From: Eva Rodriguez, Vice President and Executive Editor, NPR
Re: Monthly Content Review
February 2025 session
The Cohort:
Ashley Brown, Supervising Editor, All Things Considered
Pat Wood, Chief Editor, General Assignment Desk
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 2,348 pieces of content (not including Newscast) in January 2025.
· By category: 1,654 were news -- produced pieces or two-ways with NPR/Member station reporters or outside experts/newsmakers; 302 were categorized as culture and 107 as music. (285 pieces were uncategorized.)
· By platform: Broadcast shows hosted 1,077 of these pieces, owned and operated digital platforms were vehicles for 1,037 stories and podcasts accounted for 234. (Content posted exclusively on third-party platforms such as Instagram and YouTube were not discoverable in this data scrape.)
The Topic: NPR's coverage of Trump Administration immigration policies and developments.
The Discussion, generally: The meeting began with and spent quite a bit of time analyzing a piece from January about the challenges of finding U.S. citizens or residents to work at some Nebraska-based companies, including a meat-packing plant. The personnel shortages, the story explains, have forced local businesses to hire undocumented migrants in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. "Just a good story to listen to," but also good in-depth reporting, with many voices, one participant said. Another chimed in that she loved the piece because the reporter "gets so close to all characters." The discussion took a turn when another member of the cohort said they liked the story, generally, but was troubled by the ending because it felt too close to editorializing.
The last section of the audio story quotes a woman who is a parishioner at a local Episcopal church as she envisions a time when undocumented immigrants will no longer feel afraid. Below is the passage from the audio version:
WOMAN: "We will have lots of little boutiques," she says. "We'll have a diverse, lovely school system. We will have a growing number of people who are bilingual. That is what I dream of."
REPORTER: She knows that under Trump, the country's immigration policy is going to move in a different direction, one that prioritizes closed borders.
Her door is open.
But is America's?
Many other participants jumped into the conversation at that point, praising the story in general but questioning the wisdom of that last section, particularly the last line. "It had an advocacy tone, and didn't need it," one said. Another participant noted that correspondents and editors often look for an elegant or snappy "kicker" – or last line -- to end a piece on a memorable note. "Often when we look for a kicker, we can slip into editorializing," adds another. (NOTE: The digital text version of the story does not include the line "But is America's?" It is unclear why the audio and digital versions of the piece differ in this way.)
A common challenge for immigration reporters is that the Trump Administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) often do not respond to requests for comments or decline comment. This makes it difficult to reflect in full the logic or policy foundations of particular moves. One panelist said that when listening to these stories in sequential order, it's different from hearing them mixed in around other news stories. "You notice a pattern: 'We've reached out for comment, and they declined to answer.'" A different panelist shares that he appreciates when the reporter has made a concerted effort to hear from the administration and signals that effort by saying that officials did not respond "after multiple attempts" to secure comment. "That indicates a bit more of an effort," this person said.
There was praise for a piece about how different police departments were responding to ICE requests for cooperation in identifying or apprehending undocumented migrants. Some gladly cooperated while others were concerned that such cooperation could deter some undocumented migrants from reporting crimes in their communities for fear they could get ensnared by the immigration system. This piece provided an in-depth understanding of law enforcement challenges and featured "conservative" voices in defense of law and order, including in the immigration space. There was a feeling that we could do more of these types of pieces to better balance stories told more from an immigrant's point of view.
This led another panelist to talk about "the surprising voice." This person pointed to a piece that included a snippet from an undocumented migrant from Massachusetts who is a Trump fan. "I wanted to spend more time with them," this panelist said. One said it felt like the anti-immigration voice was sometimes included simply to give an almost artificial sense of balance and not to help the audience really understand that viewpoint. An exception, the group agreed, was a piece done by a Member station reporter in Texas about how that state and its leadership were partnering with the Trump Administration to crack down on illegal migration. This piece, one participant said, allowed the listener to better understand that side – "a side I don't hear as much."
Finally, several participants argued for more pieces that take a step-back look at what's happening on the immigration front to make it easier to understand the impacts of discrete policies or developments.
The Takeaways:
1. As with almost all topics – but especially with those that are hot-button issues – the sense of fairness can be shattered in even the most richly reported pieces by a careless phrase or even a careless word. We must be mindful of the impact of these relatively minor infractions because they can abruptly change the tone of a piece or even relay a sort of advocacy that has no place in our journalism.
2. We must be deliberate in choosing lead characters that reflect the variety of viewpoints and experiences on immigration. Many of our immigration stories feature the challenges faced by people in this country illegally. These are important and valid pieces and these stories must be part of our coverage quilt. But we can and should do better to feature people with differing views and experiences, including those who support a crackdown on illegal migration. And we should be generous with our audiences in offering accurate, fair and fulsome explanations of what undergirds these views. We explain, show, report and document; it's up to the listener or reader or viewer to decide what they think and believe.
3. This next point has been made in several monthly content review sessions, but it's worth repeating: Our attempt to get the "other side" of a story should never be merely obligatory. Getting this other side must be pursued in earnest and with determination and laid out in detail so that audiences get the benefit of these views. If an administration official declines to comment or does not respond, we must try others in the administration or find legitimate and like-minded proxies outside of government to supply insights. When we are unable to get that view into a piece, we should be transparent with the audience about our efforts.
4. Our colleagues at Member stations often provide the kind of nuanced, intelligent and contextualized coverage that feels authentic and avoids caricaturing a viewpoint or a community. We should partner more closely with and support these Member station colleagues so that national audiences have access to this valuable reporting.
Copyright 2025 NPR