The Media Research Center thinks George Soros personally dictates its posts, so it’s no surprise that it would lash out at its system of sources. A Feb. 3 post by Luis Cornelio groused that “not a single right-leaning outlet was deemed ‘reliable’—a stark contrast to the 84 percent of leftist media Wikipedia deems reliable.” Note Cornelio’s dishonest framing here: “right-wing outlets” vs. “leftist media.” Also consider that the “right-leaning outlets” he names are blatantly partisan outlets, like Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, Newsmax, OANN and the Media Research Center. By comparison, many of the “leftist media” he cites are mainstream outlets like NPR and ProPublica.
Tom Olohan spent an April 23 post whining that Wikipedia considers NPR and PBS acceptable sources:
Wikipedia handles the leftist propagandists at National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) with kid gloves, all while it bars editors from citing nearly every right-leaning media source.
The online encyclopedia revealed its true colors when it rated NPR and PBS as “generally reliable” in its permissible sources list for editors, despite ample evidence of the two publicly-funded media outlets’ flagrant bias. But Wikipedia rated every single right-leaning media outlet included in the list as “blacklisted,” “deprecated,” “generally unreliable” or “no consensus.” Both NPR and PBS are partially funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and have been under the gun in Washington, D.C. due to their leftist bias and public funding.
Wikipedia assigns ratings ranging from “generally reliable” to literally “blacklisted” to determine whether and where publications can be cited on the online encyclopedia. In a previous report, MRC Free Speech America found that Wikipedia labeled 84 percent of the listed left-leaning media sources featured here as “generally reliable,” including NPR. Wikipedia then smeared 22 out of 29 right-leaning sources with negative labels, while the other seven fell under “no consensus.”
Wikipedia applied none of these negative labels to NPR or PBS. In fact, it labelled NPR as “generally reliable for news and statements of fact.” Wikipedia also greenlit citations of NPR opinion pieces “with attribution.” Wikipedia declared PBS “generally reliable” with no qualifiers of any kind.
Olohan then tried to justify his partisan hate against NPR and PBS:
MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider condemned Wikipedia’s rating systems. “Wikipedia has slammed the door on all conservative media outlets. It has a clear agenda to reward left-wing politicians and radical media outlets and to silence any alternative perspective. NPR and PBS turn the tax money of ordinary Americans into leftist drivel, dripping with hatred for the American people,” he said.
The Media Research Center has extensively exposed the absurd bias of the naked partisans at NPR and PBS. MRC NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham gave five reasons to defund “public” broadcasting in a piece published February 5, 2025. Graham highlighted how both NPR and PBS shamelessly covered for President Joe Biden. For example, a September 2024 MRC study found that PBS provided 72% negative coverage of the Republican National Convention compared to a minuscule 12% negative coverage of the Democratic National Convention.
Graham justifying public broadcasting in an obviously partisan manner is a reason to justify blacklisting the MRC or declaring it to be “absurd,” not a legitimate criticism of Wikipedia. Further, the MRC evaluation of PBS’ convention coverage — conducted by the highly biased Clay Waters — made no attempt to discern whether the positive or negative ratings were justified, and it excluded “neutral” remarks from evaluations of those negative or positive remarks. And Graham’s list of “five reasons to defund” NPR and PBS, as we’ve detailed, largely consists of complaining that public broadcasting does stories on people who aren’t heterosexual.
Olohan then hyped how the Trump administration has used the MRC’s biased research:
Following years of the MRC exposing NPR and PBS for rampant bias against the right, Maher testified during a hearing on public funding for her institution, alongside PBS CEO Paula Kerger. Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) directly confronted Kerger with an MRC study showing that PBS used the terms “far right” 162 times more than it used the terms “far left.”
After the hearing, Trump called for NPR and PBS to be defunded, saying: “NPR and PBS, two horrible and completely biased platforms (Networks!), should be DEFUNDED by Congress, IMMEDIATELY. Republicans, don’t miss this opportunity to rid our Country of this giant SCAM, both being arms of the Radical Left Democrat Party. JUST SAY NO AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”
Trump’s White House has also published a list of examples of bias at NPR and PBS, which cited three damning MRC studies on PBS and a piece on a PBS panel denying Biden’s cognitive decline.
Olohan did not explain how Trump’s use of its biased data legitimizes it.
Gabriela Pariseau went after NPR in particular in a June 2 post:
Did Google just use leftist Wikipedia to cover for news outlets that are due for a reckoning?
MRC researchers asked Google Search on Thursday whether NPR and PBS hid the Hunter Biden laptop story. At the top of the two searches, Google’s artificial intelligence weighed in with an emphatic no, citing none other than Wikipedia, which downplayed NPR’s “delayed” reporting and PBS’s initial “caution.” The responses ignored both a 2020 statement from NPR’s then-managing editor Terence Samuel saying that the outlet would not cover the story and the NPR CEO Katherine Maher’s recent admission that ignoring the story was the wrong approach. Yet, even the search results Google displayed below its AI response included the belated admission.
“No it is not accurate to say that NPR hid the Hunter Biden laptop story,” Google’s AI Overview began, later adding, “While NPR did report on the story, like other news outlets, their initial reporting might have been delayed due to the prevailing concerns about the story’s authenticity, as reported in Wikipedia.”
The bombshell New York Post story, detailing the Biden family scandals as revealed by documents on Hunter Biden’s laptop, immediately became a flashpoint just before the 2020 election. Verifying a story takes time, sure. But it matters little whether NPR’s reporting was “delayed” since NPR flat out refused to directly report on the story.
[…]Google’s AI Overview and Wikipedia, however, completely glossed over NPR’s biased approach.
Expressing caution over a story promoted by partisan interests — the New York Post is a right-wing paper, the story was promoted by pro-Trump interests, and the Post refused to provide any independent verification of it initially — is the prudent move, not a partisan one. Pariseau went on to whine:
Wikipedia, which has a history of blatant left-leaning bias, not only appeared in the AI results at the top for each of the prompts’ search results, but it appeared again a second time in results for each search.
MRC has previously exposed Wikipedia’s leftist bent, favoring left-leaning media as acceptable sources while effectively blacklisting those on the right. The online encyclopedia also allowed extremely biased edits of the pages of top Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and FBI Director Kash Patel.
That post, also written by Pariseau, was largely mad that Wikipedia added negative information about Vance and the others upon their nominations without explaining why true information, however negative, is somehow “extremely biased.”