There has been plenty of interest and coverage of the big foul-up on Tuesday when National Public Radio released a report that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was stepping down. Longtime court correspondent for the outlet, Nina Totenberg, was the source of this news, and NPR swiftly pulled down the article.
How this transpired has become the big question, and there have been statements from NPR that supposedly explain things, but in reality, many of the elements do not link up. If you need to catch up first, our Sister Toldjah gave this coverage yesterday, but I will be putting together some of the pieces to this fractured image.
SEE: What in the World? NPR's Anti-Alito Wishcasting Ends With an Awkward Retraction
NPR Reporter's Bizarre Explanation for False Alito Retirement Story Somehow Makes It Even Worse
Some have speculated (or offered the excuse) that this was due to the news being embargoed, and Nina jumped the gun with her report of news that is still to be announced. This does not seem to be the case. The obvious cause of this was that a pre-written bio of Alito was released, with a modicum of new information at the top. Outlets have many of these types of pieces in reserve for when events warrant a timely report. This leads to figuring out what caused this posting and reporting of the non-retirement.
Totenberg made an appearance on “All Things Considered” on Tuesday afternoon, following this errant report, as well as sitting for an interview with Andy Mac on Fox Live NOW. Her explanation for this snafu was her exiting the courtroom and then realizing others were lingering in the chambers, so she hurried back. In the rush, she caught wind of Chief Justice Roberts mentioning a retirement, and this led her to conclude Alito would be stepping down. She called in the news, NPR editors pulled the prefab report, and ran that online, as well as broadcasting the news on the airwaves. It was minutes later that the error was realized and the story spiked, with an editor’s explanation and on-air retractions made.
However, this is not represented in her report and in the subsequent explanations by the network. The introduction to her Alito retirement notice stated that an announcement had been made by the Supreme Court, but as is known, no such announcement was ever made. This appears to be the entire cause of this debacle, because either Totenberg conveyed that an announcement was made, or that was interpreted by the editors. Then things get even more obtuse.
Ben Mullin, reporting at the New York Times, had some of the specifics about how this report came to be.
Earlier in the day, NPR’s public editor published a detailed account of the circumstances that led to the error. The public radio network published its story after Mrs. Totenberg conveyed the incorrect information to Krishnadev Calamur, NPR’s executive editor. Mr. Calamur surfaced the article, which Mrs. Totenberg had written in advance to prepare for the event of Justice Alito’s retirement, and published it.
So far this makes sense. As expected, it was a prepared piece with some current wording augmenting the content. But when it comes to how this managed to leech through the editing filters, that is where unanswered questions emerge.
Mullin describes that NPR’s editorial process has an additional component that oversees submitted works, and vetting is to take place.
Here's what happened with the Totenberg thing:https://t.co/9xTsyw1fwc pic.twitter.com/pGUjBljGYk
— Ben Mullin (@BenMullin) June 30, 2026
This passage is rife with contradictions. First, it describes a relatively new editing act designed to avoid bad information from going out, which certainly took place. Also, it says that Totenberg’s report went through this “backstop” editing process, but later states that the network did not actually take that step. Then, it is explained that this process was sidestepped due to the report being based on an announcement.
However, that is the claimed announcement that was never made. That Totenberg references an official statement going out is odd enough, but to declare that there is an additional editing level at the network for all reports, but that editing was not used to verify something rather basic — confirming an official statement — defies logic.
What seems to be the case is that Totenberg was acting on an assumption, and she wanted to get a piece released in order to be the one breaking the news. She even admits she realized the error when no other outlets were reporting on Alito. The editors, possibly deferring to Nina being a senior-level correspondent and/or opting to rush to print, chose to avoid this verification.
It ends up being a case of a domino effect of bad journalism. A senior reporter on site never obtained an official statement, editors ran a report without conducting basic confirmation, and the safeguard level of verification was completely avoided.
While not a case of malicious or activist reporting, it is still an example of fractured journalism. Excuses and explanations are being made on behalf of NPR, with a level of understanding being applied that is not normally granted to other outlets, such as Fox News. Case in point: this reporter from Oliver Darcy’s Status newsletter getting caustic over Fox this weekend, but barely motivated by NPR’s similar retraction.
Notice here the dual approach to outlets issuing corrections on errors in reporting by one media analyst at Status, in successive posts:
— Brad Slager: CNN+ Lifetime Subscriber (@MartiniShark) June 30, 2026
- When it is Fox News going public with a retraction there is snark and scorn.
- When it is NPR, it rates only a tepid, criticism-free retweet. pic.twitter.com/6a9l93EHpU
Totenberg has described what took place as the result of actions that are entirely her fault. She describes the error as being "a rookie mistake." Totenberg is a journalist with a 50-year career, and NPR is held up as an esteemed news institution. The layers of errors that were involved for this to play out are not the work of veteran newspeople. To see the passive responses from others in the media, when they would never tolerate the same from any right-of-center outlets, speaks to the insular nature of so many in the news industry.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member