NPR Public Editor by Poynter's Kelly McBride

I got a lot of responses to my recent newsletter that argued that most protests don’t make for compelling news stories. The NPR audience members who wrote in vociferously disagreed with me, in dozens and dozens of letters and social media comments.

Some believed I was urging NPR to shirk its journalistic duties, possibly as a way of appeasing the president. Many thought that when I said the protests weren’t compelling as a news story, I meant that the reasons behind the protests weren’t newsworthy.

When Americans protest government policies, public media journalists have a responsibility to document the discontent. But more importantly, when demonstrators take to the streets, that should motivate journalists to seek answers to the questions people are asking.

Protest movements are one way of holding a government to account for its policies and actions. Journalism is another.

When demonstrators called for reforms in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by police, journalists focused their spotlight on law enforcement and racial injustice.

After Occupy Wall Street protesters camped out in Zuccotti Park in 2011, journalists examined the repercussions of the high finance bailout.

When Tea Party protests broke out across the country in 2010, reporters aggregated their many questions and looked for answers and explanations.

Today I’m responding to a few of the notes I received. While there’s only a handful here, they represent many.

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.

Audience members take issue with my stance on protests

Michael Gier wrote on April 18: Your take on this subject is wrong and bad. A million people gathering to protest this government- and constitution-destroying regime IS NEWS. It’s not even a difficult question. Choosing NOT to report on these protests (under the transparently right-wing-narrative-supporting notion that they must be violent to be newsworthy) is a choice — one that is at odds with yours and other outlets’ choice to amplify the opinions of every Tea Partier and Trump cultist you can find in a diner.

Democracy is in peril — its attacker is the very government that provides some of your funding. I don’t envy you the rock/hard place challenge you face. But please understand that if democracy goes down, you’ll lose that funding anyway. Please spend it fighting *for* democracy, not for some misguided both-sidesism.

Lorrie Mitchel wrote on April 19: As a member of various NPR stations for over 30 years, I find this editor’s attitude toward hundreds of thousands of US citizens protesting to protect our democracy as ‘not newsworthy’ is unacceptable. It seems to be capitulation in advance. Trump will come after NPR’s funding no matter what. DO BETTER.

Erin Tilly wrote on April 18: Hi there, I’d like you to publicly explain why you think millions of people taking to the streets to protest the rise of a fascist regime, the kidnapping and disappearing of US citizens, the loss of women’s rights and an escalating constitutional crisis “aren’t newsworthy enough to warrant continuous national coverage.” Explain it to me like I’m five.

I appreciate the invitation to further explain my thinking. NPR should cover protests, and NPR is covering protests. The question I’m addressing is how much coverage of the protests themselves is appropriate?

After watching one of the Hands Off! protests on April 5, I wrote, “It was certainly worth noting that it happened, but beyond that, there wasn’t much actual news.” I pointed out that NPR did three radio stories and two stories on its website, which seemed about right.

That truncated quote, “aren’t newsworthy enough to warrant continuous coverage,” comes from my social media posts, and it was largely cited by followers and in letters without additional context. On Instagram, that quote was immediately followed by, “NPR should absolutely air a couple of stories on (the protests) and talk to protesters about why they’re there, and they should show photos that document the size and tone of the protests, which they did.”

Because NPR has limited reporting resources and limited space in its shows, I’d much rather see journalists digging into the many issues that are sending Americans into the street to voice their opposition. Those crowds are the justification reporters need to keep demanding answers, to keep looking for new information and to keep pressing President Donald Trump and his administration to defend the constitutional legality of their actions.

This past weekend, NPR teamed up with member stations to incorporate voices of demonstrators from several cities, VP and Executive Editor Eva Rodriguez told me. “Sometimes local is the national story,” she said. “For the kind of protests we have seen, it’s typically not something national would send someone there, because we have good coverage from the local stations.”

The coverage from this past weekend was similar to the coverage from three weeks ago. On Saturday afternoon, All Things Considered featured a story that included audio from several protests around the country. A Sunday morning story featured the voices of people who protested in Washington, D.C. On Monday, Morning Edition interviewed the same reporter.

“What’s happening out there right now is really different,” Rodriguez said as she explained the coverage. “It seemed to get to a different level and demanded that we write about these protests.”

Any statement that NPR didn’t produce coverage of the protests is simply untrue, as is the suggestion that I was advising NPR not to cover the story. A story that gets on the air three days in a row is getting substantial coverage. Rather than doing a fourth or fifth day of coverage, I would prefer that NPR turn its attention to the many urgent questions that are driving the protests.

When journalists simply cover the existence of the protests, they fall short of their responsibilities. Instead, journalists must continue to dig up the information, nail down critical facts, and further the public’s understanding of all that is happening. — Kelly McBride

Here’s a list of previous Public Editor examinations of NPR protest stories

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