I’m glad that Ramesh, yesterday, posted about abortion bias at NPR — something about which he could have probably written a book — because it was like a little trip down memory lane. He writes:

Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, recently challenged critics of her organization to show her an example of bias in its stories. In a couple of minutes, I gathered a few examples on just one topic: abortion.

Here’s a 2019 memo from NPR on its practices in reporting on abortion, explaining, among other things, that it is “incorrect” to use the word “baby” at any stage of pregnancy.

When that memo had first come out, Ramesh wrote:

Mark Memmott, NPR’s “supervising senior editor for Standards and Practices,” has reminded NPR’s reporters and editors about “the longstanding guidance” on the proper terminology to use when discussing abortion. It turns out that the longstanding practice of NPR has been to use the terms that are favored by one side of the abortion debate. Guess which one!

During the debate over partial-birth abortion, the abortion lobby complained that it was not a medical term and got much of the press to use it only with tongs. “Bush Signs Ban on a Procedure for Abortion” was one New York Times headline. The NPR guidance is sticking with this fatwa against the phrase, even though it is now defined in federal law. (A quick glance at the NPR website shows no similar fastidiousness about the phrase “assault weapons” or “assault-style weapons.”)

“Abortion clinics” are another disfavored phrase, because “the clinics perform other procedures and not just abortions.”

We also commented, in the September 1, 2021, issue of the magazine:

Until recently, National Public Radio banned editorial staff from attending “marches, rallies, and public events” and taking stances of advocacy on “controversial” or “polarizing” issues. They are now allowed to express support for “the freedom and dignity of human beings, the rights of a free and independent press, the right to thrive in society without facing discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, disability, or religion.” One of National Review’s editors regularly participates in public prayer vigils for an end to abortion outside abortion clinics, where too often women feel as if they have no other choice than to end the life of their unborn child. Should a pro-life NPR editor exist, may she now join?

That editor was me. And I’ve never run into any NPR editors.

Where NPR stands on abortion has never really been a mystery. Its editors either don’t realize their bias, or they are lying about it. Neither would be a credit to a news organization.