NPR Public Editor Admits ‘In Defense of Looting’ Interview ‘Did Not Serve NPR’s Audience’, ‘Harmful on Two Levels’

 

Johannes Eisele/AFP/ Getty Images

NPR Public Editor Kelly McBride criticized her own media organization’s recent controversial interview titled “In Defense of Looting” following backlash over the piece, admitting that it “did not serve NPR’s audience” and was “harmful on two levels.”

In NPR’s weekly public editor newsletter on Thursday, McBride addressed an NPR reader’s complaint over the interview with far-left author Vicky Osterweil, which was accused of containing inaccurate claims.

“While I understand it’s an interview and the views presented may not represent NPR, should NPR interviewers not perform fact-checking when an interview is saying blatantly incorrect things?” the reader commented, adding, “The interviewer should have been prepared for the author to say known falsehoods and refute them, or at least the transcript should be updated to not spread them.”

McBride responded that the “Q&A with a provocative author did not serve NPR’s audience,” and acknowledged that the reader “and several other NPR fans pointed out that NPR’s own prior reporting contradicted some of the things this author was saying.”

“On top of being wrong about recent events, the author’s characterization of the Civil Rights Movement is a distortion and oversimplification,” McBride wrote. “So how did this Q&A make it onto NPR’s website? (This content was not slated for radio broadcast.) The Code Switch team has a strong track record of presenting rigorous academic ideas that explain race, explore racial disparities and float interesting observations about social divisions. So a book that explains looting, even defends it, seems like appropriate material.”

“But in the interview, the author made several statements in support of her hypothesis that could be easily fact-checked,” she continued, noting, “I asked Code Switch editor Steve Drummond if the piece was fact-checked, and he said, ‘This piece was fact-checked but we should have done more.'”

McBride explained that a “new introduction was added to provide more context and prepare the reader to digest the author’s ideas,” though she conceded, “Still, this failure to challenge this author’s statements is harmful on two levels.”

“Publishing false information leaves the audience misinformed. On top of that, news consumers are watching closely to see who is challenged and who isn’t. In this case a book author with a radical point of view far to the left was allowed to spread false information,” the public editor concluded. “Casual observers might conclude that NPR is more interested in fact-checking conservative viewpoints than liberal viewpoints. Or possibly, that bias on the part of NPR staff interferes with their judgment when spotting suspect information. We address this question in our column this week.”

In an opinion piece published on Thursday, McBride expanded on her response to the interview, writing, “If you look at NPR’s flawed insertion of ‘without evidence’ to Trump’s assessment of the Kenosha shooting and then look at the lack of fact-checking on the interview with the author of the book on looting, a casual observer might see a bias.”

During NPR’s interview, Osterweil made such comments as “Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police,” and “It provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure and helps them imagine a world that could be.”

“I think that’s a part of it that doesn’t really get talked about — that riots and looting are experienced as sort of joyous and liberatory,” Osterweil declared, before falsely claiming, “Most stores are insured; it’s just hurting insurance companies on some level. It’s just money. It’s just property. It’s not actually hurting any people.”

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Filed Under: