He was an antivax conspiracy theorist who was convinced there was no Trump/Russia connection.
Do you have proof of this? I tried searching but I only get articles related to this incident.
I read the guys release before he quit. I don't have the link at the moment.
Interesting that he says:
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.
And then blames this on NPR. The GOP has been labeling NPR and other legitimate news sources as "fake news" and corrupt for years now. They are constantly pushing their constituents to only get their news from the right-wing bubble where they can control the message.
It's no wonder that conservatives aren't listening to NPR. But that is not NPR's fault nor should NPR change their reporting as a result. Their job is to report fair and unbiased news. If a group of the population doesn't want fair and unbaised news, they shouldn't start spewing bullshit just to appease these people.
They guy refers to liberals as a "very small segment of the US population". So at least he isn't shy about exposing his extreme bias, and in turn invalidating pretty much all of his own words.
If only he was right, or knew what liberal means
What’s the over/under on the timeline for transition to right-wing “I used to be a liberal” grifter? Do we count when he invites people people to subscribe to his new “actual freedom of speech no cancel culture here” Substack even if there’s no posts?
Juan Williams also went to Fox once NPR fired him. I expect this idiot to end up at Newsmax.
He was really just just Juan of the first of what later became many more.
The only complaint I have about NPR is that they went heavily with a pro-Israel posture after the October events. It took them months to catch up to reality and stop it.
Some of their recent coverage about Reddit was pretty insulting. When the IPO was going live they tried to explain the people who Reddit burned over the years who weren't buying into the IPO as "acting like children" needing to "grow up". It was the most one-sided coverage I have ever heard from them - even with all this left-leaning talk.
I actually recall reacting viscerally to that reporting.
I mean, if by "liberal bias" they mean "they want NPR to continue" I guess it's technically true, the same way that "Public Broadcasting should continue" also counts as "liberal bias"
I'm like 90% sure I remember Mr. Rogers testifying before Congress to keep PBS a thing, which was met with vitriol by right-wingers
You're mixing two events:
- Rogers went in front of the Senate and managed to convince an angry senator to support the creation of PBS. He was probably all of 25 years old when he did this and the senator went from hard and angry to soft and open-minded.
- Fox News at some point over Lockdown called him an evil man for suggesting that people deserve to be treated well.
No, the first part and the second part were definitely separate, because regarding the 2nd one chumbos like ol Benny "my wife is a doctor" went on a crusade defending Mr Rogers because Rogers mentions that boys and girls are different
NPR: "This segment of 'Corporations are Bad' was brought to by a generous grant from our friends at Progressive Auto Insurance. Want to save money? Try Progressive! Millions of Americans are using our patented TrackYou driver tracking appliance that adjusts your rates based on your driving. So switch now! Give them money! Spend!"
Seems pretty left wing to me.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Uri Berliner, a senior editor at NPR who penned an op-ed last week accusing the broadcaster of liberal bias, has resigned from the company.
“But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay.”
In his essay, Berliner writes NPR had strayed too far left politically and was increasingly only presenting “the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.”
The episode has provided fodder for Republicans and conservative critics of the network, who have long alleged bias against them at the public broadcaster.
Some conservative activists have highlighted social media posts from Katherine Maher, NPR’s CEO, before she took over at the company this year espousing progressive ideas.
In a statement to The Hill on Tuesday in regard to Berliner’s reported suspension, NPR said it “does not comment on individual personnel matters, including discipline.”
The original article contains 272 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 42%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I wonder if he is a crypto-magat.
He’s gonna stay plastered.
“Resigned”
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News