimed that every single NPR editorial member of the DC Bureau was a registered Democrat, as this commentary suggests. The claim was that there were 87 registered Democrats and 0 registered Republicans. This, of course, leaves open that some or many were not registered to a party.
2. Regarding the Biden laptop story, it is hardly exculpatory to rely on the errors of other institutions. Indeed, it just supports the widely held notion that these institutions exist as an echo chamber. It appears that the decision to ignore the laptop was based on "doubts about the laptop's authenticity." But isn't that the job of journalists? To get to the bottom of such doubts rather than accept the doubts as outcome-determinative.
3. Relatedly, this commentary flat-out ignores the main thrust of Berliner's article, which is that NPR badly mangled - always in a consistent direction - the major news stories of the last 8 years. Russian collusion, COVID, police funding, etc. were all completely misreported. This was a result, Berliner argues (without refutation) of a homogenous newsroom.
Thanks for your take, Mr. Inskeep. I find NPR to be the best source of neutral news coverage available today ( - a particularly challenging time for the truth!)
Someone gives you a basket of 1,000 apples and says there could be both green and red apples. You know that the person who gives you the basket of apples typically gives green apples, but some have been red in the past.
You take out 82 of them and all are green and none are red. You can obviously make the logical assumption that the rest are also heavily weighted towards green.
Journalism is a field that is heavily weighted towards leftists (for various reasons). The small sample we have, shows that NPR (an org that typically focuses on left-leaning stories, like race, gender, etc.) is heavily weighted towards leftists. But we should believe that the sample is not representative of the whole? Huh? Come on.
Still listen now and then to recording of the fabulous Code Switch segment that found rationales for looting and vandalism, even as shops and houses burned in various cities.
(Oddly enough, NPR's new CEO concurs!)
Also LOVE the ever-handy NPR story warning us about possible racist emoji! Can't be too careful.
NPR is a caricature of post-liberal progressive ideology, paid for with tax dollars. Didn't need any help at all from Berliner to shred its credibility.
I value NPR, donor to my local station, and am rooting for it. Still, I am so disappointed with how badly they are handling this situation. They need to grasp that Berliner is a whistleblower. He tried to go through channels and got nowhere. It is unbelievably chilling for NPR to say that you need to “secure approval” in advance to be a whistleblower. It is like the military saying you had to go through the chain of command to report sexual harassment which every journalist could see was wrong. If someone at NPR had complained that LBGTQ+ people were not being treated fairly – however flimsy the evidence they provided – everyone would have said how “brave” they were to speak out and how we “can and must do better” and so on. The urge to shoot the messenger and ignore the message which has been the overwhelming NPR response to Berliner is so disappointing. I have witnessed numerous examples of what Berliner is referring to just as a listener. For instance, when Roe vs. Wade was overturned NPR reporting referred standardly to the side that would call themselves pro-life as “anti-abortion rights activists.” I get how hard finding appropriate nomenclature for all this is. Yet in the immediate days before that decision NPR had been covering efforts at gun control legislation. Never once did they refer to its proponents as “anti-gun rights activists.” This is just one example of the kind of thing that is baked into their reporting.
I cannot imagine a more insufferably liberal response. NPR does not resonate with nor speak to the experiences of most Americans. I think the public used to regard NPR like adult Sesame Street. Now it’s virtue signaling media for those who want to identify as both liberal and intellectual, with people like Steve screaming from the top of his tower to us groundlings that sorry, your perceptions are wrong. Whatever the issues with Uri’s article, he was accurate in assessing how the public views this obviously biased organization that receives public funds.
FBI had the laptop in 2019. Good research and reporting would have made mention of that, as Redsteeze/Stephen L Miller pointed out. Instead of knee jerk “we don’t publish disinfo” perhaps NPR could have investigated and not suppressed.
I wouldn’t read the comments. The MAGAs and trolls are swarming. They won’t be happy until NPR is repeating whatever nonsense Fox News and One America are shoveling out. God help us all.
Judging from this response and others I've seen from NPR staff, Berliner's goal is hopeless. The denial is so deep, they can't even understand the most basic points against them.
Steve, you say: "Is there a “larger point” that too many elite journalists share similar backgrounds, and think the same way in assigning and shaping stories? Yes, I think so, but it’s a subtle issue that has more to do with people’s educations, experiences and associations than with partisan registration."
But the partisan registration matters precisely because it reflects their educations, experiences, and associations, and that's why Uri is right to bring the registrations up. It shapes how the stories themselves are told. This isn't subtle in the least.
I listen extensively to NPR and the local station in my area that carries its shows, and I can tell you that programs like All Things Considered, and Morning Edition, and Here and Now, and On Point consistently frame the news through the lens of:
- Are progressive values being upheld or attacked?
- How will Biden withstand the attacks of Republicans?
- Can Democrats pass the bills they favor or will obstructionist Republicans stop them?
- Look at all the infighting among Republicans. How unhealthy that is.
EVERYTHING is framed through this lens. You don't see it because it's normative to you. No one interviewing a Democrat thinks to challenge them about an issue -- it's taken as a given that their position in the right one, and the only story is the horse race between them and the evil Republican antagonist. It's a rare occurance for a conservative to be given equal air time or treated as if their ideas are just as valid as those of their Democrat colleagues.
Just recently, I listened as Mary Louise Kelly sounded like she was in PAIN learning from a correspondent that Trump's wealth increased through Truth Social's IPO. You have Robin Young on Here and Now affirming that January 6 was an attempted coup as she breathily emotes with interviewees she favors.
When people like Nina Totenberg report on the Supreme Court, it's in the context of the "conservative court," and the used in a way to invalidate it. NPR would NEVER describe a majority liberal court in the same way. Because that would just be normal to you and your listeners.
Your stories frame the abortion issue entirely from the point of view of progressives and not at all through anyone who thinks children are being saved. I'm listening to a teaser right now for a story about guns -- can you guess what the perspective is? Do you think it's interviewing people who believe in gun ownership as a valid right? Not a chance. IT'S ABOUT FRAMING.
And I can't understand what argument you think you're making by contending to a.) be NPA, and b.) that Uri somehow misrepresents the aggregate because of this.
Your "no party" political affiliation hardly proves you to be some open-minded moderate. And even if it did, that would be but one instance in a sea of progressives.
But we can see clearly that the dominance of registered Democrats affects the choice of what stories to cover and how to cover them.
You talk about poor NPR being put-upon by other outlets telling their audiences not to trust you. Steve, NPR does a good job of that all by itself.
1. Are you disputing Uri's claim there are 87 registered Dems and 0 Republicans in editorial positions? You use yourself as an example of "No Party" as a way of discrediting the numbers. Do you dispute the idea that having no Republicans in that particular grouping might be a problem for a public news organization that purports to embrace diversity? You imply that it is an omission and misleading to not include you (given your outsize influence and importance in Washington). But he specifically mentioned editors....are you an editor? I'm asking because there is no mention of editor on your official NPR bio page, perhaps it needs updating?
2. Why did you select the last 90 days to search for instances of LatinX? A simple search on "All Dates" at NPR.org reveals Latinx appeared 28,878 times versus 18,348 for Latino(s). Given the relative newness of the term, it would seem that the numbers don't dismiss Berliner's point but rather make it more compelling.
3. You completely sidestep perhaps his most damning criticism around the vital question of Covid origins. Why did you not address this one, I wonder? Is it perhaps growing increasingly difficult to defend NPR's repeated insistence that "overwhelming evidence" renders a lab leak unlikely? Why not offer another explanation (beyond bias, partisanship or just poor journalism) for NPRs clinging to this dogmatic assertion, despite varied and highly credible evidence to the contrary?
Finally, here's hoping you got approval to write this on "another platform" lest you risk suspension.(Oops, silly me, suspension is only for dissenters!) For your next article, however, I suggest you get a better editor.
Also re: Katherine Maher. I have the right to disagree with wanting to pay the salary of an (unelected!) individual who is probably 4 std deviations to the left of the median American.
Would people here be OK paying the salary of someone like Richard Spencer?
This commentary is a huge swing and miss.
1. Regarding the voter registrations, Berliner never claimed that every single NPR editorial member of the DC Bureau was a registered Democrat, as this commentary suggests. The claim was that there were 87 registered Democrats and 0 registered Republicans. This, of course, leaves open that some or many were not registered to a party.
2. Regarding the Biden laptop story, it is hardly exculpatory to rely on the errors of other institutions. Indeed, it just supports the widely held notion that these institutions exist as an echo chamber. It appears that the decision to ignore the laptop was based on "doubts about the laptop's authenticity." But isn't that the job of journalists? To get to the bottom of such doubts rather than accept the doubts as outcome-determinative.
3. Relatedly, this commentary flat-out ignores the main thrust of Berliner's article, which is that NPR badly mangled - always in a consistent direction - the major news stories of the last 8 years. Russian collusion, COVID, police funding, etc. were all completely misreported. This was a result, Berliner argues (without refutation) of a homogenous newsroom.
My goodness. They’re out in droves today!
Thanks for your take, Mr. Inskeep. I find NPR to be the best source of neutral news coverage available today ( - a particularly challenging time for the truth!)
Hey Steve do you think it's appropriate for the CEO of NPR to say "America is addicted to white supremacy and that’s the real issue" in 2020?
https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1266418852352548864
How about stating Bill Maher is a racist bigot in 2018?
https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/998958468865261568
Is this the voice of someone who should be leading National Public Radio?
Or the voice of an activist steeped in far left ideology that hates half the country?
Thanks, I'll hang up and listen to your answer
This is completely and utterly disingenuous.
Someone gives you a basket of 1,000 apples and says there could be both green and red apples. You know that the person who gives you the basket of apples typically gives green apples, but some have been red in the past.
You take out 82 of them and all are green and none are red. You can obviously make the logical assumption that the rest are also heavily weighted towards green.
Journalism is a field that is heavily weighted towards leftists (for various reasons). The small sample we have, shows that NPR (an org that typically focuses on left-leaning stories, like race, gender, etc.) is heavily weighted towards leftists. But we should believe that the sample is not representative of the whole? Huh? Come on.
Still listen now and then to recording of the fabulous Code Switch segment that found rationales for looting and vandalism, even as shops and houses burned in various cities.
(Oddly enough, NPR's new CEO concurs!)
Also LOVE the ever-handy NPR story warning us about possible racist emoji! Can't be too careful.
NPR is a caricature of post-liberal progressive ideology, paid for with tax dollars. Didn't need any help at all from Berliner to shred its credibility.
I value NPR, donor to my local station, and am rooting for it. Still, I am so disappointed with how badly they are handling this situation. They need to grasp that Berliner is a whistleblower. He tried to go through channels and got nowhere. It is unbelievably chilling for NPR to say that you need to “secure approval” in advance to be a whistleblower. It is like the military saying you had to go through the chain of command to report sexual harassment which every journalist could see was wrong. If someone at NPR had complained that LBGTQ+ people were not being treated fairly – however flimsy the evidence they provided – everyone would have said how “brave” they were to speak out and how we “can and must do better” and so on. The urge to shoot the messenger and ignore the message which has been the overwhelming NPR response to Berliner is so disappointing. I have witnessed numerous examples of what Berliner is referring to just as a listener. For instance, when Roe vs. Wade was overturned NPR reporting referred standardly to the side that would call themselves pro-life as “anti-abortion rights activists.” I get how hard finding appropriate nomenclature for all this is. Yet in the immediate days before that decision NPR had been covering efforts at gun control legislation. Never once did they refer to its proponents as “anti-gun rights activists.” This is just one example of the kind of thing that is baked into their reporting.
Come on, man, nobody "gasped" when you revealed you're not registered with a party.
I cannot imagine a more insufferably liberal response. NPR does not resonate with nor speak to the experiences of most Americans. I think the public used to regard NPR like adult Sesame Street. Now it’s virtue signaling media for those who want to identify as both liberal and intellectual, with people like Steve screaming from the top of his tower to us groundlings that sorry, your perceptions are wrong. Whatever the issues with Uri’s article, he was accurate in assessing how the public views this obviously biased organization that receives public funds.
FBI had the laptop in 2019. Good research and reporting would have made mention of that, as Redsteeze/Stephen L Miller pointed out. Instead of knee jerk “we don’t publish disinfo” perhaps NPR could have investigated and not suppressed.
I wouldn’t read the comments. The MAGAs and trolls are swarming. They won’t be happy until NPR is repeating whatever nonsense Fox News and One America are shoveling out. God help us all.
Judging from this response and others I've seen from NPR staff, Berliner's goal is hopeless. The denial is so deep, they can't even understand the most basic points against them.
Mr Inskeep, did you receive permission to post this regarding NPR internal dealings, given it's on 'another platform' from NPR?
Steve, you say: "Is there a “larger point” that too many elite journalists share similar backgrounds, and think the same way in assigning and shaping stories? Yes, I think so, but it’s a subtle issue that has more to do with people’s educations, experiences and associations than with partisan registration."
But the partisan registration matters precisely because it reflects their educations, experiences, and associations, and that's why Uri is right to bring the registrations up. It shapes how the stories themselves are told. This isn't subtle in the least.
I listen extensively to NPR and the local station in my area that carries its shows, and I can tell you that programs like All Things Considered, and Morning Edition, and Here and Now, and On Point consistently frame the news through the lens of:
- Are progressive values being upheld or attacked?
- How will Biden withstand the attacks of Republicans?
- Can Democrats pass the bills they favor or will obstructionist Republicans stop them?
- Look at all the infighting among Republicans. How unhealthy that is.
EVERYTHING is framed through this lens. You don't see it because it's normative to you. No one interviewing a Democrat thinks to challenge them about an issue -- it's taken as a given that their position in the right one, and the only story is the horse race between them and the evil Republican antagonist. It's a rare occurance for a conservative to be given equal air time or treated as if their ideas are just as valid as those of their Democrat colleagues.
Just recently, I listened as Mary Louise Kelly sounded like she was in PAIN learning from a correspondent that Trump's wealth increased through Truth Social's IPO. You have Robin Young on Here and Now affirming that January 6 was an attempted coup as she breathily emotes with interviewees she favors.
When people like Nina Totenberg report on the Supreme Court, it's in the context of the "conservative court," and the used in a way to invalidate it. NPR would NEVER describe a majority liberal court in the same way. Because that would just be normal to you and your listeners.
Your stories frame the abortion issue entirely from the point of view of progressives and not at all through anyone who thinks children are being saved. I'm listening to a teaser right now for a story about guns -- can you guess what the perspective is? Do you think it's interviewing people who believe in gun ownership as a valid right? Not a chance. IT'S ABOUT FRAMING.
And I can't understand what argument you think you're making by contending to a.) be NPA, and b.) that Uri somehow misrepresents the aggregate because of this.
Your "no party" political affiliation hardly proves you to be some open-minded moderate. And even if it did, that would be but one instance in a sea of progressives.
But we can see clearly that the dominance of registered Democrats affects the choice of what stories to cover and how to cover them.
You talk about poor NPR being put-upon by other outlets telling their audiences not to trust you. Steve, NPR does a good job of that all by itself.
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Steve.
I'm confused:
1. Are you disputing Uri's claim there are 87 registered Dems and 0 Republicans in editorial positions? You use yourself as an example of "No Party" as a way of discrediting the numbers. Do you dispute the idea that having no Republicans in that particular grouping might be a problem for a public news organization that purports to embrace diversity? You imply that it is an omission and misleading to not include you (given your outsize influence and importance in Washington). But he specifically mentioned editors....are you an editor? I'm asking because there is no mention of editor on your official NPR bio page, perhaps it needs updating?
2. Why did you select the last 90 days to search for instances of LatinX? A simple search on "All Dates" at NPR.org reveals Latinx appeared 28,878 times versus 18,348 for Latino(s). Given the relative newness of the term, it would seem that the numbers don't dismiss Berliner's point but rather make it more compelling.
3. You completely sidestep perhaps his most damning criticism around the vital question of Covid origins. Why did you not address this one, I wonder? Is it perhaps growing increasingly difficult to defend NPR's repeated insistence that "overwhelming evidence" renders a lab leak unlikely? Why not offer another explanation (beyond bias, partisanship or just poor journalism) for NPRs clinging to this dogmatic assertion, despite varied and highly credible evidence to the contrary?
Finally, here's hoping you got approval to write this on "another platform" lest you risk suspension.(Oops, silly me, suspension is only for dissenters!) For your next article, however, I suggest you get a better editor.
Also re: Katherine Maher. I have the right to disagree with wanting to pay the salary of an (unelected!) individual who is probably 4 std deviations to the left of the median American.
Would people here be OK paying the salary of someone like Richard Spencer?