The Bias of KPBS, San Diego’s National Public Radio Affiliate

KPBS, the San Diego National Public Radio affiliate, prides itself on offering “independent, nonpartisan political coverage” that is “accurate,” “objective” and “fair.”

But that is not how KPBS reported on the Mar. 17 City Council meeting to adopt the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism. The matter is controversial because the IHRA definition says that questioning Israel’s right to exist and blaming Jews worldwide for the Israeli government’s actions is antisemitic. Others, to say the least, disagree.

Nonetheless, the definition has been adopted by over 45 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Argentina, Australia and most members of the European Union. Its main competitor, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, has not been adopted by any governments. Instead, it’s popular among liberal or progressive academics.

The San Diego meeting was well-attended and went on for over three hours. Numerous people spoke, and as the video shows, the two sides were roughly evenly matched. One woman wore a t-shirt with “Gaza” emblazoned on it, dripping blood. Another showed a short video on how the explosion of antisemitic incidents echoes the Nazis. Some speakers said that the IHRA definition would censor speech. Others said it wouldn’t because even biased speech is protected under the First Amendment, and the definition would give clear guidance as to what constitutes antisemitism.

Ultimately, the San Diego City Council voted 8-1 to approve the resolution. In addition, the Council received 279 online comments in favor of the resolution, and 169 against it.

But the article posted by KPBS is anything but “nonpartisan” and “fair,” as the report is heavily weighted toward the losing, anti-IHRA definition position.

There are five pro-IHRA paragraphs, but the anti-IHRA position gets eleven paragraphs.

The reporter extensively quotes Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera’s criticisms of the IHRA (seven full paragraphs). The winning side gets nowhere near that much space. And there is no detailed defense of the IHRA definition. Reading this article, you would not know why the vote to adopt was almost unanimous, why the resolution received so much public support, and why so many governments have adopted it.

The IHRA article is not the only example of this station’s one-sidedness. While KPBS claims they prioritize “multiple perspectives,” when “Midday Edition” ran a segment on the IHRA controversy the day before the City Council meeting, they covered only the anti-IHRA side. Nobody reached out to SDSU’s Presidential Taskforce on Combatting Antisemitism (full disclosure: I’m the co-chair), comprised of faculty, staff and students, for comment.

This may seem like a local tempest in a teapot, but it’s indicative of larger problems. NPR has long been criticized for its leaning left in its news coverage, including its treatment of Israel and the Gaza War. In a 2024 Free Press article, Uri Berliner, a business editor at NPR at the time, accused the station of anti-Israel bias, focusing on “the suffering of Palestinians at almost every turn while downplaying the atrocities of Oct. 7, overlooking how Hamas intentionally puts Palestinian civilians in peril, and giving little weight to the explosion of antisemitic hate around the world.” NPR’s reputation of liberal bias made it a target for Republicans, and after Trump was elected, the Republican Congress defunded NPR. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is now defunct.

NPR executives may deny accusations of political bias, but the reporting by KPBS on the IHRA definition and the presence of an outspoken anti-Zionist as a producer exemplifies of what makes NPR so vulnerable. The article’s author, who “reports on racial justice and social equity,” is engaging in advocacy, not reporting.

Certainly, everyone is entitled to voice their opinions, but once opinion infects what should be fact-based reporting, the damage is not going to be restricted to a single issue. KPBS’s slanted coverage of the IHRA debates undermines KPBS’s credibility on all other issues, just as NPR’s bias against Israel undermined their credibility on other national stories. If they cannot be trusted to report accurately here, why should they be trusted elsewhere?

To be absolutely clear, I say this as a longtime supporter of KPBS and NPR. I regularly tune in to Morning Edition and All Things Considered, and I support NPR with substantial donations. I am perfectly aware that Fox and MSNBC are equally biased in their coverage. But those stations do not pretend to be nonpartisan.

NPR does, and I expected better of them.

Peter C. Herman’s books include “Unspeakable: Literature and Terrorism from the Gunpowder Plot to 9/11,” and “Critical Contexts: Terrorism and Literature.” His opinion pieces have appeared in Newsweek, Salon, Areo, Inside Higher Ed, and Times of San Diego.