NPR is at the very center of President Donald Trump's multipronged effort to eliminate government funding for public media. In addition to leaving all the public media money out of the future budget, the House has approved and the Senate is considering a bill to take back money already appropriated. On top of that, NPR is suing the president to block an executive order that aims to prevent local stations that get federal money from purchasing NPR's programs.
All this puts NPR journalists in the awkward position of covering NPR itself. Years ago, NPR created a protocol for such situations, fondly called "the bubble." Here's how it works: A small group of senior news managers and correspondents are designated to make all news decisions about what stories should get covered and how best to cover them. No senior executives or company officials are allowed to review or influence the coverage.
Currently, the NPR journalists in "the bubble" are Managing Editor for Enterprise and Planning Gerry Holmes, Managing Editor for News Vickie Walton-James, Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Media Correspondent David Folkenflik. Additional reporters come and go as needed.
This group decides how to respond to breaking news that affects NPR, as when the president signed the executive order relating to public media or when NPR filed its suit trying to block that order. And they also decide what stories to tell outside of breaking news, including when to do stories on the history of public media or the role that public media plays in different regions of the country.
When I received a note from the former president and CEO of Oregon Public Broadcasting criticizing NPR's coverage of its own lawsuit, I thought it was worth investigating. Read on to see what I learned about the news decisions that were made during a specific two-day period, as well as how the people in "the bubble" are deciding how and when NPR should cover NPR. — Kelly McBride
Listeners question NPR's coverage of itself
Steven Bass wrote on May 29: Wondering if you’re planning to write about NPR’s coverage of the lawsuit it filed earlier this week. To my ear, they devoted more time to it than was warranted (four segments across the news magazines) with literally no opposing voices. There were frequent newscast stories and I think David Folkenflik was on Here & Now. They interviewed (NPR CEO) Katherine Maher and separately their lawyer, Ted Boutrous.The totality of the amount and approach seems very close to advocacy. Further, I find it strange that none of these stories focused on the three local stations who also filed suit — no one quoted or asked to be a guest. They chose a very NPR-centered narrative. It comes across as though those stations are mere props in a play that NPR is staging. They completely ignored what’s at stake in the places where the money actually gets spent.When I asked Bass if he was comfortable being quoted, he wrote back on June 2: Would be fine for you to use anything that I wrote. I’ll admit that I exaggerated in saying that they “completely ignored” what’s at stake locally. Rather, they told that part through an NPR lens rather than NPR letting us hear from those in the field most impacted. I’d also add that the manner in which they covered this story through so-called “two-ways” isn’t a good way to provide an opportunity to get broader or opposing perspectives. When you’re reporting on your own organization, there’s a lot at stake in terms of trust and credibility. It’s the potential impact on trust and credibility that concerns me most when I think about how this story was reported.
There are three critiques here: 1) That NPR overcovered its own point of view; 2) That NPR underrepresented the view of local stations; 3) That NPR did not sufficiently include voices of those who want to eliminate government funding for public media.
Here's how the newsroom covered its own lawsuit:
After NPR and three member stations from Colorado filed the lawsuit around 9 a.m. EDT May 27, Folkenflik immediately did a two-way interview with Morning Edition Host A Martínez. In that interview, Folkenflik described the claims in the lawsuit, echoed the president's criticisms of NPR as "woke," and also described a pattern of additional Trump attacks on other media organizations.
Because the story broke close to 9 a.m., as Morning Edition was going off the air on the East Coast, a large portion of the morning audience did not hear it.
Folkenflik did a similar interview that afternoon on All Things Considered with Host Mary Louise Kelly. He named the local stations who joined the suit and described the impact that federal funding has on their work. He included a statement from the White House, saying "a spokesperson told me this morning that the president is acting within his lawful authority to ensure that taxpayer dollars don't go towards funding bias."
ATC also conducted a 7-minute interview with NPR's CEO Katherine Maher in that same program. And that same day, Folkenflik appeared on the NPR interview show Here & Now.
The very next day, Morning Edition interviewed the lawyer representing NPR.
Folkenflik told me that he reached out to representatives from the member stations who are party to the suit, as well as a lawyer who could specifically represent them. The stations declined and the lawyer got back to him after he filed his story.
Additionally, Folkenflik said that every time he's reported a story about defunding public media, he's asked the White House for an interview with someone who can represent the president's point of view, and the only replies he's received are in the form of written statements. Congressional Correspondent Deirdre Walsh has also asked Republican lawmakers for interviews, without success.
Kopp added, "With any controversial story, we try really hard to get people's perspectives and voices. They have to be willing to provide those."
When opposing voices won't consent to interviews, NPR reporters describe those views.
"People may see the two-way as a lesser offering, and it probably is less enjoyable than hearing a story, but I think there's a utility when you need to synthesize things." Folkenflik said.
Eric Marrapodi, vice president for news and programming, told me that the shows did not specifically seek out anyone to represent a viewpoint that would counter NPR CEO's Katherine Maher. Instead, they counted on Folkenflik's neutral reporting to represent those opinions.
However, when covering the budget bill and the rescission bill, "we recently had on a Freedom Caucus member who was on Here & Now," Marrapodi said. "He was on Here & Now because that was the time he was available to join us."
In the two weeks after covering its own lawsuit, NPR reporters covered other developments in the president's ongoing attempts to defund public media. Stories included:
- A May 30 web story about a PBS/Minnesota television station suing Trump;
- A June 3 web story that explains the rescission package Trump sent to Congress;
- A June 4 follow-up web story that explains how the support and opposition are lining up on the rescission vote;
- A June 12 web story on the House rescission vote in Congress;
- A June 13 two-way interview with Folkenflik on Morning Edition on the rescission vote.
Back to the critiques — that NPR has overrepresented its own point of view, and underrepresented local stations and critics of public media.
These stories from the last two weeks all included meaningful voices who are critical of public media and support defunding. Of course, that became easier after the House debate on the measure, when so many representatives shared their opinions on the floor.
Viewpoints from local stations were less prevalent, appearing most prominently the story about the PBS lawsuit, which described the financial impact that a withdrawal of funds will have on co-plaintiff Lakeland PBS in Minnesota.
There is merit to all three criticisms and collectively they create an imbalance in the coverage. It's understandable how NPR got here, when so many people rebuff invitations to be interviewed for stories or on the air. This is a persistent problem for NPR and we've written about it before.
NPR's preferred method of compensation for this shortcoming — to have a neutral reporter give voice to the missing interviews — is adequate but largely unsatisfying to news consumers.
This can be remedied, but it requires a wider approach. I can think of two possibilities.
First, NPR often touts the value of its member stations. Here's an opportunity for the network to step in.
While some local stations have been doing some coverage (here's an example from The Public's Radio in Rhode Island), it's too sparse. More local stations should cover their own story. But they should do these stories journalistically, including voices of people who benefit from public media, as well as those who oppose government funding.
They should get their own congressional representatives on the record, like this Colorado Public Radio story did. If a critical mass of these stories existed, the journalists in "the bubble" at NPR might find a way to elevate that reporting to the national audience.
Second, NPR could directly commission stories in local communities, either by sending its own reporters or by working closely with member station reporters to document the story of public media in places that depend on it, as well as places where it's not well-loved.
When newsrooms report on their companies with journalistic integrity, it goes a long way toward demonstrating their commitment to serving the needs of their audience. NPR has a solid start with the protocols to ensure that its reporting is independent from the influence of its executives.
NPR can further signal their loyalty to their audience with a more robust and complete documentation of this current battle being fought over the future public media.
Yes, NPR is in the middle of this fight. They are well equipped to tell the whole story. And it probably won't happen in a two-way conversation. — Kelly McBride
The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Reporters Amaris Castillo and Emily Barske Wood and copy editor Merrill Perlman make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on Facebook, X 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
Copyright 2025 NPR
