I’m not sure people realize just how egregious some of NPR’s “journalism” has been. Amid the debate about defunding the network, I wanted to walk down memory lane to revisit some of its worst coverage.
There’s a lot. ⤵️
First, perhaps the most egregious display of activist journalism: their response to the Hunter Biden laptop story of corruption involving a major party candidate on the eve of the election.
Not only did @NPR not cover it, they bragged about refusing to do so.
Insofar as @NPR did cover the Hunter Biden scandal, they actively tried to cover it up.
They applauded Facebook & Twitter strangling the story as part of a push against “misinformation and conspiracy theories.”
The story, of course, turned out to be far from invented.
In particular, @NPR shamelessly went after @EmmaJoNYC for, of all things, doing real journalism.
Her doing so offended NPR so badly that they wrote an entire hit piece about her.
This wasn’t the only hatchet work from @NPR in defense of Biden.
When questions about Biden’s cognitive functioning started to bubble up in February 2024, NPR leapt Pravda-like to his defense.
The real problem? How such allegations would be “weaponized.”
Oh, and Biden’s pardoning of his son? No big deal, to hear @NPR tell it.
Partisan bias is one thing. Actively serving as stenographers of the administration, with your tax dollars, I would say is another.
Or how about @NPR begging voters to consider how good the economy allegedly was under Biden?
Early effort to insulate him — look at the headline! — from electoral attacks.
Such pro-government animus when a Democrat was in office contrasts sharply with @NPR’s breathless coverage of “Russian collusion.”
Despite (I get a kick out of this) claiming they weren’t going to discuss the sensational allegations, they were among the lead proponents.
Here are just a few examples of @NPR rushing to repeat the baseless narrative that Trump was compromised by Russia.
Here’s just a couple examples.
But of course this sentiment extended to all things connected to Trump.
The worst, in my book, remains their dismissal of the COVID lab leak hypothesis.
Not mincing words, @NPR claimed that the idea that Covid originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, had been “debunked.”
The lab leak theory, of course, is wasn’t debunked. It has since become the going theory not just in the U.S. but abroad.
I would like this @NPR side by side on my tombstone.
And @NPR had more bad Covid lab leak coverage, and coverage of the pandemic more broadly.
Perhaps my favorite is this, where they compared the lab leak theory to (I’m not joking) the “lead-up to [the] Iraq War.”
The rush to hit Trump has led to some other funny side by sides from @NPR, like this one about Covid’s danger.
And on some issues, @NPR has really taken on the role of advocacy organization, not media entity. As @MaryMargOlohan flagged earlier, NPR has been at the vanguard of promoting the merits of“gender affirming care.”
And then of course there are the seemingly endless examples of @NPR using your tax dollars to do “journalism” that, well, I’m not sure many people would pay for.
Are you concerned about worm emojis? How about policing emoji skin tone?
No? Anyone?
Are you interested in your tax dollars funding coverage of the symbolic dance protest of Trump’s actions toward the Kennedy Center?
Surely you’re okay with your tax dollars investigating whether the depiction of people with eating disorders is too white? Or camel caps attacks on capitalism?
This one presented without comment.
So, yeah, if everyday Americans look at the coverage @NPR produces and think, no, I don’t want my tax dollars going to this, I think that’s reasonable.
I can’t help but think that maybe those who are up in arms about the prospect aren’t really interested in journalism at all.
(I will always treasure my own mention in @NPR though!)
@NPR I’ve been sitting on some of these for a long time, so apologies if some of the screenshots (of my previous screenshots) aren’t as crisp as usual
@NPR If you’re interested in this kind of media criticism, you should check out my newsletter, @Holden_Court drewholden.substack.com
@NPR @Holden_Court and as ever, if you’d like to help finance the phone space required for these screenshots, and the beer to occasionally revisit them, you can kick me a couple bucks at my tip jar. paypal.com/donate/?busine…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
With the news that Trump freed the hostages and brokered an Israel/Hamas ceasefire, I thought it would be a good time to check in on the folks who compared the president to Hitler over the last few years, for reasons that I hope are obvious to you.
Remember? ⤵️
You may think the “Trump is literally Hitler” phrase is just a silly joke.
But for years, media outlets and left-wing voices on the internet have insisted that, no, really, Trump is just like Hitler.
Few have done so with as much gusto as @CNN.
Back in 2016, @CNN alleged that Trump rallies were just like Hitler rallies because…Trump had attendees raise their right hands.
A newly declassified CIA report on Joe Biden & Ukraine blows the doors off claims from the legacy press, in the lead up to the 2020 election and beyond, that Trump was pushing a “conspiracy theory” about Biden’s corruption.
Remember how the press buried Burisma? ⤵️
First, the facts. The report unearths how Biden blocked the release of intel from Ukrainian sources validating allegations of bribery tied to Biden’s diplomatic push to oust a prosecutor there in 2015, tied to his son Hunter’s work with the gas company Burisma.
You may remember this story because Biden’s having helped oust a prosecutor in a foreign country to allegedly protect his family’s corruption came up in the 2020 election.
To hear @ABC tell it, that was a “debunked Ukraine conspiracy theory.”
The media are melting down about former FBI director Jim Comey’s indictment, calling it Trump’s “retribution.”
But if prosecuting a political rival is such an outrage, why’d they cheer along when Biden went after Trump, Bannon & Navarro?
Some side-by-sides ⤵️
I want you to help me spot the difference in tone.
With Comey, @CNN put five — five! — reporters on the byline to declare the indictment was an “escalation” in “Trump’s effort to prosecute his political enemies.”
Where was that when Biden’s DOJ indicted Bannon? “A victory”
And @CNN wasn’t any better on Peter Navarro, another Trump aide indicted under Biden.
Rather than an “effort to prosecute…political enemies,” CNN quoted the prosecutor to tell the story.
Why is the claim of the government the framing of the piece under Biden? I have a guess.
The outrage over Kimmel’s canning is incredibly stupid, but it’s also enormously rich coming from the same media outlets who have cheered the government actually censoring people, particularly during COVID.
Let me know if you can spot the difference in tone? ⤵️
This @CNN headline made me think this story needed a thread.
Kimmel’s suspension is “straight from a European strongman’s playbook,” per @CNN’s @brianstelter.
When Biden cracked down on free speech during Covid, CNN hyped up the effort.
Few promoted the government’s actual attack on free speech more aggressively than the same @brianstelter now calling a comedian’s shelving evidence of autocracy, or something.
I know there’s a lot going on but we just had a media conspiracy implode that I think captures something important about the corporate press.
Did you hear about how Trump was allegedly going after John Bolton as retribution for his criticism?
Well…follow along ⤵️
We saw a week straight of media suggestions that Trump was abusing the powers of the state to deal out “retribution” to John Bolton following the news that the FBI (“Trump’s DOJ!” headlines rang out) raided his house.
We were in “unsettling” times, to hear @nytimes tell it.
The *Editorial Board* at @nytimes put out an even more dramatic statement, asking who Trump’s next payback victim after Bolton would be.
A single poll has bootstrapped a media narrative that DC residents are outraged by Trump’s takeover.
I poked around the cross tabs of the poll — of 600 or so of DC’s more comfortable residents — and I think it’s pretty suspect.
How come? Follow along: ⤵️
Let’s start with the poll. The @washingtonpost talked to 604 people, of whom 90% — 90%! — self-described as living in “very good” or “good” neighborhoods.
So, fine. 80% of people who like where they live in DC are upset.
But even beyond that, it’s worth asking whether this poll really captures DC’s opinion.
In the poll, only 31% describe crime as a “serious” or “very serious” problem in DC.
When @washingtonpost asked this same question in May, *50%* said it was a serious problem.