The chart is much more nuanced than just left and right. There are many shades of politics in between. Like moderate viewpoints. This is closer to that.
the most interesting thing about Uri Berliner departure and criticism of NPR
is he complained there wasn't enough DEI
"For most of the 25 years I worked at NPR as a business editor, I felt honored to work there. But I became troubled by examples of bias that stemmed, I believe, from the lack of viewpoint diversity among NPR’s journalists. Though I tried flagging my concerns to my bosses, it fell on deaf ears."
I don’t agree at all with the author of that article. NPR did not leave an unbiased viewpoint behind. “Conservatives” (and I use that term for lack of a better one because today’s Republican party is not conservative at all) allowed themselves to be turned against it like a gaggle of 8th graders listening to gossip about one of their classmates. Now they seem to think any viewpoint that doesn’t align with theirs is far left liberal, and that the reason people may not share their viewpoint is that they have been brainwashed by “liberal media.” I say they should remove the beam in their own eye before they complain about the mote in someone else’s.
I've been reading your column and watching PBS News Hour for years. Never have I seen anything like the BS we hear from the Trump administration and Fox News. Thanx for your continued objectivity.
If anything, since the new Trump administration came into power, PBS has been going out of its way to give them voice. It is frustrating when they sometimes let lies stand.
Once again, the attack on PBS is the Stefanik, Stec, Simpson, Lafarr attack also. They are all Trump. They support him and put him in power. Every single Trump voter is responsible for the current destruction of our nation.
I agree - there is little difference between Republicans and MAGA. Local Republicans support the State and Congressional Republicans all of whom are MAGA. I do not hear them opposing the big beautiful bill in support of their constituents. The few opposing the bill are opposing it because they don't believe it cuts enough spending. The spending they oppose is, of course, on the programs their constituents need and deserve.
And if the smoke from Canadian forest fires - fueled by climate change - directly affecting our communities, it would be nice to hear where the folks who are -anti-climate change are going to do about getting us healthy air again.
So glad you mentioned Ken Burns' documentaries in your marvelous article on PBS. Wife Nancy and 10 year old son Richard watched the masterful Civil War series, then probably read 200 books between them on the war, finally visiting Gettysburg and being fulfilled.
An advisor to Burns' series on Vietnam was Colonel Gregory Daddis, former West Point faculty department head and longtime email pen pal, who concurred with my theory that the military/industrial complex that Ike warned us about, isn't about to let Peace break out for long, and stick them with a trillion $$ in unsold inventory on their shelves.
First of all, advertising does not make a news outlet bad... nor can you assume it makes it bias...
Though there is the potential, if the separation of News/Advertising/ownership isn't kept apart.*
I will point out that Mr. Tingley has defended the Post-Star as not being bias.. and I am sure they wrote many editorials for and against various politicians that advertised (their businesses and political aspirations).....
and one could ask the Sunday Columnist for "The Front Page" did his family ever cross the line when they owned newspapers?
I know of a reporter who covered the Lake Placid/Saranac Lake area. In a column this person put a twist on the old saw of "that and a nickel gets you a cup of coffee" and made it "that and a $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee at the Mirror Lake Inn" The editor nixed it because the Mirror Lake Inn was an advertiser.. was that bias? was it any more bias when around the same time the reporter did a profile of the Mirror Lake Inn's children, one of which went on to win Olympic medals.
Thanks, Ken, for the insightful analysis of PBS/NPR and for the affirmation of their value. I’ll never understand how people who watch FOX 16/7 (assuming they sleep at least 8 hours) can accuse PBS/NPR of bias. If able, no matter the size of the gift, we all need to support public broadcasting and also petition our government officials to continue federal support.
Coal, coal, coal! We need it to help keep feeding that beautiful entity called “the ozone layer.” (Sarcasm intended).
With the air quality at 128 yesterday, Meg and I wore our masks to church yesterday. We tend not to be paranoid, but we are approaching 90 years of age.
By the way, the smoke from the Canadian wild fires was so bad yesterday in some of the ADK forests, a group oh hikers from Ohio kept seeing a “woody haze.” (Humor intended)
.
For you non-football fans/historians, Woody Hayes((haze—get it?) ) was the controversial Ohio State football coach in the latter part of the twentieth century.
Like with the smoke from Canada, we should take a look at what is going on.. the smoke is not bias or aimed at America...
////
You can't write a story about fires and ignore Climate Change.
And you need to remind people in every story about TAC0trmPED0, pos_tfnKKK and the republican party without acknowledging they are liars, criminals and corrupt\\\\\
Here is a Washington Post story:
Why are so many of Canada’s wildfires burning ‘out of control’?
Not only do they discuss climate change.. they make interesting connections.. like more people are living closer to forests (which lead to more fire suppression to protect homes) that are dry because of climate change (also because the winters are shorter, more pest are hurting the health of the forests
=====
In the end.. we think about the problem, but nothing about the cause, because if we knew the cause we would know we could do something. Now we put bandage on the problem and do nothing to cure the disease.
The stories don't lead with the cause of the problem or the remedies
because we aren't honest with ourselves.
Just like the thing that is most bias about all news.
I used to tell readers who complained of bias in our stories, if you are looking for the bias you will find it. All I can tell you is that my experience from 21 years at the newspaper was to be wary of bias and try really hard to be fair, but more importantly, right. It is not biased to say climate change is a fact when 97 percent of scientists agree it is happening.
My contention is there is a bias when you don't mention it and likely you should lead with 'caused by climate change'
That bias, if you will, is not about hiding, but neglecting...
One of the things I think is problematic for all media is they lack an ombudsman or seems to (did the Post-Star have one?)
Because you are not the one to defend (or to say there is none) if the Post-Star is bias.. you are in the hurricane. Someone from the outside and objective is the one to do so. Not saying, I or any other reader can *say* there is bias, but we can certainly have the opinion there there appears to be.. Much like your work with Ethics for Queensbury board.. they can't be the deciders (though clearly they think they can), and you can point out there is the appearance..
To rant on.. I follow NCPR more than any other news source (maybe Front Page.. but it is a different animal) and I have called for them to have an ombudsman over and OVER.
I believe they are objective and *think* they are doing the right job... but they are very heavy on patting themselves on the back for winning awards, but not in questioning if they are doing the right job - >
Example: they have been all over themselves with the 10-year anniversary coverage of the Dannemora Prison break, but I remember that.. and they did a lot of coverage, but most of it was about what other news sources were reporting (as a news man you know reporters should (MUST?) have and cultivate sources...) they had no prison sources and by the stories they have done in the last week, prove they still don't... (even after all their strike coverage)
NOW, I will add: in all their news, there has not been a story about the air quality problems in the last week related to the wild fires. an ombudsman might point out there are many important things they are NOT covering
Not to be snarky (but knowing this is) you also point out how you have endorsed various candidates off all political spectrums... or how it seems to be a 'wash' in the bias discussion because people complain from all sides of the P-S bias.
That sounds good but as the famous Spock said "Care for your children...." oops wrong Spock.. the other one said: "that is not logical"
And 'it isn't bias' can go both ways and day to day. Your (Post-Star's or any media) decisions about a candidate from year to year, doesn't eliminate the possibility of bias because they are of different parties.
=====
I remember the watertown daily times endorsing pos_tfnKKK saying things about her, that if you read their coverage of her, IN THEIR PAPER, you's know was wrong. I am not sure that is bias,
... but if all the smoke coverage says the sky is hazy and read, but you do an editorial about how the sky is blue..if not bias, some kind of disconnect
Well, we had an editorial board that included regular citizens who served specific terms. So the voices on the editorial board always changed. Endorsements of candidates were always based on candidate interviews. For the most part, I felt we usually picked the best candidate, but not always. We even endorsed Stefanik once.
you see, as I have stated before: "We even endorsed Stefanik once" doesn't really prove you aren't bias
it is a non sequitur - - -> it may be true
It is like saying : I married a person of color, so I am not racist
you can be and do both.
In fact Clarence Thomas married a white woman, but hinted at overturning the laws that protect that relationship, though did not point exactly at that.
Generally speaking, if you want to prove you are not bias (I am starting to repeat myself) you:
Use an object overview (like from an Ombudsman)
Or if you do it yourself (not really encouraged) you don't use one-offs, but try to provide a pattern of objective behavior
----
an editorial board 'could' be that.. but it really depends on the composition of that board... but certainly if they are the ones writing the editorials, well then they are in the eye of the hurricane..
you explain this in another context
People like to believe that diverse police departments would be non-prejudice.. but studies show that isn't always the case..*
Again "we can't be prejudice, we have a black officer." doesn't really prove anything.
if a newspaper wanted to say they are not bias... they might consider it
but I understand a budget, so a better to response would be:
"
They try to hire more DIVERSE reporters and editors
"
as David Buchyn posted an article about so-called NPR whistle blower.. as some kind of defense.. apparently the 'racial slur guy' didn't look into what Uri Berliner was criticizing NPR about, and that diversity was more of his contention than political bias...
but of course David Buchyn is like most right-wing thinkers there 'thinking' is a monolith that borders on (if not is) racist.
====
now I promise, if you wish, I will let you have the last word... (I have rambled too much already ... and given the ol'crone, who stalks me, something to let her disturbed mind obsess about.)
Something I would like to add to my comment, this is the perfect example how the local news (the Detroit FreePress) gets it right, when the national news does not
This attack on PBS and the threat of canceling funding along with all the other extreme, evil attempts to destroy the free flow of information and indeed are very democracy by tRump, Miller et al should scare the crap out of all decent human beings!
But alas, cowardice, greed, and fear of the bully in the White House seem to be the rule in the Republican Party.
https://www.thefp.com/p/uri-berliner-npr-should-refuse-to-take-federal-funds
speaking of bias
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-free-press-bias/
vrs
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
one leants to the left (slightly) and one to the right (a lot)
So you are agreeing that NPR is left leaning.
I posted a link that proves many things..
but I have no problems with you thinking facts are left leaning
because the truth is you are so far to the right that I guess fascists like Hitler would be to the left to you. right
The chart is much more nuanced than just left and right. There are many shades of politics in between. Like moderate viewpoints. This is closer to that.
Agree. NPR is center-left. Not hard left.
and does that make them bias?
I think I found your problem:
Facts have a well known liberal bias
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/opinion/facts-have-a-well-known-liberal-bias.html
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust
sometimes the pot, might look at the kettle before talking
Uri Berliner
"This article needed a better editor. I don’t know who, if anyone, edited Uri’s story, but they let him publish an article that discredited itself."
https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-failed-at-viewpoint
=======
don't let the fact that Uri Berliner likely is an angry ex-employee
the most interesting thing about Uri Berliner departure and criticism of NPR
is he complained there wasn't enough DEI
"For most of the 25 years I worked at NPR as a business editor, I felt honored to work there. But I became troubled by examples of bias that stemmed, I believe, from the lack of viewpoint diversity among NPR’s journalists. Though I tried flagging my concerns to my bosses, it fell on deaf ears."
https://www.thefp.com/p/uri-berliner-npr-should-refuse-to-take-federal-funds
Yes, more ideological diversity is needed at NPR
So you agree that TAC0ped0 should be in jail for his racist firing..
thanks.. maybe you should read the
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57717410-the-1619-project?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=CmiXBFuPfs&rank=1
so you understand what is going on in the racist world of your republican party
I don’t agree at all with the author of that article. NPR did not leave an unbiased viewpoint behind. “Conservatives” (and I use that term for lack of a better one because today’s Republican party is not conservative at all) allowed themselves to be turned against it like a gaggle of 8th graders listening to gossip about one of their classmates. Now they seem to think any viewpoint that doesn’t align with theirs is far left liberal, and that the reason people may not share their viewpoint is that they have been brainwashed by “liberal media.” I say they should remove the beam in their own eye before they complain about the mote in someone else’s.
for the record
how fascist does some one have to be for you to support them? right of putin or right of hitler
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/buchyn-s-saratoga-county-conservative-leadership-19831195.php
if someone says the "N word"
do they automatically get your support?
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/conservative-party-chair-fire-slurs-saratoga-19307994.php
should we cut all tax breaks from racists? even if they pretend to support diversity
asking for a friend
Yes, #BunkerBoy is an 🫏hole. X3.
you mean X5.
no, if you read the news x
just punches you in the face har dee har har
unfortunately you can't do sub or super script i.e. making things exponential
as in a magAhole to the 27th power
The more things change…
https://open.substack.com/pub/albellenchia/p/of-mice-and-media?r=7wk5d&utm_medium=ios
Sounds like you were a man ahead of your time.
And yet…🤕
I've been reading your column and watching PBS News Hour for years. Never have I seen anything like the BS we hear from the Trump administration and Fox News. Thanx for your continued objectivity.
If anything, since the new Trump administration came into power, PBS has been going out of its way to give them voice. It is frustrating when they sometimes let lies stand.
Once again, the attack on PBS is the Stefanik, Stec, Simpson, Lafarr attack also. They are all Trump. They support him and put him in power. Every single Trump voter is responsible for the current destruction of our nation.
I agree - there is little difference between Republicans and MAGA. Local Republicans support the State and Congressional Republicans all of whom are MAGA. I do not hear them opposing the big beautiful bill in support of their constituents. The few opposing the bill are opposing it because they don't believe it cuts enough spending. The spending they oppose is, of course, on the programs their constituents need and deserve.
And if the smoke from Canadian forest fires - fueled by climate change - directly affecting our communities, it would be nice to hear where the folks who are -anti-climate change are going to do about getting us healthy air again.
...who is meant by "LaFarr"?...
Most like referring to Warren County Sheriff Jim LaFarr.
...thank you / --was not aware of Sheriff LaFarr being "all Trump"...
Me neither.
Even with the crazy number of channels via satellite, etc, I find myself watching PBS more than ever.
Frightening yes but oh so typical of him. This is a reason to bring back civics classes in school &maybe to the general population.
Oh but promises had to be kept didn’t they?
So glad you mentioned Ken Burns' documentaries in your marvelous article on PBS. Wife Nancy and 10 year old son Richard watched the masterful Civil War series, then probably read 200 books between them on the war, finally visiting Gettysburg and being fulfilled.
An advisor to Burns' series on Vietnam was Colonel Gregory Daddis, former West Point faculty department head and longtime email pen pal, who concurred with my theory that the military/industrial complex that Ike warned us about, isn't about to let Peace break out for long, and stick them with a trillion $$ in unsold inventory on their shelves.
Thev are afraid of the truth that's why
First of all, advertising does not make a news outlet bad... nor can you assume it makes it bias...
Though there is the potential, if the separation of News/Advertising/ownership isn't kept apart.*
I will point out that Mr. Tingley has defended the Post-Star as not being bias.. and I am sure they wrote many editorials for and against various politicians that advertised (their businesses and political aspirations).....
but more and more we are seeing the line crossed
ª https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/nx-s1-5309725/jeff-bezos-washington-post-opinion-section
ª https://x.com/JeffBezos/status/1894757287052362088?lang=en
ª https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/feb/26/jeff-bezos-washington-post-opinion
and one could ask the Sunday Columnist for "The Front Page" did his family ever cross the line when they owned newspapers?
I know of a reporter who covered the Lake Placid/Saranac Lake area. In a column this person put a twist on the old saw of "that and a nickel gets you a cup of coffee" and made it "that and a $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee at the Mirror Lake Inn" The editor nixed it because the Mirror Lake Inn was an advertiser.. was that bias? was it any more bias when around the same time the reporter did a profile of the Mirror Lake Inn's children, one of which went on to win Olympic medals.
Thanks, Ken, for the insightful analysis of PBS/NPR and for the affirmation of their value. I’ll never understand how people who watch FOX 16/7 (assuming they sleep at least 8 hours) can accuse PBS/NPR of bias. If able, no matter the size of the gift, we all need to support public broadcasting and also petition our government officials to continue federal support.
Coal, coal, coal! We need it to help keep feeding that beautiful entity called “the ozone layer.” (Sarcasm intended).
With the air quality at 128 yesterday, Meg and I wore our masks to church yesterday. We tend not to be paranoid, but we are approaching 90 years of age.
By the way, the smoke from the Canadian wild fires was so bad yesterday in some of the ADK forests, a group oh hikers from Ohio kept seeing a “woody haze.” (Humor intended)
.
For you non-football fans/historians, Woody Hayes((haze—get it?) ) was the controversial Ohio State football coach in the latter part of the twentieth century.
NPR is bias, fake news, etc
Like with the smoke from Canada, we should take a look at what is going on.. the smoke is not bias or aimed at America...
////
You can't write a story about fires and ignore Climate Change.
And you need to remind people in every story about TAC0trmPED0, pos_tfnKKK and the republican party without acknowledging they are liars, criminals and corrupt\\\\\
Here is a Washington Post story:
Why are so many of Canada’s wildfires burning ‘out of control’?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/04/canada-fires-uncontrolled-air-quality-us/
if you look at the title you would think you are going to get information about the causes of wildfires... Climate change is not mentioned
Here is a NY Times article
Canada’s Wildfires in Manitoba and Saskatchewan: What to Know About Smoke and Air Quality
https://www.nytimes.com/article/canada-wildfires-2025.html
climate change is mentioned, but buried.
on the other hand:
Canadian wildfire smoke will be more frequent unwanted visitor in Michigan
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2025/06/04/canadian-wildfire-smoke-air-quality/84012693007/
Not only do they discuss climate change.. they make interesting connections.. like more people are living closer to forests (which lead to more fire suppression to protect homes) that are dry because of climate change (also because the winters are shorter, more pest are hurting the health of the forests
=====
In the end.. we think about the problem, but nothing about the cause, because if we knew the cause we would know we could do something. Now we put bandage on the problem and do nothing to cure the disease.
The stories don't lead with the cause of the problem or the remedies
because we aren't honest with ourselves.
Just like the thing that is most bias about all news.
We don't lead with the facts
I used to tell readers who complained of bias in our stories, if you are looking for the bias you will find it. All I can tell you is that my experience from 21 years at the newspaper was to be wary of bias and try really hard to be fair, but more importantly, right. It is not biased to say climate change is a fact when 97 percent of scientists agree it is happening.
My contention is there is a bias when you don't mention it and likely you should lead with 'caused by climate change'
That bias, if you will, is not about hiding, but neglecting...
One of the things I think is problematic for all media is they lack an ombudsman or seems to (did the Post-Star have one?)
Because you are not the one to defend (or to say there is none) if the Post-Star is bias.. you are in the hurricane. Someone from the outside and objective is the one to do so. Not saying, I or any other reader can *say* there is bias, but we can certainly have the opinion there there appears to be.. Much like your work with Ethics for Queensbury board.. they can't be the deciders (though clearly they think they can), and you can point out there is the appearance..
To rant on.. I follow NCPR more than any other news source (maybe Front Page.. but it is a different animal) and I have called for them to have an ombudsman over and OVER.
I believe they are objective and *think* they are doing the right job... but they are very heavy on patting themselves on the back for winning awards, but not in questioning if they are doing the right job - >
Example: they have been all over themselves with the 10-year anniversary coverage of the Dannemora Prison break, but I remember that.. and they did a lot of coverage, but most of it was about what other news sources were reporting (as a news man you know reporters should (MUST?) have and cultivate sources...) they had no prison sources and by the stories they have done in the last week, prove they still don't... (even after all their strike coverage)
NOW, I will add: in all their news, there has not been a story about the air quality problems in the last week related to the wild fires. an ombudsman might point out there are many important things they are NOT covering
Not to be snarky (but knowing this is) you also point out how you have endorsed various candidates off all political spectrums... or how it seems to be a 'wash' in the bias discussion because people complain from all sides of the P-S bias.
That sounds good but as the famous Spock said "Care for your children...." oops wrong Spock.. the other one said: "that is not logical"
And 'it isn't bias' can go both ways and day to day. Your (Post-Star's or any media) decisions about a candidate from year to year, doesn't eliminate the possibility of bias because they are of different parties.
=====
I remember the watertown daily times endorsing pos_tfnKKK saying things about her, that if you read their coverage of her, IN THEIR PAPER, you's know was wrong. I am not sure that is bias,
... but if all the smoke coverage says the sky is hazy and read, but you do an editorial about how the sky is blue..if not bias, some kind of disconnect
Well, we had an editorial board that included regular citizens who served specific terms. So the voices on the editorial board always changed. Endorsements of candidates were always based on candidate interviews. For the most part, I felt we usually picked the best candidate, but not always. We even endorsed Stefanik once.
you see, as I have stated before: "We even endorsed Stefanik once" doesn't really prove you aren't bias
it is a non sequitur - - -> it may be true
It is like saying : I married a person of color, so I am not racist
you can be and do both.
In fact Clarence Thomas married a white woman, but hinted at overturning the laws that protect that relationship, though did not point exactly at that.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/76922/why-would-interracial-marriages-need-legal-protection-in-usa-in-2022
Generally speaking, if you want to prove you are not bias (I am starting to repeat myself) you:
Use an object overview (like from an Ombudsman)
Or if you do it yourself (not really encouraged) you don't use one-offs, but try to provide a pattern of objective behavior
----
an editorial board 'could' be that.. but it really depends on the composition of that board... but certainly if they are the ones writing the editorials, well then they are in the eye of the hurricane..
you explain this in another context
People like to believe that diverse police departments would be non-prejudice.. but studies show that isn't always the case..*
Again "we can't be prejudice, we have a black officer." doesn't really prove anything.
* https://theappeal.org/more-black-cops-will-not-solve-police-violence/
Small community newspapers never spend their money on an ombudsman. They try to hire more reporters and editors because they are usually understaffed.
if a newspaper wanted to say they are not bias... they might consider it
but I understand a budget, so a better to response would be:
"
They try to hire more DIVERSE reporters and editors
"
as David Buchyn posted an article about so-called NPR whistle blower.. as some kind of defense.. apparently the 'racial slur guy' didn't look into what Uri Berliner was criticizing NPR about, and that diversity was more of his contention than political bias...
but of course David Buchyn is like most right-wing thinkers there 'thinking' is a monolith that borders on (if not is) racist.
====
now I promise, if you wish, I will let you have the last word... (I have rambled too much already ... and given the ol'crone, who stalks me, something to let her disturbed mind obsess about.)
Something I would like to add to my comment, this is the perfect example how the local news (the Detroit FreePress) gets it right, when the national news does not
I would add magazines to the list of news sources that I use. As far as bias is concerned, Fox news is by far, the most biased.
The Atlantic has certainly become a leader in the magazine world.
This attack on PBS and the threat of canceling funding along with all the other extreme, evil attempts to destroy the free flow of information and indeed are very democracy by tRump, Miller et al should scare the crap out of all decent human beings!
But alas, cowardice, greed, and fear of the bully in the White House seem to be the rule in the Republican Party.
it is an attempt to restrict free speech
check that - to restrict factual speech
It should, but I don't think it is.