That would be the act of whistleblowing.
Otherwise, you'd be asking NPR to publish a story about how biased NPR is. On top of the fact that burying stories they don't like is one of the accusations.
I think your argument is trying to debate the circumstances of the whistleblowing in order to divert from the facts he brought to light.
I have family members who also think NPR is pretty middle of the road. But they are very liberal. And I think it speaks to the idea that people think the "news" agency that tells them what they want to hear is really the one that's non biased. (I think the term is confirmation bias?)
That's not at all whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is airing out a practice that is either illegal or non-ethical
Most companies have non-compete clauses. If that was whistleblowing, then the writer would have the right to sue NPR for retaliation. The only thing the writer said is that NPR lost people's trust because they are rigidly left leaning.
They've always been left leaning. What the writer wrote was not something that isn't known. It's the way in which he went about being critical. It's truly no different than any other job. Actually, I think quite a few of us would be fired for publicly stating negative things about our employer, not even suspended.
Also, NPR didn't even try to bury the story. In fact, you can find their story about suspending him. It's still on their website.
babylonbee.com
adfontesmedia.com
www.theguardian.com
