How NPR lost the public's trust

[Belsnickel]

(04-11-2024, 11:02 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The coverage of the trucker protests by the CBC would be a prime example of this.  The CBC was not a news organization during that event, it was a mouthpiece for the government's positions and talking points.  People noticed this.   The BBC has it's issues as well, but I wouldn't call them a mouthpiece for the government, certainly not the Torries.

Eh, the views of the BBC bias flips all the time. I have seen them accused of bias in both directions in recent years. Peter Osborne lambasted the BBC years ago for left-leaning bias, and now accuses them of conservative bias. I'll be honest, the bias I always have concerns with when it comes to news media is institutional bias, and that is what state funding tends to enable most of all.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-11-2024, 11:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, the views of the BBC bias flips all the time. I have seen them accused of bias in both directions in recent years. Peter Osborne lambasted the BBC years ago for left-leaning bias, and now accuses them of conservative bias. I'll be honest, the bias I always have concerns with when it comes to news media is institutional bias, and that is what state funding tends to enable most of all.

That's why I said they had their issues, but were not a mouthpiece for the government.  Now, the CBC deserves that label and then some.  Some of the most garbage reporting I've ever seen.  Ingsoc couldn't have asked for anything better.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The author of the piece in OP has been officially suspended for five days by NPR for publishing the article.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1244962042/npr-editor-uri-berliner-suspended-essay

In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.

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."

Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.)

I'm of two minds here. One if he broke company policy then he deserves to face consequences. But even within that, a five day suspension without pay for a first offense is rather heavy (I am obviously assuming it's a first offense). In my department progressive discipline is the rule. Unless an action is egregious, e.g. lying in a report, falsifying evidence, committing a crime, working another job while on the clock, etc. you're going to go through the steps of discipline, and suspension is right before termination. On a scale of 0-10, suspension is a 9.

I also have to think that if his piece was praising NPR then he would not have been punished nearly as severely, if at all. The misrepresentation of his position by the new CEO (I would think deliberate) also lends some credence to this possibility. While the suspension can be justified under policy the severity of it rather reeks of revenge for airing the organization's dirty laundry. I would certainly not go so far as to call this man a whistle blower, but given the public funded nature of NPR I think he has more leeway in exposing this type of ideological partisanship in his workplace. An interesting response either way.

[*pally*]

(04-16-2024, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The author of the piece in OP has been officially suspended for five days by NPR for publishing the article.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1244962042/npr-editor-uri-berliner-suspended-essay

In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.

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."

Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.)

I'm of two minds here. One if he broke company policy then he deserves to face consequences. But even within that, a five day suspension without pay for a first offense is rather heavy (I am obviously assuming it's a first offense). In my department progressive discipline is the rule. Unless an action is egregious, e.g. lying in a report, falsifying evidence, committing a crime, working another job while on the clock, etc. you're going to go through the steps of discipline, and suspension is right before termination. On a scale of 0-10, suspension is a 9.

I also have to think that if his piece was praising NPR then he would not have been punished nearly as severely, if at all. The misrepresentation of his position by the new CEO (I would think deliberate) also lends some credence to this possibility. While the suspension can be justified under policy the severity of it rather reeks of revenge for airing the organization's dirty laundry. I would certainly not go so far as to call this man a whistle blower, but given the public funded nature of NPR I think he has more leeway in exposing this type of ideological partisanship in his workplace. An interesting response either way.

He is a member of the Union, punishments are usually spelled out in their contract


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-16-2024, 01:28 PM)pally Wrote: He is a member of the Union, punishments are usually spelled out in their contract


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gee, guess what, so am I and it works the way I explained above.  Thanks for the contribution.

[StoneTheCrow]

(04-16-2024, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The author of the piece in OP has been officially suspended for five days by NPR for publishing the article.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1244962042/npr-editor-uri-berliner-suspended-essay

In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.

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."

Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.)

I'm of two minds here. One if he broke company policy then he deserves to face consequences. But even within that, a five day suspension without pay for a first offense is rather heavy (I am obviously assuming it's a first offense). In my department progressive discipline is the rule. Unless an action is egregious, e.g. lying in a report, falsifying evidence, committing a crime, working another job while on the clock, etc. you're going to go through the steps of discipline, and suspension is right before termination. On a scale of 0-10, suspension is a 9.

I also have to think that if his piece was praising NPR then he would not have been punished nearly as severely, if at all. The misrepresentation of his position by the new CEO (I would think deliberate) also lends some credence to this possibility. While the suspension can be justified under policy the severity of it rather reeks of revenge for airing the organization's dirty laundry. I would certainly not go so far as to call this man a whistle blower, but given the public funded nature of NPR I think he has more leeway in exposing this type of ideological partisanship in his workplace. An interesting response either way.

Punished. His crime? Reporting the wrong truth as a journalist.

[*pally*]

(04-16-2024, 01:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Gee, guess what, so am I and it works the way I explained above.  Thanks for the contribution.

You speculated that his punishment was harsh without knowing the details if his contract or his personal record.

He chose not to contest the punishment. Did you stop to think that he didn’t because the actual punishment wasn’t harsh based on his circumstances?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-17-2024, 07:56 AM)pally Wrote: You speculated that his punishment was harsh without knowing the details if his contract or his personal record.

Yes, speculated.  I said as much in my post.  You countered that he's in a union so things wouldn't likely work the way I described.  I countered that I'm in a union and it works exactly the way I described.

Quote:He chose not to contest the punishment. Did you stop to think that he didn’t because the actual punishment wasn’t harsh based on his circumstances?

No who's speculating?  It's certainly possible.  It's also possible that he just wants to move on with his life.  It's also possible that he has no faith in the appeals process.  We could do this all day.  Another point though.  He was suspended for not getting permission for publishing an article outside of NPR.  Do you think he receives a similar punishment, a five day suspension, if he wrote an article about his kid's sports team for their local newspaper?  Somehow I doubt it, and that's the crux of my point.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Speculation is over. Berliner resigned today.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245283076/npr-editor-uri-berliner-resigns-ceo-katherine-maher


"I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years," Berliner wrote in an email to CEO Katherine Maher. "I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism. 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."

And now you know why so few people speak up. Seems like the legacy media won't give up the ghost until they are rendered completely irrelevant.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

BTW, looking back through the thread I can't find a single left leaning poster aside from Bel even attempting to engage with the actual substance of the thread. Rather telling.

[Dill]

(04-17-2024, 05:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BTW, looking back through the thread I can't find a single left leaning poster aside from Bel even attempting to engage with the actual substance of the thread.  Rather telling.

You "knew" Bels would be the first.   Then you figured out that Berliner would not likely have been punished severely if he had not publicly attacked the integrity of the NPR's editorial staff. Who could top that?

Going back through the thread, I can't find a single right-leaning poster even attempting to engage my take on journalistic standards.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-17-2024, 06:31 PM)Dill Wrote: You "knew" Bels would be the first.

Yup.
  

Quote: Then you figured out that Berliner would not likely have been punished severely if he had not publicly attacked the integrity of the NPR's editorial staff. Who could top that?

You disagree?

Quote:Going back through the thread, I can't find a single right-leaning poster even attempting to engage my take on journalistic standards.

That's because having a conversation with you is like pleasuring yourself with sandpaper.

[StoneTheCrow]

(04-17-2024, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yup.
  

You disagree?


That's because having a conversation with you is like pleasuring yourself with sandpaper.

The integrity of the publicly funded organization with 87 registered democrats and zero registered republicans in editorial positions, and a Biden supporting CEO with a history of tweets that would have the likes of Kathy Griffin and Keith Olbermann clapping like a seal must not be questioned.

You are, under no circumstances, to give away the game. Throw him overboard!

[Dill]

(04-17-2024, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yup.
You disagree?
That's because having a conversation with you is like pleasuring yourself with sandpaper.

Looks like a dodge, right after a demand people engage with "substance."

From the censor who hates censorship from "the left."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-17-2024, 07:24 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: The integrity of the publicly funded organization with 87 registered democrats and zero registered republicans in editorial positions, and a Biden supporting CEO with a history of tweets that would have the likes of Kathy Griffin and Keith Olbermann clapping like a seal must not be questioned.

You are, under no circumstances, to give away the game. Throw him overboard!

Indeed.

(04-17-2024, 07:42 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like a dodge, right after a demand people engage with "substance."

From the censor who hates censorship from "the left."

Proving my point in one post.  

[Dill]

(04-17-2024, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed.
Proving my point in one post.  

Everything proves your "points." That's why they are empty.  

Someone who complains about lack of serious engagement

should stop skipping the opportunity every time it presents itself. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-17-2024, 11:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Everything proves your "points." That's why they are empty.  

Someone who complains about lack of serious engagement

should stop skipping the opportunity every time it presents itself. 

Only when it involves you and your circuitous futility.

Kisses.

[Dill]

(04-17-2024, 05:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BTW, looking back through the thread I can't find a single left leaning poster aside from Bel even attempting to engage with the actual substance of the thread.  Rather telling.

Chase them away with insults and quippery, then complain they didn't show. "Rather telling."

(04-17-2024, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's because having a conversation with you is like pleasuring yourself with sandpaper.

(04-18-2024, 01:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only when it involves you and your circuitous futility.

Kisses.

[SunsetBengal]

I figure that this belongs in here. It seems that not only Uri Berliner, but also Larry Sanger cofounder of Wikipedia also has some very revealing comments, as they apply to Katherine Maher. Yikes, she seems rather dangerous to anyone who values and enjoys their 1st Amendment rights.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/wikipedia-co-founder-shocked-by-npr-chief-katherine-maher

Quote:Larry Sanger remembers the promise of the web. He co-founded Wikipedia in 2001, with the hope that it could sustain a “free and open” Internet—a place where information, dissent, and creativity could thrive. At Wikipedia, he proposed a system of rules that encouraged users to “avoid bias” and maintain a “neutral point of view.”

That Internet is gone.

I reached out to Sanger following the revelation, from my original reporting, that former Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher, who is now CEO of NPR, had explicitly rejected the principles of a “free and open” Internet, collaborated with government officials to censor dissent, and spurned the concept of objective truth altogether, in favor of left-wing relativism.

Sanger told me he was shocked, but not surprised.

Our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, should prompt champions of the free and open Internet to push back against the rising censorship regime before it is too late.

Christopher Rufo: What are you thinking as you’re watching these statements from former Wikipedia CEO Katherine Maher, who is now the CEO of NPR?

Larry Sanger: I’ve been following your tweets. You’ve kind of shocked me. The bias of Wikipedia, the fact that certain points of view have been systematically silenced, is nothing new. I’ve written about it myself. But I did not know just how radical-sounding Katherine Maher is. For the ex-CEO of Wikipedia to say that it was somehow a mistake for Wikipedia to be “free and open,” that it led to bad consequences—my jaw is on the floor. I can’t say I’m terribly surprised that she thinks it, but I am surprised that she would say it.

Rufo: In another clip, she says explicitly that she worked with governments to suppress “misinformation” on Wikipedia.

Sanger: Yes, but how did she do that in the Wikipedia system? Because I don’t understand it myself. We know that there is a lot of backchannel communication and I think it has to be the case that the Wikimedia Foundation now, probably governments, probably the CIA, have accounts that they control, in which they actually exert their influence.

And it’s fantastic, in a bad way, that she actually comes out against the system for being “free and open.” When she says that she’s worked with government to shut down what they consider “misinformation,” that, in itself, means that it’s no longer free and open.

But the thing is—I’m using the words carefully here—the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t have an authority in the Wikipedia system: the website, its talk pages, the various bureaucratic structures. It just doesn’t have the authority to shut things down. So, if Big Pharma or their government representatives want to shut down a description of their research of a Covid-critical biochemist, I want to know how that happens. And I think the other people who are at work on Wikipedia, we want to know how that happens.

Rufo: I’ve talked with some reporters who cover “misinformation” and they have noted that Katherine Maher has ties to multiple NGOs that are deeply connected to U.S. intelligence services. Do you have any suspicion that she has been working with American intelligence to shape Wikipedia entries from a distance?

Sanger: I have suspicions. We do know that Virgil Griffith did research on how different agencies and corporations use Wikipedia to manage their reputation. He found that Langley, Virginia, had a whole lot of edits back in 2007. Why would they have stopped that?

I will say this: it’s outrageous, frankly, that a purportedly “free and open” resource, built by the public, built to deliver a neutral representation of the views on every subject, has not just been taken over by the Left, but has been co-opted by and is working with the government—that’s not a thing I would’ve imagined happening 20 years ago.

Rufo: Take me back to that time. What was the vision of a free and open Internet?

Sanger: Everybody had that vision. We didn’t have to have a special vision of a free and open Internet. That was the Internet. That was just its nature. We thought it was always going to be that way. The thing that excited us about the Internet was that anyone could publish anything, as long as it was legal. And the notion of restrictions on free speech was nowhere to be found. In the 1990s and 2000s, Democrats and Republicans were competing with each other to demonstrate how much in favor of free speech they were. But, as a philosopher, I knew that this was not automatic, that it could easily change. We could lose these freedoms.

Rufo: And what do you make of Katherine Maher, as an archetype? She’s against the idea of an objective truth, against a free and open Internet, and sees the First Amendment as an impediment to censorship. What does that represent to you?

Sanger: The fact that she is not immediately hounded out of her job—and she won’t be, I’m sure—shows you how profoundly and how quickly the culture of not just the Internet, but of the United States and the West in general, has changed.

The fact that you had to do some research and surface these videos, that they weren’t immediately caught as smoking-gun evidence of how bad things have gotten, shows you that the attitudes that she expresses are what we expect these days.

I’m at once shocked at what she says, and yet, not terribly surprised, either.

Rufo: In your opinion, what should happen at NPR, given what we now know about its new CEO?

Sanger: If NPR wanted to prove that they were still committed to free speech, to being ideologically neutral, and simply nonpartisan, they would let her go right away.

I don’t expect them to do that. They don’t listen to people like us. They don’t care what we think. But nevertheless, this is an important story because it shows just how cynical it is. It is getting to the point where you can’t accuse people like Katherine Maher of hypocrisy anymore because they’re not being hypocritical. They’re actually saying it out loud: “We don’t really believe in this freedom stuff anyway.”

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2024, 10:29 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I figure that this belongs in here. It seems that not only Uri Berliner, but also Larry Sanger cofounder of Wikipedia also has some very revealing comments, as they apply to Katherine Maher. Yikes, she seems rather dangerous to anyone who values and enjoys their 1st Amendment rights.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/wikipedia-co-founder-shocked-by-npr-chief-katherine-maher

Very interesting. Sounds like she is someone that may not need to be involved in media.