National Public Radio is a taxpayer funded venue where, we are told, all viewpoints are given a chance to be heard.
Really?
From an article at breitbart.com:
National Public Radio ombudsman/public editor Elizabeth Jensen has recommended that the taxpayer-funded radio news service bar future live interviews of conservatives who may have controversial views, following an interview Nov. 16 with Breitbart News’ Joel B. Pollak.
Pollak, who serves as Breitbart’s Senior Editor-at-Large and In-house Counsel, defended its Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon from false and defamatory claims of antisemitism and “white nationalism.” He also turned the tables, pointing out that NPR has “racist programming,” including a story that called the 2016 election results “nostalgia for a whiter America.”
NPR listeners were apparently outraged that anyone from Breitbart News had been given an opportunity to defend the website and its chairman.
In her response, “Listeners: Two Recent Interviews Are ‘Normalizing Hate Speech’,” Jensen concluded that the live format had allowed Pollak to get the better of host Steve Inskeep.
She suggested that future interviews be taped: “In addition, in my opinion, these interviews should not be done live. Inskeep is an excellent live interviewer, but live interviews are difficult, especially when there is limited time. A little contextualizing never hurts.”
Notably, Jensen’s recommendation mirrors the language of a critique by the left-wing pressure group Media Matters, which complained that “the interview failed to contextualize the true extent of Breitbart’s extremism under Bannon’s leadership.”
Jensen applauded the use of the term “white nationalist” to describe Bannon, although she noted Bannon had disputed that term. She linked to an internal NPR memorandumsuggesting the term “white nationalist” be used in stories on the “alt-right.”
Does that look like a place that values free and open exchange to you?
How many times, in how many ways, do we have to see that, to some on the left, “openness” and “diversity” define as “we get to say everything we want an you mouth-breathing neanderthals just shut up and listen, maybe you’ll learn something”?
If one of the consequences of a Trump administration is that NPR actually does what it claims – i.e. gives a platform for all views, not just a preponderance of air time to one side – it will have scored a victory for real openness and diversity.
That would be a refreshing change.
Ken, I hope you are right and we see a fair NPR in the future. My bet however is that we won’t be seeing anymore live interviews.