From: Eva Rodriguez, Vice President and Executive Editor, NPR
Re: Monthly Content Review
April 2025 session
The Cohort:
Ashley Brown, Supervising Editor, All Things Considered
Pat Wood, Chief Desk Editor, General Assignment
Rachel Waldholz, Editor III, Climate Desk
Graham Smith, Sr. Producer, Investigations
Kirk Siegler, Correspondent, National Desk
Julie Caine, Supervising Sr. Editor, Throughline
Susanna Capelouto, Southern Bureau Chief, National Desk
Greg Myre, Correspondent, Washington Desk
Joanna Kakissis, Correspondent, International Desk
Rolando Arrieta, Director, Content Ops
NOTE: DME Jim Kane joined at my request to take notes to allow me to focus entirely on the conversation. Jim also provided insights into themes and takeaways but did not participate in the conversation.
The Content, by the numbers:
NPR aired or published 2,215 pieces of content (not including Newscast) in January 2025.
· By category: 1,664 were news -- produced pieces or two-ways with NPR/Member station reporters or outside experts/newsmakers; 313 were categorized as culture and 112 as music. (128 pieces were uncategorized.)
· By platform: Broadcast shows hosted 1,049 of these pieces, owned and operated digital platforms were vehicles for 945 stories and podcasts accounted for 221. (Content posted exclusively on third-party platforms such as Instagram and YouTube were not discoverable in this data scrape.)
The Topic: A sampling of NPR's coverage of current hot-button social issues.
Executive Editor Note: Critics often point to NPR's reporting on social issues as evidence that the reporting is biased. At times, the criticism is that we cover certain issues – e.g., reproductive rights, trans rights, DEI – too often. At other times, the criticism is that we take an approach ("framing") that portrays in a sympathetic light the voices and arguments in support of the "progressive/liberal" view. A corollary criticism is that we only provide the most cursory explanations of the facts or arguments undergirding the "conservative" viewpoint such that audiences aren't empowered to assess both sides.
The Discussion, generally: In preparing for this session, I ran through our coverage in April of social issues that stir strong feelings from people across the political spectrum.
To get at the heart of the matter, we discussed our choice of topics, how the pieces were framed for discussion, whether individual pieces reflected the range of views, opinions and voices.
As for the topics: Because so much of the news in April focused on the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), there was less coverage of "social issues" – e.g., reproductive rights/abortion, trans issues, etc. -- during the month. But there was enough coverage on a range of issues – e.g., gun rights, anti-semitism, immigration/law enforcement and DEI – to analyze our approach to so-called wedge issues that often divide people consistently along partisan lines.
Two pieces were immediately praised by the group -- one involved gun control legislation and another touched on the fight against anti-semitism.
The gun control piece discussed in-depth the debate over proposed legislation in a Western state that would prevent or limit the sale of guns with detachable magazines. The piece laid out the strong feelings on both sides. Those supporting the legislation voiced their belief that preventing the sale of guns with detachable magazines that could be reloaded in seconds would reduce mass casualties. Those who were critical of the legislation expressed concern that the bill was another step in eroding their constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms without any proof that the proposed measure would succeed in curtailing violence. The strength and fairness of the journalism was enhanced by leading the piece with the experiences and concerns of the owner of a gun shop – the so-called "conservative" position.
Because the piece was framed as a debate over the proposed legislation, listeners and readers could decide for themselves how they felt about it. This approach reduces or eliminates the risk of coming across as if we're "lecturing" audiences to adopt a particular point of view – a criticism that is often lodged by those who accuse NPR of being left-leaning. Several cohort members agreed that the fact that this piece was produced by a local Member station reporter bolstered the authenticity of the reporting and likely helped in getting access to the gun shop owner.
The piece on efforts to combat antisemitism focused on the screening of an Academy Award-winning documentary about Gaza at a Miami Beach theater that received public funding. The mayor of Miami Beach, which has a large Jewish population, threatened to pull government funding from the theater because he believed the film embraced antisemitic themes. Critics believed the mayor was threatening to trample on First Amendment rights to air the film. The piece accurately and powerfully documented the intense feelings on both sides, allowing audiences to weigh the issues for themselves.
A third piece that garnered praise was about the different responses of different local law enforcement units to ICE requests for help in identifying and detaining undocumented immigrants. There was no judgment inserted into the piece about whether it was right or wrong for local departments to assist with ICE requests. It simply documented the experiences of different departments that took different approaches in their dealings with ICE.
One piece we believed could have been stronger involved concerns that the Trump administration was seeking to overturn 1960s civil rights laws. The piece used several quotes from recent NPR interviews with civil rights experts. These experts were deeply troubled by what they saw as the erosion of civil rights under Trump and pointed to the president's elimination of scores of DEI initiatives throughout government, as well as his administration's actions against Harvard and other universities, as precursors to the dismantling of civil rights protections embedded in law. The piece then excerpted comments made by pro-Trump influencers in other forums that called for at least a rethinking and potentially a rejection of existing civil rights laws because, as they saw it, they discriminated against White people.
Some cohort members believed the piece did not adequately back up its thesis that the Trump administration was intent on overturning civil rights. There was disagreement about this critique from those who believed the piece gave voice to an important and potentially ominous backlash against civil rights. There was agreement, however, that the piece would have been better had it spoken "live" with Trump officials or the pro-Trump advocates quoted rather than relying on comments they had made to others. The use of previous comments would've been understandable if these advocates had declined to speak with NPR or had not responded to requests for an interview. But there was no mention of whether NPR tried to reach out to them, leaving the listener or reader to wonder whether NPR had even tried.
Although not pegged to a particular piece on this month's agenda, there was extended discussion on how to handle situations, such as when reporting on climate change, in which one side's arguments are not supported by the best and most reliable scientific information available. We agreed that when someone asserts factually, demonstrably incorrect information, we must set the record straight. It does not serve our audience to avoid "platforming" certain views, as some in the media have argued from time to time.
Takeaways:
1. How we frame stories has an inordinate impact on whether pieces are perceived as either fair or biased – no matter how well-reported they are.
2. Fully and earnestly fleshing out arguments on all sides of an issue is not only good journalism, but it makes the journalism stronger and more trustworthy. When a principal of the story (e.g., a lawmaker, president or activist) declines comment or has not responded to requests for an interview, we must share that information with audiences. We must then look for legitimate proxies who can articulate their arguments so as to provide audiences with fair and well-rounded coverage.
3. While reflecting both sides fairly within a single piece is essential, so is reflecting a diversity of viewpoints and characters through the arc of coverage. We should be mindful in selecting and framing stories that we are featuring different lead characters with divergent experiences and viewpoints. We must not shy away from coverage of controversial topics, such as reproductive rights or trans rights. But we must ensure that our coverage – within each story and throughout the line of coverage – fairly reflects the differences in experiences and views of people on all side of an issue.
4. When someone asserts factually, demonstrably incorrect information we must correct those inaccuracies. We can never allow falsehoods to go unchallenged, and we should "show our work" by being explicit about where our information comes from.
Copyright 2025 NPR