Hacker News Reader

Comment by netsharc | Hacker News Reader

The reason for his suspension is: "the organization told the editor [i.e. Berliner] he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists."

Not because he criticized them.

It this a punishment that is always applied; or used selectively? If the first, then it's fine, if the latter... then yeah there's a problem.

View on HN

> It this a punishment that is always applied; or used selectively?

Steve Inskeep, a fellow NPR journalist, published a rebuttal on his own Substack[0] to Uri Berliner's article. Considering that Inskeep's Substack is also for profit (meaning people must pay a subscription to read non-public articles), it seems that unless he is also suspended, there is in fact selective enforcement.

[0]: https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-fai...

The policy doesn't say all outside works is banned. It says approval must be sought. Do you have any evidence Inskeep didn't have approval to post on Substack?

Being a mere outside observer, I naturally do not have any such evidence, but I do wonder what that approval process is like? Do employees have to, for example, agree not to disparage NPR in such outside work?

From the NPR story:

>In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.)

I haven't seen that episode of NewsNation, but I'd be surprised if this editor were invited as a guest for a different topic. So he did seek and receive permission in one case.

A lot of employers have this. This isn't that strange. You might have the same. I've had to run open source work past employers when it's similar to the company's domain.

> A lot of employers have this. This isn't that strange.

Right, but NPR isn't any old employer. It was created by Congress with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with a mission of "creating a more informed public, one that is challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas, and cultures." Despite it not receiving that much taxpayer funding, I would hold it to a standard of a government organization; and I expect diverse viewpoints and dissent to be a core part of that mission.

If you were a direct employee of the government, went out and spoke publicly about your organization, in your official capacity, using confidential internal information when told you needed approval before hand, would you expect it to go differently?

Also an outsider, but seeing the approval process in my own organization, I am 110% sure such "outside work" wouldn't have been approved, had the author sought it.

lol they probably asked him to write the article

one article criticizes them, of course they're not gonna allow that. the other article praises them, of course they're gonna allow that.

"it seems that unless he is also suspended or sought & received approval there is in fact selective enforcement."

Yeah, couldn't possibly be that he got approval for outside work. That's too hard to even comprehend.

I didn’t think Berliner’s article made very good points, but did appreciate that the conversation was being had. Suspending him doesn’t look good, even if there was some rule he violated. The article mentioned other instances that he wasn’t punished for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com