Your Feedback

Dear CPB,

The purpose of this communication to you is twofold; 1) to lodge a complaint regarding the precipitously eroding journalistic standards of NPR 2) to inquire as to the compliance with editorial standards that you require of broadcasting outlets in order to receive public funding from The Center For Public Broadcasting. Please see the attached correspondences I sent first to WHYY, my local NPR affiliate in Philadelphia, and then a follow-up up correspondence to NPR in Washington, DC. I will let the letter stand on its own in communicating my concerns that NPR has become a source of propaganda by any objective standard. It is not acceptable that public funds are being deployed to support a clearly biased point of view. I would also like to better understand the journalistic standards with which NPR, and any other media recipients of your financial support, are required to adhere to in order to be eligible for funding from a government entity. I would like to have the opportunity to review these standards and requirements as a US citizen and taxpayer. I would appreciate if you could forward that information to me in response to this communications or direct me to where I can review them. I look forward to receiving your reply.

Sincerely,

T****s J. L***s

Please see below for the correspondence I sent to WHYY in Philadelphia to revoke my membership and financial support of the station due to the consistent erosion of basic journalistic standards at NPR. All that I received in reply was a confirmation of my membership cancellation and the trite bromide: “WHYY is committed to objective reporting.” To put it in the preferred parlance of your reporting; that is a “baseless claim” based on an abundance of evidence to the contrary. I am sending this to you at NPR in the hopes of a more fulsome response. The degree to which NPR increasingly violates the most basic journalistic standards of objectivity, fair balance, and impartiality would be tantamount to malpractice if applied to the deviation from the accepted standards for any other profession. If your egregiously biased coverage is successful in utilizing a publicly funded medium to facilitate your clearly chosen candidate and political party into office, then the culpability of “manipulating elections” will fall squarely into your purview. In the event the other candidate is elected, despite your coverage that borders the absurd in terms of its slant, than you will have traded your journalistic integrity and standards for naught. Either way, it will be Hubris of the highest order and reflect an abuse of professional and journalistic standards. Much is made about “saving democracy” in your coverage and by your clearly chosen political party. The most foundational element of facilitating democracy is to consistently provide our country’s electorate with balanced, unbiased, and factual information from which to form their conclusion and cast their votes accordingly. NPR is failing in that duty and responsibility. NPR Management, Editorial Staff, and Reporters, After more than 20 years of financial support to NPR/WHYY, I am writing to cancel my sustaining membership. Over that period, as a daily listener, I have observed your reporting progress from a noticeable Liberal bent, to a clearly biased source of information, to a propaganda tool for a single political party and handful of allied special interests. The bedrocks of quality journalism are the principles of objectivity and fair balance. Men have fought valiantly and died for the precious right to have a free press in which there can be an open exchange of facts to inform the citizens of our country about issues that will allow them to shape their own individual view. Your network violates these basic principles on a daily basis by commission, in the editorial page-like presentation of topics and by omission, in the exclusion of countervailing facts and perspectives along with other pertinent topics. All of the members of your network are certainly entitled to have their own opinions on an individual basis and express them freely, but to do so under the guise of reporting news amounts to what would be a dereliction of duty in any other profession based on the violation of the basic foundations of your vocation. I do not need to be instructed on what is Right or how to think by people who seemingly think they are smarter than me. All I want, and deserve in a free American press, is the facts to make my own informed determinations. Much is said about Diversity on your air, which is a lofty and worthwhile principle that I personally believe in strongly. In the recent row during which Uri Berliner resigned in the wake of his well substantiated criticism of the bias that has been overtly evident in your broadcasts, it became clear that fully 100% of the NPR editorial staff are registered Democrats. In the name of the Diversity that you preach so vociferously, how can that group of journalists of a single political platform reflect the collective point of view of a diverse country of 350MM people that is clearly divided at this time. The flaws of human nature do not allow for that to happen. There is simply no place for that monolithic view in general among thinking people, but particularly as transmitted via a public entity that is funded by everyone who encompass different views. Your lack of editorial balance and diversity is more than an intellectual self-indulgence – it presents our country and world not how they actually are, but how a select few see them to be. This causes divisions which foments societal unrest and conflict. It is a dangerous abuse of your media power. NPR/WHYY is preoccupied to the point of obsession with the issues of race, alternative sexuality issues, and the environment. These are all legitimate issues that warrant coverage and debate, however they monopolize your air time and their outsized coverage lacks diverse points of view and fair balance. The editorial overallocation of time to them precludes coverage of other very important topics relevant to many including myself. Every societal ill is not rooted in Race relations, global warming, or views on transsexuals as your coverage seems to consistently suggest in condescending tones. I hope that the position I am relaying here will challenge you to think deeply about the price exacted upon your journalistic and personal integrity in not honoring the principals of objectivity and fair balance in your influential role as a media outlet funded by public dollars. Doing so could result in meaningful and positive change for many including those you highlight as being disenfranchised. Not doing so is Hubris. Is it worth using the airwaves as a bully pulpit to foist the world view of select few at the expense of adequately informing everyone and degrading the sacredness of journalistic integrity in the process? For now, I can no longer in conscious support what has become, by any objective standard, a propogandist outlet. I would appreciate a reply to this letter, but at the very least confirmation of my membership cancellation. I would be open to discussing with you some specific and constructive suggestions on how to bring the core principles of journalism back into your reporting. I am managing my expectations on the likelihood of you taking me up on that offer as it does not appear from your reporting and other actions that you are open to having your actions held to the same scrutiny and accountability you regularly levy on others, but the offer does stand. I will continue to listen and renew my support if and when you establish the objectivity and fair balance that are the foundation of good journalism in your reporting.

Regards,

T****s J. L***s

I'm guessing you have no control over it, but I miss your Channel 9-2 NASA Channel. The plus.nasa.gov isn't as good of quality. When I try to watch something on it the video is constantly freezing (although the audio is good). To unfreeze the video I have to go back and restart it. But then it freezes again within a few seconds. And I haven't figured out how to find the current programming.