NPR Sets a Fire on the Prairie (UPDATED)

Some of my earliest memories of news stories were of listening to the calm, cultured voices of the slate of NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered. I just enjoyed listening. These people were wise and able to talk to anybody. Then I grew up. I still know where NPR lives on my radio dial–but I do not visit any more.

Not long ago, NPR ran a series of programs in which it claimed that South Dakota’s governor and others were profiting from the kidnapping of Native children from the reservations and their placement with non-Native foster families.

John Hinderaker of PowerLine has done yeoman’s service in explaining why it is that I and many others find NPR’s coverage of news stories to be so far beyond helpful that they are truly hurtful.

  • In part 1 of his response, John lays the groundwork for showing that NPR is playing fast and loose with the numbers to make it seem that the state of South Dakota is far out of line with other states’ handling of Native child removals.
  • In part 2, he notes that all of these removals would have occurred with the full consent of the tribal government authorities–hardly the stuff of kidnappings.
  • In part 3, he delves into the specific numbers of the children which have been removed and what happened to them to show that the claims that they all (or nearly all) were placed with non-Native families is unsupported by the facts.
  • In part 4, he addresses the accusations that Children’s Home has unfairly profited because of that organization’s relationship with Dennis Daugaard.
  • In part 5, he describes the steps he has gone through to contact the member of NPR’s staff who is responsible for the series–Laura Sullivan–and the lack of response which he has so far received. H also talks about the real story on the reservation. Finally, he asks that his readers assist him in his attempt to set the record straight.

If you have not read these articles, or have only given them a cursory glance, please take the time to go through the material thoroughly. And, if you find yourself joining with Mr. Hinderaker in his desire to get to the bottom of things with NPR, please do follow up with the contacts he suggests–and perhaps also by letting your federally elected officials know of your distaste for funding falsehoods.


John now has a few answers back from Ms. Sullivan. In part 6, he lays out his questions, her answers, and more questions which have arisen from the provided data.

4 thoughts on “NPR Sets a Fire on the Prairie (UPDATED)

  1. Your tax dollars at work.

    Thank God for Hinderaker.

    Wonder what Senator Johnson thinks of this bovine fecal matter masquerading as journalism. He was asking not too long ago for opinions on what could be cut from the federal budget. I think we found something.

    1. Would that we could directly place out tax dollars. We’d very soon see which services were considered important, wouldn’t we?

      Since Senator Johnson still seems to believe that direct support for farmers is government’s business, I hold out little hope that he would consider NPR for the chopping block.

      1. The government likes to call them “contributions”…in churches and charities, donors can earmark their contributions for specific things in the budget. Would be nice to let constituents earmark their taxes rather than Congress.

        Pipe dreams, I know – kind of like defunding NPR.

Comments are closed.