I’ve been listening to NPR for years and since 2024 they started including right wing rhetoric in their reporting. It started getting really obvious the closer we got to the last election.
I listen to NPR as well, have for years, donate to my local station, and I’ve only ever heard them discuss right-wing talking points as exactly that: clearly labeled right-wing talking points that are relevant to informing listeners about the current state of the national discourse.
While anonymous donors of any kind rub me the wrong way, the article you linked doesn’t provide evidence of the things I was asking for citations about.
Rather it specifically talks about a) concerns about the rapidity of journalism within NPR when having to go through more editor review and b) accusations of left-leaning bias from a former employee
I appreciate your concerns but the links you provided don’t back up the claims I was responding to, and while they are concerning for a few reasons, none of those reasons are “becoming more right wing” or “repeating right wing talking points as fact or opinion”.
I regularly listen to a lot of their programming, especially in the morning. In lieu of articles all I have is what I personally heard on Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and during their special coverage pre and post election.
Morning Edition had a disproportionate amount of coverage for the “Undecided” and “Abandon Harris” movements, at least in my region. They interviewed someone billed as (paraphrased) “former Trump appointee, who testified against him, and is now going to work for him again.”
Then, immediately after the election (like 10pm that night), they interviewed a legal representative for The Heritage Foundation, who spouted nothing but lies about Trump’s non-involvement with Project 2025. There was no fact checking for this interview.
Earlier this year, they interviewed Sean Duffy who repeatedly said that there was no issue with FAA operations re: EWR communications lapses, when weeks later it was revealed that he was making sure his family avoided routing through that airport.
I know this anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much but something is seriously off at NPR within the last couple years. It’s definitely not the same quality of reporting that it was before.
Mere accusations of being left-leaning and mysterious anonymous money were enough to insert an entire editorial board to filter the news.
They don’t report things that should be important if they are offensive to right-wing politics.
They don’t report on wage theft.
They don’t report on health care abuses.
They don’t report on lies or incompetence in the Trump administration.
They lick boots and rationalize genocide. They’ve always been a little right leaning in that reporting reality as it is is extremely hostile to right-wing politics so they have to protect people from the truth.
NPR has not been left-wing or even vaguely left of center for a while. They are rapidly homophobic or racist, but they are islamophobic and they will indulge whatever is the right-wing rumor or paranoia of the day.
Having links to back up your claims would go a long way to convincing people. Otherwise your words are just you yelling at clouds and hoping somebody will listen.
Yeah idk why you’re upvoted, unless I’m missing something. The articles you linked(could only read the first as the 2nd is behind a paywall) only talk about how much slower NPRs coverage may become due to the backstops. Nothing implies that they have become unreliable news.
I’m unconvinced that NPR is unreliable based on your info. I listen to their planet money, the 1A, and the indicator broadcasts. The 1A especially has recently been openly and bluntly criticizing the fascists movements of Trump/Republicans. The indicator and planet money are more economics focused (rather than politically focused than 1A ) but even they will criticize Republican actions if it doesn’t align with economic theories.
I have no issues with 1A, that program has always been very progressive and fair. My main issue is with Morning Edition, and some segments they did on All Things Considered over the past couple years.
It just seems that it’s not in the best interest of NPR to have anonymous donors gumming up the gears for their reporting.
Can I get a citation for NPR doing this? That would be surprising
Editorial “backstops” courtesy of anonymous donors.
https://www.podcastnewsdaily.com/news/report-npr-staffers-upset-over-new-editorial-backstop-plans/article_fb8101e2-146c-11ef-ac87-1305981c9fbf.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/business/npr-editing-backstop.html
I’ve been listening to NPR for years and since 2024 they started including right wing rhetoric in their reporting. It started getting really obvious the closer we got to the last election.
I listen to NPR as well, have for years, donate to my local station, and I’ve only ever heard them discuss right-wing talking points as exactly that: clearly labeled right-wing talking points that are relevant to informing listeners about the current state of the national discourse.
While anonymous donors of any kind rub me the wrong way, the article you linked doesn’t provide evidence of the things I was asking for citations about.
Rather it specifically talks about a) concerns about the rapidity of journalism within NPR when having to go through more editor review and b) accusations of left-leaning bias from a former employee
I appreciate your concerns but the links you provided don’t back up the claims I was responding to, and while they are concerning for a few reasons, none of those reasons are “becoming more right wing” or “repeating right wing talking points as fact or opinion”.
I regularly listen to a lot of their programming, especially in the morning. In lieu of articles all I have is what I personally heard on Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and during their special coverage pre and post election.
Morning Edition had a disproportionate amount of coverage for the “Undecided” and “Abandon Harris” movements, at least in my region. They interviewed someone billed as (paraphrased) “former Trump appointee, who testified against him, and is now going to work for him again.”
Then, immediately after the election (like 10pm that night), they interviewed a legal representative for The Heritage Foundation, who spouted nothing but lies about Trump’s non-involvement with Project 2025. There was no fact checking for this interview.
Earlier this year, they interviewed Sean Duffy who repeatedly said that there was no issue with FAA operations re: EWR communications lapses, when weeks later it was revealed that he was making sure his family avoided routing through that airport.
I know this anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much but something is seriously off at NPR within the last couple years. It’s definitely not the same quality of reporting that it was before.
Mere accusations of being left-leaning and mysterious anonymous money were enough to insert an entire editorial board to filter the news.
They don’t report things that should be important if they are offensive to right-wing politics.
They don’t report on wage theft. They don’t report on health care abuses. They don’t report on lies or incompetence in the Trump administration.
They lick boots and rationalize genocide. They’ve always been a little right leaning in that reporting reality as it is is extremely hostile to right-wing politics so they have to protect people from the truth.
NPR has not been left-wing or even vaguely left of center for a while. They are rapidly homophobic or racist, but they are islamophobic and they will indulge whatever is the right-wing rumor or paranoia of the day.
Having links to back up your claims would go a long way to convincing people. Otherwise your words are just you yelling at clouds and hoping somebody will listen.
Yeah idk why you’re upvoted, unless I’m missing something. The articles you linked(could only read the first as the 2nd is behind a paywall) only talk about how much slower NPRs coverage may become due to the backstops. Nothing implies that they have become unreliable news.
I’m unconvinced that NPR is unreliable based on your info. I listen to their planet money, the 1A, and the indicator broadcasts. The 1A especially has recently been openly and bluntly criticizing the fascists movements of Trump/Republicans. The indicator and planet money are more economics focused (rather than politically focused than 1A ) but even they will criticize Republican actions if it doesn’t align with economic theories.
I have no issues with 1A, that program has always been very progressive and fair. My main issue is with Morning Edition, and some segments they did on All Things Considered over the past couple years.
It just seems that it’s not in the best interest of NPR to have anonymous donors gumming up the gears for their reporting.
National Petroleum Radio?
Da fuq does this even mean?
NPR
Yes but what was the point of your comment
Just having fun my friend.