This week, President Trump issued an executive order aimed at reducing public funding to NPR and PBS. While the budget discussions date back two years, the timing stirs up considerable debate about the media’s role in self-assessment.
I’ve often criticized various actions taken by the administration against the press, including barring the Associated Press from certain White House events and shielding journalists from subpoenas concerning their sources. Yet, if these criticisms hold weight, it seems only fair that the media should reflect deeply on its own practices.
This week, I was pleased to attend a keynote address at the Centre for Integrity in News Reporting at the Library of Congress. For those of us who have been in the media for years, these days feel particularly volatile. The harm inflicted upon journalism over the last decade is astonishing, especially considering how unimaginable it all seemed at the start of my career. It’s disheartening to realize much of this damage has been self-inflicted.
The current state of American media was highlighted recently when President Eugene Daniels of the White House Correspondents Association noted, “We’re not against it.” This statement came after an event featuring anti-Trump comedians, making it seem more like a punchline than a serious assertion.
The very next day, in a somewhat ironic twist, the New York Times rolled out a series of essays titled “Trump’s Lawless Roadmap,” with recent research indicating that media coverage during his administration was 92% negative.
The decline of American journalism can be traced back to journalism schools, where aspiring reporters began to be taught that traditional ideals of neutrality and objectivity were no longer practical. At places like the University of Texas, students have indicated that it’s time to “leave neutrality behind.” Ted Glasser, a journalism professor at Stanford, argues that journalists must be vocal advocates for social justice, which complicates the practice of remaining objective.
Many editors have accepted this shift, proclaiming that when hiring reporters committed to what some term “advocacy journalism,” it’s time to let objectivity go.
Consequently, American journalism has evolved into a kind of echo chamber, amplifying predominantly liberal and often partisan Democratic viewpoints. This is evident in how stories are reported, sometimes such that protests are described as “fiery but mostly peaceful.”
The public is often treated as malleable clay, shaped by the narratives the media presents. It’s, frankly, insulting and alienating.
Recently, Trump noticed a veteran with a “Let’s Go Brandon!” sticker and jokingly asked, “Who is that?” It was a surprisingly deeper question than it might seem.
“Let’s go Brandon!” has morphed into a rallying cry of sorts, not just against former President Joe Biden, but also targeting mainstream media. The phrase originated in 2021 during an NBC interview with NASCAR driver Brandon Brown, where a crowd chant of “f— Joe Biden” was immediately reframed by the reporter as “Let’s go Brandon!”
People’s reactions have been deafening. Many have turned away from mainstream media altogether. This exodus is noteworthy, especially considering that, despite declining revenues and viewership, many media organizations appear blissfully unaware—or perhaps indifferent. Editors and reporters often cling stubbornly to their positions.
When Jeff Bezos acquired the Washington Post, he brought in British media executive Robert Lewis to revitalize the paper. This move was met with a wave of resistance. Still, Lewis didn’t hold back with the truth, stating, “We need to turn this around. We’re losing a ton of money.” He pointed out that readers had diminished significantly in recent years.
This reality wasn’t a surprise, as the paper had long catered to a niche audience. Staff seemed astonished that Bezos would prefer the paper to thrive rather than simply serve as a vanity project for wealthy liberals.
This brings us back to NPR. Many, including myself, have critiqued government funding for such institutions. The issue is compounded by the fact that NPR’s workforce leans heavily Democratic, with minimal representation for Republicans. For years, complaints about bias were dismissed. Even as audiences dwindled, federal subsidies kept the operation afloat.
One editor, Uri Berliner, pointed this out, highlighting that NPR’s Washington staff included 87 registered Democrats but no Republicans. NPR, along with its CEO Katherine Maher, seemed oblivious and somewhat arrogant, attacking Berliner instead.
Maher recently faced lawmakers and displayed a lackluster performance, as she tried to defend her biased reporting against Republicans and Trump.
Some oppose NPR’s funding on the grounds that it represents a conflict between free speech and press principles. Yet, this could be a pivotal moment for other media outlets.
NPR’s arrogance has ultimately hindered its success. Editors seemed unconcerned that their dwindling audience was predominantly wealthy, liberal, and white. Support from Congress, which funds programming most of the nation doesn’t consume, seems short-sighted.
Now they face a choice: continue down a biased path or broaden their appeal. They certainly have the right to be a left-leaning outlet, just as right-leaning outlets exist. But they must consider their place in the market as more Americans turn toward alternative media. A recent poll showed record-low trust in the press. Media companies are increasingly writing for each other instead of reaching the broader public.
The future lies in the hands of the media—and ultimately the public. American journalism must either embrace greater neutrality or continue down a path of decline and detachment.
