|
|
|
|
Illustration by Carlos Carmonamedina
|
Here are a few quotes from the Public Editor's inbox that resonated with us. Letters are edited for length and clarity. You can share your questions and concerns with us through the NPR Contact page. |
|
A shocking public reaction |
Brian Hammonds wrote on Sept. 11: I have been a faithful listener for decades truly believing that NPR was one of our greatest assets, presenting news and a fact-based way. But today as I scroll through the comment section on a [Facebook post] about the death of a young conservative I truly understand the evil in America and the division that NPR has helped create.
Even the title of this article proclaiming the death of a young man is politically driven in a derogatory fashion with NPR being only one of the outlets calling him a right wing spokesman. Outlets on the left like CNN are using conservatives to reflect Charlie’s views and … I think that is the appropriate thing to do. |
|
It’s important to emphasize that these comments did not appear on NPR’s website. Instead, they were among the 2,500 comments that were posted by Facebook users in response to an NPR post that shared a link to NPR’s coverage. At the time of the post, the headline of the article read, “What we know about the shooting of Conservative Activist Charlie Kirk.” The post linked to this story, which was updated constantly as more information became available.
Here’s a sample of the comments under the post:
“Live by the sword, die by the sword.”
“Is the National Guard on its way to Utah?”
“Chickens coming home to roost.”
The public response to the NPR post was part of a much wider phenomenon that began immediately after the shooting and was rampant across the internet. There were similar reactions after the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the attempted assassination of Trump in July.
Like most news organizations, NPR does not moderate comments to its posts on social media. It would take a significant number of people to do so.
Moderating comments is an all-or-nothing choice. Most newsrooms are wary of arbitrarily jumping in. Instead, newsrooms try to avoid courting nasty behavior by ensuring that their posts are not unnecessarily provocative. And NPR did that in this case. The language of the post was straightforward, simply documenting what happened. |
|
Using labels ‘right-wing activist’ and ‘conservative activist’ |
Ken Mulver wrote on Sept. 10: I notice that NPR always uses the labels right wing and right wing activist when describing people but I never see them use the terms left wing or left wing activist. Is NPR blind to liberals being left wing? |
|
Peter Babones wrote on Sept. 12: Charlie Kirk has often been labeled a “Right Wing Activist”, a description I would have a hard time arguing with. But NO ONE, in NPR’s eyes, is a “Left Wing Activist”. No politician or political party is “Far Left” or ”Extreme Far Left.” … By presenting this stark dichotomy of thought to your listeners, you perpetuate this myth that they are right, and the people they disagree with are wrong. |
|
Kirk was clearly a prominent figure, but that doesn’t mean he was a household name. In early coverage, it was important for NPR to convey who Kirk was in headlines and in the first sentences that appeared in stories. In most cases, NPR called Kirk a “conservative activist” or a “right-wing activist.”
“While descriptions are always better than labels, at times labels are useful to quickly convey a concept to the audience, especially in broadcast, where time is limited,” Tommy Evans, NPR’s newly named editor-in-chief, told me. “‘Right-wing activist’ and ‘conservative activist’ are accurate labels, and not out of line with how he is referred to in other news media, by many of his critics or by his own organization and supporters.”
I would add several caveats. First, Kirk was much more than an activist. He was the founder of a political youth movement, a political organizer and a political voice that galvanized and represented the younger generation of Republicans. While the term “activist” is accurate, it understates Kirk’s role and influence in American life.
NPR does occasionally label people “left-wing” or “liberal activists,” but the terms are infrequent and more often used to describe people outside the United States. So this particular critique has some stickiness to it.
On top of that, after the first 72 hours of coverage, Kirk became a household name, and the label was no longer necessary to clue the audience into the primary focus of the story. While NPR continues to use these labels, they are possibly doing more harm than good by alienating some listeners. |
|
Saying good things about Charlie Kirk |
Susan Harlow wrote on Sept. 13: Please please stop saturating the airwaves with Charlie Kirk. You are helping to make him into a martyr. |
|
Billy Goodman wrote on Sept. 11: I just listened to the opening of the coverage of the Kirk murder. You played a brief clip of Trump talking about Kirk as a patriot, making Trump seem reasonable. This is sanewashing. Most of what he had to say was blaming others and raising the threat temperature. He was railing against just the sort of rhetoric he uses. Don’t sanewash him. Call out his hateful speech. |
|
Before Kirk’s death, NPR had widely documented the influence of Turning Point USA, as well as his controversial beliefs. Since Kirk’s death, NPR has continued this reporting.
Consider This explored who will step into his shoes and lead the political movement. It’s Been a Minute asked, “How do we talk about Charlie Kirk?”
Far from making Kirk into a martyr, NPR’s coverage both before and after his death provides an accurate and nuanced account of Kirk’s legacy. And Kirk was one of Trump's advisers. The president's opinions about Kirk are relevant to the story. It would be wrong to ignore them. |
|
CPAC chair Matt Schlapp reacts to interview questions |
| Several NPR listeners commented on Morning Edition host Michel Martin’s interview with CPAC chair Matt Schlap on Sept. 12: |
|
William A. Goldsborough tweeted on Sept. 12: I’ve listened to this interview several times. @NPRMichel did a great job, and Matt let his MAGA tears take over 🤣 |
|
Sophia Lee tweeted on Sept. 11: This interview on Morning Edition was something else.“... Ma’am, I can understand why you’re getting defunded. This is outrageous. This young man deserves some thoughtful appreciation this morning ... he’s the father of two children.” What a baby! |
|
Rob Utterback tweeted on Sept. 11: @mschlapp came unglued this morning on NPR, exploiting Charlie Kirk’s death to browbeat Michel Martin. What a loser. |
|
This live interview aired the morning after Kirk’s death. Schlapp began by recalling the first time he met Kirk at a CPAC convention. He celebrated Kirk’s entrepreneurial spirit and described how older Republicans came to embrace Turning Point.
In the middle part of the interview, Martin and Schlapp discussed the growing threat of violence that political figures face. In the middle of that discussion, Schlapp blamed both liberals and the media for stoking violence. Here’s the exchange:
Schlapp: People in the media — we need to stop villainizing people. You know, people have ideas, and, you know, might not like them. There’s a lot of people whose ideas I think are abhorrent. But, you know, would I help them change their tire if they were on the side of the road? I hope I would.
Martin: But, you know, on Newsmax, yesterday, you called on leaders of the left to stop normalizing hatred and violence. Are you also calling on leaders of the right to do the same?
Schlapp: Everyone should stop doing that, but the only difference is in the age of Trump is that, you know, there has been outrageous commentary that goes on and isn’t stopped.
Martin: Two months ago two elected Democratic state officials and their spouses were shot in Minnesota by a man who had a hit list of 45 elected Democrats he intended to kill. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband attacked in his home, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s official residence set on fire. This would seem to be an equal opportunity problem, right?
Schlapp: This is — yeah. Well, I’m not sure it’s equal, but I think there were examples on both sides that are repugnant. But I just want to — look, I want to chastise you a little bit here. Someone who’s very close to my family and to the conservative movement was assassinated yesterday. We haven’t seen really anything like this, somebody who’s not even in elected office. I don’t think this is the right moment for you to say to me that I am not sufficiently concerned about violence that happens from anyone. I think this is a moment to reflect on the life of a young man who made a big difference. And a lot of people are mourning it. And it is the wrong time for you to start assigning blame and to say I should have better commentary.
Martin: Oh, forgive me, but didn’t you surface that issue, and am I not ...
Schlapp: Ma’am.
Martin: ... listening to you?
Schlapp: I can understand why you’re getting defunded. This is outrageous.
Martin: I’m sorry that you feel that way.
Schlapp: This young man deserves some thoughtful appreciation this morning.
Martin: And we ...
Schlapp: He’s the father of two children.
Martin: And we certainly are giving him that.
Schlapp: And you’re turning this into just ...
Martin: No, I think we’re certainly giving him the attention he deserves. And this is NPR News.
I asked Evans what he thought of this interview. He said, “Michel asked good, fair questions in a live interview setting. There was nothing notable or unusual about the booking or prep for the interview. It’s an emotional story that we are covering like any other story: fairly and accurately.”
Schlapp has been interviewed on NPR before. Given his vast political and media experience, he should have expected the questions to explore the violence against other political figures.
Martin and Morning Edition staff were wise to let Schapp level his critique, then wind the segment down by cuing the music and lowering his microphone. The interview gave the NPR audience a window into how the narrative about political violence is characterized in some circles.
Overall, NPR’s coverage has been both respectful and insightful in tone and proportion. The newsroom hasn’t shied away from the controversy. Nor have they let the fact that many Republicans refuse to come on NPR’s airwaves affect the network’s ability to document Kirk’s legacy.
“It is still a challenge, but we are slowly making inroads,” Evans said of the reluctance. “The Kirk story doesn’t seem to have impacted our bookings.”
The only shortcoming, as discussed above, is the unnecessary use of the labels to describe Kirk. That may diminish in the coming days. — Kelly McBride |
|
|
|
The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Reporters Amaris Castillo and Nicole Slaughter Graham and copy editor Merrill Perlman make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on Facebook, Instagram, Threads and from our inbox. As always, keep them coming.
Kelly McBride
NPR Public Editor
Chair, Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute |
Kelly McBride
Public Editor |
|
Amaris Castillo
Poynter Institute |
|
Nicole Slaughter Graham
Poynter Institute |
|
|
|
The Public Editor stands as a source of independent accountability. Created by NPR's board of directors, the Public Editor serves as a bridge between the newsroom and the audience, striving to both listen to the audience's concerns and explain the newsroom's work and ambitions. The office ensures NPR remains steadfast in its mission to present fair, accurate and comprehensive information in service of democracy.
Read more from the NPR Public Editor, contact us, or follow us on social media. |
|
|
|
|
|
You received this message because you're subscribed to Public Editor emails. This email was sent by National Public Radio, Inc., 1111 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20002
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
