In the stories he’s listing in the article, plenty of organizations were taking the “team x” positions he describes. It’s not like NPR had the only newsroom having to make choices.
Summing it up as a lack of transparency (would he rather say “fairness?”) and viewpoint diversity (“balance?”) seems somewhat disingenuous. At a higher level view, different organizations are going to take different positions. Arguably, obligated to do so.
Surely he doesn’t believe every org has to pretend there are “both sides” to every story. But if he’s no longer aligned with NPR, then perhaps the suspension is in everyone’s best interest.
A public organization, funded by public money, should not be taking a political stance against more than half the population. It's one thing to just report some fact that goes against a narrative that half the population believes. That's not what is going on at NPR. If they want to take a team x position, fine, team y shouldn't be funding them under threat of imprisonment. They can get their funding the way all the other newsrooms having to make choices do.
Over counted, probably not considering the thin margins of election outcomes. Wrong? Yes, half the population is wrong. Which half is wrong depends on which half you're asking. We are all probably wrong about a lot. This cooperation we do in spite of it helps us figure that out.
Summing it up as a lack of transparency (would he rather say “fairness?”) and viewpoint diversity (“balance?”) seems somewhat disingenuous. At a higher level view, different organizations are going to take different positions. Arguably, obligated to do so.
Surely he doesn’t believe every org has to pretend there are “both sides” to every story. But if he’s no longer aligned with NPR, then perhaps the suspension is in everyone’s best interest.