Politicians are notorious for their rhetoric — political statements that are carefully crafted to drive their agendas. Because these statements are often written for effect, journalists must tread carefully when quoting politicians.
Quoting political rhetoric indiscriminately can make a news story seem biased. But not quoting politicians can leave the audience uninformed.
Journalists have to go beyond the political quote and actively analyze, contextualize and even challenge political rhetoric. In order to do this, though, journalists need a certain skill set — one that can be taught in the classroom.
To help student journalists develop the aptitude for political reporting, educators must teach them to articulate the purpose of their news story and how the political speech fits into that purpose. Doing this requires a working knowledge of the political landscape and the players.
In this second installment on language of the Educator Edition of the NPR Public Editor newsletter, we're looking at how journalists can navigate political rhetoric to get to the heart of the story and provide the audience with the information it needs. — Nicole Slaughter Graham
Politicians manipulate narratives. They do this to advance their agendas, gain popularity with a segment of voters and tear down their opponents. For instance, politicians will often exaggerate crime statistics as a way of exploiting universal fears about public safety.
President Donald Trump did this on Aug. 11, when he deployed the National Guard to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C. He said, "Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people."
A few days later, the White House doubled down on Trump's stance, publishing an article promoting the government takeover of the police force in Washington. In the article, the White House noted that deploying the National Guard and taking control of the local police would "... liberate Washington, D.C., from the cesspool of crime and homelessness that it has become after decades of unilateral democratic leadership."
How do we know this is rhetoric? Note the dramatic adjectives and nouns like "bloodthirsty criminals," and the verbs like "liberate." Also, Trump blames his opponents, the Democrats, for the problems.
Repeating these statements in a news story without adding accurate context disseminates misinformation. But ignoring them means not holding the president accountable.
When reporting on this type of rhetoric, journalists first must determine what truths are important for the audience to know. Reporters in this case were tasked with fact-checking the president's statements by quantifying the rate of crime and how that compares to other cities, as well as describing what will happen during the deployment.
What will help audiences see the rhetoric for what it is? In many cases, journalists must add context so the audience has a more accurate picture of the topic. For instance, in April, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said this during a press conference about people with autism: "And these are kids who will never pay taxes. They'll never hold a job. They'll never play baseball. They'll never write a poem. They'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted."
In a 12-minute segment on Consider This, host Mary Louise Kelly introduced a more nuanced narrative about autism by using several movies and television shows. She then played the clip of RFK Jr.'s quote above. Afterward, Kelly interviewed an expert on autism who also has two autistic children, who challenged the health secretary's description of autism. She questioned his focus on environmental factors while applauding his promise to research causes. Finally, she noted that RFK Jr. did not present any long-term solutions to care for people with autism — something the autism community really needs.
Should I paraphrase some of this to make it easier to understand? It's not uncommon for direct quotes from politicians to be so sensational, false or steeped in rhetoric that they don't add any value to the story. Young journalists need to be able to make this assertion and then figure out how to work around it. Sometimes, this means paraphrasing the parts of a quote that create more confusion.
NPR chose this option after a campaign speech by Trump to a group of Christian supporters, in which the president told those in attendance that if they voted for him in the 2024 election, they won't have to vote anymore "in forthcoming elections. The quote was long and confusing. It veered from his scripted stump speech and it wasn't clear exactly what he meant when he said it. The reporter chose to paraphrase the part of the quote that was confusing, and used the rest of it after the paraphrasing.
Audience members wrote to our office to object to one of NPR's solutions. This paraphrasing was used twice — once in a newscast and once in a web story. In the newscast, the paraphrasing worked well, but in the longer piece, we found that more context was needed to help consumers digest the implications.
Does the audience need info on political motivations? Political rhetoric used by a politician often has a specific motivation. Referring to immigrants as criminals, for instance, is a generalization meant to sway the public into thinking about an entire group of people in monolithic terms. If this portrayal sticks, it's more likely that the audience will accept certain legislative moves. For instance, the mass deportation of immigrants is more palatable if the country's biases against immigrants are stoked.
Take, for instance, how during a September 2024 political debate hosted on ABC, Trump repeated a Facebook rumor that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating the community's pets. This baseless claim exemplified Trump's larger stance on immigrants as violent and criminal. Making claims like this further his mass deportation agenda.
Are these statements false? When possible, a reporter can push back in the moment by asking for clarity when a politician makes a statement that is clearly false. Or, the reporter can also follow up after the moment by asking if the politician is sticking by a clearly false claim.
When a politician stands firm on a false statement, sometimes that's the story. Then it's up to the reporter to make sure the audience knows the truth, as well as how the politician is distorting it.
Over the summer, NPR Jerusalem Correspondent Daniel Estrin interviewed Mike Huckabee, U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Two versions of the interview were aired: a condensed version on All Things Considered, and the full interview on NPR's State of the World podcast. During that interview, Huckabee said that Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel was worse than the Holocaust. To back up his assertion, he repeated the debunked claim that Hamas fighters had decapitated babies in the attack. In this interview, it would have benefited the audience to hear the reporter push back and make clear that Huckabee's claims were false. In the full version of the interview on State of the World, a host made it clear that Huckabee's claims had been debunked. Nonetheless, audience members contacted our office to let us know that they wanted to hear that pushback from the journalists.
Navigating political rhetoric in reporting is a skill that is cultivated over time and with practice. Help your students gain the discernment they need by providing them with ample opportunities to hone their critical thinking skills around political reporting. Start with this handout. — Nicole Slaughter Graham
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 social media 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
