Berliner's essay also angered many of his colleagues and exposed Maher, who started as NPR's CEO in March, to a string of attacks from conservatives over her past social media posts.

NPR reported that the essay reignited the criticism that many prominent conservatives have long leveled against NPR and prompted newsroom leadership to implement monthly internal reviews of the network's coverage.

Neither NPR nor Maher have not yet publicly responded to Berliner's resignation, but Maher refuted his claims in a statement Monday to NPR.

"In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen," Maher said. "What matters is NPR's work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests."

>Liberal Bias
So NPR reports the truth and he doesn't like it, got it.

>>1288363
see the pic in the OP you brainwashed NPC

>>1288363
He wanted NPR to cover Trump more positively so they don't alienate Trump's base (who don't listen to NPR). He basically wanted them to normalize Trump's buffoonery in an effort to gain a wider audience.

Here is NPR's version of events for whatever its worth
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245283076/npr-editor-uri-berliner-resigns-ceo-katherine-maher?ft=nprml&f=1020

>>1288373
Who in the mother of fuck is "Joel Pollak" and why do you care so much about what he says on twatter? Nevermind, I'll google it, something you faggots don't know how to do.
>Joel Barry Pollak (born 25 April 1977) is a South African-American conservative political commentator, writer, radio host, and attorney.
This is you thought leader? really?

>>1288377
I don't... what? Who the fuck cares about Joel Pollack or what he has to say? I know leftists are retarded but is that really what you took away from the tweet? Not the part where he quoted NPR objectively lying about Rittenhouse in a biased attempt to undermine Trump's reelection chances? God you people really are beyond saving, your programming is unbreakable.

>>1288385
ok Joel whatever you say

>>1288385
>Who the fuck cares about Joel Pollack or what he has to say?
see >>1288373

>guy wants to get a job grifting rightoids
>"owns the libs" and quits his previous job
Just watch for this useless eater to get snatched up by Newsmax or OANN.

>>1288388
see >>1288385

>>1288393
see >>1288373

>>1288394
>lol look mom I'm shitposting on 4chan XD
thank you for admitting you were wrong, I accept your concession and your admittance that NPR lied about Rittenhouse due to their political bias

>>1288375
So he wanted them to adopt a conservative bias like the rest of the conservatively biased media.
And because NPR choose to do straight reporting this means they have a liberal bias in the eyes of conservatives like Maher.
Gotcha.

>>1288373
>NPC
But I'm not a Trump shill

>>1288395
ok well let me know when you plan to start making sense and not just post gibberish

>>1288373
NPR does acknowledge video in the body of that linked article. You should be able to understand the better video evidence hadn't come out at the time since it was being saved for the trial.

>>1288396
>not an NPC
>claiming that there is no evidence Rittenhouse acted in self defense
pick one
>straight reporting
>lying about Rittenhouse
pick one
>>1288397
>making sense
>claiming that there's no evidence Rittenhouse acted in self defense
pick one
>>1288398
>NPR does acknowledge video (which indisputably shows that Rittenhouse POSSIBLY acted in self defense)
>There is ZERO evidence of self defense
pick one

although you indicate that you are one of the rare leftists who admits Rittenhouse acted in self defense. How do you feel about Democrats claiming it wasn't self defense even after the trial?

>>1288359
As a person who is literate and actually read the article. I find the OP very disingenuous. The twitter screen cap vomit appears to contain the words "Defund NPR" and yet the person in the news article specifically says, "I don't support calls to defund NPR..."

The pic in the OP is not news. It is not related to the news.

>>1288399
Good post

>>1288400
>REEEEEE I'm a newfag who doesn't understand 4chan!
there used to be a copy/pasta about how the brainlet leftists on /news/ don't understand how 4chan works. Does anybody have it?

>>1288404
>>1288404
>Does anybody have it?
It's not needed.
This entire board is a testament to that fact

>>1288399
>although you indicate that you are one of the rare leftists who admits Rittenhouse acted in self defense. How do you feel about Democrats claiming it wasn't self defense even after the trial?
I'm not all that familiar with the case actually. But say, if you were to do something intentional to escalate a situation, you probably shouldn't have the same degree of self-defense protection as an innocent person. Basically the guys who attacked him were retarded but you don't usually get off scott free provoking fights with retards and killing them.

>>1288408
>I'm not all that familiar with the case actually
then why comment on it? This seems to be a pattern where everybody who is familiar with the case agrees with conservatives and everybody who doesn't actually know anything about it agrees with Democrats and NPR
>if you were to do something intentional to escalate a situation
>provoking fights
kek. The "escalation" and "provoking fights" was that Rittenhouse is carrying a fire extinguisher going to put out a fire when the arsonists attacked him to stop him from putting out the fire. Leftists claim he "provoked" a fight because he tried to put out the fire and the arsonists attacked him to stop him from putting the fire out. The first arsonist he shot even threatened to kill people for putting out his fires earlier.
This isn't even relevant to the original point in the OP btw, that NPR lied and falsely claimed that there wasn't ANY evidence of self-defense even after the videos were widely circulated.

>>1288411
Even so, there's a right to self defense. Not a right to stop arsons, and presumably by extension, all crimes, declaring youself a cop whenever you please. The actual cops are bad enough.

>>1288404
>>1288407
>the r/the_Donald refugees are larping as oldfags again
Quaint

Huh.
I guess npr got rid of their old CEO back in January, John lancing, who's previous job was CEO of the US state departments foreign propaganda outlets.

Now it's Katherine Maher, the old CEO of Wikipedia, another organization known for being totally not biased at all

>>1288363
>truth
>being this delusional

>>1288411
How about instead of whining you just post a link to the NPR coverage and show where they lied about the case.

>>1288399
>Whataboutism
NPC spotted.
LMAO

>>1288363
>>1288359
NPR is pretty shit with the liberal bias. During gamergate they (might have been bbc, but it aired on the NYC NPR affiliate) interviewed this guy, kept asking him the same fucking question because they didn't like his answer and then when they got him to say the sound bit they wanted they clipped and used it out of context.
Or when the zimzam happened on facebook they posted some graph basically saying you can kill blacks as a white person under stand your ground, but then if you followed the graph they posed back to the source the author said there were like 3 white people who ever killed a black person and tried to use stand your ground so it wasn't a statistically significant number and shouldn't have been used. And also zimzam wasn't a stand your ground case anyway.

>>1288455
>gamergate
what's a gamergate?
as far as this Berliner, good riddance to bad republican rubbish

"A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

The meaningful evidence would be that regarding Mr. Rittenhouse's state of mind.
And with that said, it's bad form of them to ask any president to condemn defendants awaiting trial. They shouldn't do that.

>>1288461
>what's a gamergate?
some woman fucked 5 guys, her ex got upset because he through they were exclusive so he wrote about it, /v/ memed it because it was funny. turns out some of the guys she was fucking were vidya journalists who were writing puff pieces (though not reviews) telling people about her game, further looking into this it turned out most games journalists were in bed with indy game devs and were giving good reviews/free ads without disclosing their relationship. like one dyke kept shilling for either her roommates gf or her gf's roommate. then all the game news sites released the same article at the same time saying they hated white men and it turned out all game journalists were for some reason actually part of a secret jewish cabal and that real journalists were in on it and also you got banned for mentioning it on 4chan because m00t was friends with someone involved and this is what lead to 8 chan and I also called moot a faggot in a >(you) to him in a bears thread on /sp/ and then m00t stopped posting and sold to heroshima m00t.
also you are literally british so fuck off about hating republicans. I literally don't even know who your current queen is, faggot
>>1288467
they asked him because obongo used to say we should hang people who shot blacks in self defense all the time. see all the times he acted like zimzam and officer wilson were guilty when both men did nothing wrong

>>1288473
>I literally don't even know who your current queen is, faggot
haha
I knew all along what gamergate was, as i use to post on 8ch/news/ exclusively.

I made you copy/paste that wall of text because you were born a bitch

the quality of scum was better there, like johnny neptune.

>>1288478
you clearly were from /leftypol/ you reddit spacing newfag bong

>>1288479
you clearly were from /shota/ before it was removed

Joshua: Alright, time to jerk off to some neko shota.

>>1288450
>it's Whataboutism to point out that NPR lied in a thread where leftists are denying that NPR lied
no
>>1288430
Read the OP picture you retard it's right there and has already been pointed out ITT
>>1288412
>declaring yourself a cop
is the left STILL trying to go with his NPC talking point? What specifically did he do that makes you think he was "declaring himself a cop"?
Even if your lie were true (it's not), it still wouldn't change the fact that NPR lied. The question isn't whether Rittenhouse definitely acted in self defense (he did) but whether there was ANY evidence indicating that it was POSSIBLE he acted in self defense. NPR lied about it and said that there is no evidence, and that lie was clearly due to political bias and an attempt to influence the election.
>>1288467
>provokes
he had a fire extinguisher and was going to put out the fire. That's literally all he did to "provoke" the attack from the arsonists, and he even tried to run away from them before defending himself.

>>1288455
Good post

>>1288498
>he had a fire extinguisher and was going to put out the fire. That's literally all he did to "provoke" the attack from the arsonists, and he even tried to run away from them before defending himself
Putting out the fires set by angry mobs of murderous democrats is often all that's needed for them to attack you.
They are murderous democrats after all

Wow everyone's sick of lieberals.

>>1288363
Nope. A Slate article from another former NPR employee disclosed that NPR buried a story about how the Central American gang MS-13 was killing people in the DC metro area because they didn't want to confirm any of Trump's talking points about MS-13.

>And to be fair, some of that did seem politically motivated, before and after Trump was elected. I remember resistance to covering the violent MS-13 gang after it became a major talking point in Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric—even though the gang was active and murdering people in communities around the D.C. metropolitan area, close to NPR’s headquarters, and just miles from where many staffers lived. I think a lot of critics would consider that “wokeness”: pussyfooting around an issue because it might offend people of color. I saw it as low-key racial bias, because MS-13’s victims were mostly poor Central American immigrants, the kind of people we didn’t think our affluent white listenership would pay attention to.

Source: https://slate.com/business/2024/04/npr-diversity-public-broadcasting-radio.html

>>1288498
>Doubling down on his whataboutism

>>1288636
tldr newfag

>>1288359
>defund npr
1% of their annual budget is from the government.

>>1288639
I"M OUTRAGED!!

>>1288639
Their largest funding source is corporate sponsorships.
Democrats favorites.

>>1288669
Conservatives suddenly pretending the care about corporate influence is definitely the strangest political development in the last decade.

>>1288670
>Democrats suddenly supporting big corporations and being pro-corporate influence is definitely the strangest political development in the last decade.
FTFY

>>1288683
Both parties have always supported corporations, anon. No shit. Its only been recently that low IQ MAGA voters have been tricked by populist propaganda into thinking that any institution of any kind is evil and jewish despite the frontrunner for president and his entire cabinet being literal corporate billionaires. Being able to start a business and make money and provide jobs used to be a point of pride for Republicans. Now you've completely pivoted because your party leaders found it easier to appeal to sub 50 IQ knuckle draggers with "muh business evil" then get people to honestly engage with their country.

>>1288687
Nta but i's mainly center-right former occupy berniebro converts banging the drum for anti-corporatism. I don't know if modern liberals ever cared about the impact of corporate interest outside of "muh nra".

>>1288690
>Nta but i's mainly center-right former occupy berniebro converts banging the drum for anti-corporatism
Nah. Both extremes horseshoe on this issue. To be honest, I wouldn't even call it anti-corporatism because neither the far-right nor the far-left has even remotely rational positions. The far-left thinks that the CIA assassinates socialists all over the world and that corporations have this evil monopoly over perpetuating the existence of capitalism and that somewhere, somehow, there's BILLIONS of socialist warriors being brainwashed into not being socialists. The far-right thinks that the deep state is real and that corporations are anti-white and hate straight men and want to destroy the family and make everyone's kids gay. Neither position is based in reality. There's plenty of legitimate things to say about corporate structures in America. Neither side of the political extremes have added anything of substance to this conversation.

>I don't know if modern liberals ever cared about the impact of corporate interest outside of "muh nra".
Pre 2008 housing crisis the anti-corporate populist horseshit wasn't really in chic. If anything, both parties kind of fought to align themselves with the corporate backers of their respective platforms because most people forget that at one point in America, being a "job creator" was an elevated position. The idea of self-made millionaires and billionaires used to be an invigorating electoral concept. People liked it. Now, post-Trump, being rich is like an insult.

>>1288699
>The idea of self-made millionaires and billionaires used to be an invigorating electoral concept. People liked it. Now, post-Trump, being rich is like an insult.
Self-made billionaires and millionaires are a meme. What happened is that the average person re-woke up to the reality that corporations will do anything no matter how heinous if it means they can deliver a couple of pennies more to their shareholders. Liberals becoming corporate cheerleaders is inherently more cringe because they're all the ones for bigger governments and more social safety programs for the average person, and corporations and super rich folk inherently rail against anything that stands in the way of making them money. But because Disney or Amazon put a few women or black people in their tv shows, liberals suddenly act like these companies are allies and aren't fucking over their workers and the environment.

>>1288747
Man you're really pounding this "libs love corporations" meme like a new GOP campaign strategy just dropped.

>>1288750
Hit dogs will holler.

>>1288754
What?

>>1288747
Good post

>>1288763
I disagree

>>1288765
But you're wrong.

>>1288747
>leftists for decades ask for companies to have better representation, to be more environmentally friendly, and to pay workers better
>corporations actually start to do one of those three things
>leftists say "okay good start," while still pushing for better wages and reduced externalities
>right wingers get massively triggered at any social progressivism, bash corpos that do attempt to have more inclusion
>leftists understandably think this is a stupid reaction to the most surface level move a company could make
>right wingers: LOL YOU LIBTARDS SURE LOVE TO SUCK CORPORATE COCK
in case it isn't clear: I hope that amazon and disney's entire executive suite (and all of their major corporate stockholders) come down with ultra aids for their kleptomania and the rest of the fortune 500 figures out that they need to start making real changes before they get sent to the public square for a guillotining. I also think its better that the media they produce reflects the public they're trying to sell to than not. is it so hard to understand this concept?

>>1288767
No you don't liar. You love Wapo, and Disney and will gladly shill for Bezos and kids shows with fags.

>>1288767
> is it so hard to understand this concept?
Perhaps even impossible. This board is pants-shittingly retarded

>>1288747
>>1288699
Good posts

>>1288769
this is exactly what I mean. Bezos is a fucking hypercapitalist who bought wapo to control a major media outlet and its ability to report on him and his cronies. why would I support a plutocrat taking a newspaper to be his personal rag? why would I trust that paper's reporting on issues tied up with him or amazon or any major business at all? why would I support the executives and/or the publicly traded companies who explicitly make clear they only care about issues infosar as it makes them more profit or stops them from losing value in some other way? because I don't hate gay people or see them as a major issue in my (or anyone else's) life?

>>1288363
>So NPR reports the truth and he doesn't like it, got it.

NPR is a blatant LeftDem propaganda outlet, this isn't debatable in any way but the real issue is that they're using American tax dollars to do it.

If FoXNews was getting tax dollars, the LeftDems would flip their shit.

>>1288775
>why would I support a plutocrat taking a newspaper to be his personal rag?
No idea, but you do. Everything in Wapo is the liberal/Democrat platform.
Even if you don't support Bezos, Bezos supports you.
And if that doesn't hit you with a strong "why" I don't know what would.

>>1288778
bezos doesn't support me in any way you absolute mongoloid, he doesn't support himself being losing his billions and having it redistributed into a public fund, I do. He doesn't support having major companies like amazon broken up so that they can't overpower the government (i.e. an enforcement of our anit-trust laws), I do. bezos and the washington post certainly don't advocate for a maximum wage or universal basic income, nor do they advocate for universal healthcare and a dismantling of the military-industrial complex that they are both beneficiaries of.
and regardless of how narrowminded you are in your view of the world, I am not a democrat. I have never been registered with either major US political party. and FYI, "liberals" are capitalists, and I am not a capitalist.

>>1288780
>a maximum wage or universal basic income, nor do they advocate for universal healthcare
Yes they do.

>>1288784
Bezos wants a maximum wage? The Washington Post Editorial Board endorsed UBI? Any entity in the United States actually wants to reform healthcare away from the for profit enterprise it is? And don't say >Democrats because when they had a chance to do it in 2008 they instead created the most right wing imagineable system, one which ensured the profit motive would remain in healthcare and insurance parasites would also remain in healthcare.

>>1288785
Oh lawd. Here we go again. "Democrats are right wing".
How often have you voted Democrat? Let's start there.

>>1288786
Ah yes, the classic "you only have two choices when you vote so you must be on the other side!" But I detest the two party scam. I've Never voted straight ticket dem, haven't voted for a major party for prez or Senate in a decade, for the house I tend to vote libertarian or green if they run a candidate in the hope that getting some weirdo elected might have the way for more multiparty congresses. In local elections party is less important than experience and policy position imo so I look for that rather then the party.

And yes, Democrats are right wing. Examine substantive policy positions beyond talking points to the media and you'll find that both parties by and large support spending billions on the military over even modest increases to the social safety net or other public goods. Despite Nancy taking the knee and a few cities attempting reforms congressional Dems still love the cops who protected them from the rightwing mob (despite some likely being complicit in letting people in, as well as the number of cops and military who have since been charged) and play into the dumb "rising crime" narrative that is only half-true (violent crime is on a decline after the covid spike and the murder rate continues to stay low). They squander every chance they have to ride a popular wave of support by kicking leftists to the curb in favor of milquetoast condemnations when it comes to everything from Palestine to corruption on Wall Street. The border bill they proposed was literally the Republican wet dream of the bush era. I could go on but I suffice to say nearly every "leftist" thing the Democrats have said has not been backed up by policy, and the reality is that most moves left in this country (beyond the minor issue of gay rights) occured in the 30s-60s and we've been going backwards since.

>>1288788
OK next question, when did anyone but Demshills start coming to this board?
I'll leave you alone now.

>>1288767
>I also think its better that the media they produce reflects the public they're trying to sell to than not. is it so hard to understand this concept?
I think representation is good, though I'd argue 1) liberals tend to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the topic, and 2) the representation isn't actually accurate or that helpful (for example, idk how many black people were bumming around Middle Ages Scandinavia, but I'm willing to guess it wasn't a lot. Black people are underrepresented in STEM because of crippling poverty and a subsequent lack of valuing education, not because they don't see themselves on TV enough).
Going back to the topic of this thread, NPR explicitly moderating its stories due to whether it makes an identity group look bad or not or whether they fit an agenda, something that Uri Berliner and another former NPR writer who wrote an article in Slate both confirmed did happen, is fucked up and damages its credibility, and I say that as someone who's been listening to NPR and its affiliates since I was a kid.

>>1288786
I've voted for Democrat in every Presidential election I could vote in, and I'll probably vote for Biden again. But his recent foreign policy wrt Israel (basically gave them a blank check) and Ukraine (what does victory look like given that 1991 borders are impossible to recover) and his complete mishandling of the southern border crisis along with inflation have really made me look at the party with more critical eyes. And quite frankly, their constant hammering on identity politics is starting to look out of touch with reality of actual statistics.

>>1288639
that's for Federal funding, IIRC they also get a lot of funding from local/state governments.
And even 1% is too much to spend on blatant political propaganda like that. Would you be okay with Fox News getting 1% of their funding from the Feds? And at least the average Fox reader actually pays taxes unlike the leftists shilling for NPR.

>>1288806
fox news isn't news, it's entertainment

>>1288808
well NPR is not news either AND it's not even entertaining.
Why should conservatives (IE the people who actually pay taxes) be forced to give money to a leftwing propaganda outlet?

>>1288809
why should liberals let fox news spew propagandistic lies that splits this country in two

>>1288810
>Why can't we just repeal the First Amendment
refreshing honesty from a leftist for once, usually you pretend that you don't want to burn the Constitution.
also not relevant at all to this thread. Liberals aren't being forced to fund Fox News.

>>1288777
>If FoXNews was getting tax dollars
They are
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/fox-news-dominion-settlement-tax-break

>>1288811
you're outraged?

>>1288813
NPR should apologize for stealing money from conservatives and using it to spread anti-conservative lies

>>1288815
i'm sure having a temper tantrum on this board for the mentally ill will change things

>>1288359
Good. I'm tired of the news pushing all these MAGA diversity hires. I too am bias against fascist threats to democracy. Why do these retards think they are ""owed" a spot on the news when they've never went to college for journalism, keep pushing conspiracy theories on a daily basis and are incapable of holding a literal fraud accountable for even a fifth of the things he does? It's annoying that every mainstream media source needs to entertain brainlets, dumb down their content with low quality anchors/authors and carer to the feelings of fascist in every article.


Just stop being retarded for once and maybe the smarter people will start taking your opinions more seriously.

>>1288812

Feel free to copypaste the relevant portions from that link, because NPR is literally getting our tax dollars to propagandize Americans with their own money.

>>1288879
>Information I don't like is propaganda
Its all so tiring

>>1288884
> Information I don't like but still have PAY FOR.

Do you honestly not see the problem with this?

>>1288809
>well NPR is not news either AND it's not even entertaining.
But..but...the tiny desk concerts :(
They used to have more but nobody gave a shit and NPR had to do mass layoffs lol

>>1288879
That is not how public radio works, they get their money through donations from Americans like me.

>>1288987
Then you should be OK with ending public funding of NPR since they don't need it.

>>1288987
>That is not how public radio works, they get their money through donations from Americans like me.

https://www.propublica.org/article/big-bird-debate-how-much-does-federal-funding-matter-to-public-broadcasting#:~:text=Per%20a%20statutory%20formula%2C%20public%20television%20gets%20about,–%20or%20about%20%241.35%20per%20person%20per%20year.

"How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting?

It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.

This amounts to roughly .012 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget – or about $1.35 per person per year. (Some global perspective: elsewhere in the world, Canada spends $22.48 per citizen, Japan $58.86 per citizen, the United Kingdom $80.36 per citizen, and Denmark, $101 per citizen.)"

>>1288884
>objective lies are propaganda
yes?