It is quite possible they are both.

NPR is getting beaten up for reporting their disappointment that an African-American candidate did not win.  The mayoral race was won by an Asian-American woman and NPR was disappointed.

This is, of course, simply a product of their being ideological racists.  There is a moral hierarchy of races and Asians are right down there with whites.  Yes, it is a ridiculous position, and, yes, it is a repudiation of the Age of Enlightenment values which have eliminated slavery and imposed inequality.  

There is something else going on here though, to do with the English language.

NPR appears to be having a struggle session because the wrong type of female minority won the Boston mayoral election. pic.twitter.com/FPwKHbEB0a

— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) November 16, 2021

This is where the reporting gets interesting. 

That "Many were hopeful that Boston would elect its first black Mayor, as most the nations 30 largest cities have already done." sets off linguistic alarm bells.  It is ambiguous what they mean.

Ignoring the obvious racism, either NPR means that some number more than one voters were hopeful that Boston would elect a black Mayor or they mean that some number slightly less than 50% of voters were hopeful that Boston would elect a black Mayor.

Would NPR have ever tweeted 

Many were hopeful that Trump would win reelection.

Obviously tens of millions did hope that he would win but that would not justify "many were hopeful" as a meaningful description because in any binary outcome, there will always be "many" who were hopeful that the loser would have won. 

Obviously a majority of voters preferred the winning candidate, Michelle Wu, who happened to be Asian American.  

What is NPR telling us that is meaningful?  Just how close a race was this?  Not close at all.

Michelle Wu won with 64.2% of the vote.  At best this would have warranted something along the lines of:

Despite Wu's overwhelming victory, there were some who had hoped . . . 

I am accustomed to innumerate journalists.  But journalist awkward with the English language?

And speaking of innumerate journalists.  In searching for Wu's election margin, I found it on the NYT's Election 2021 results page.  

I clicked through to the linked news account and encountered this gem.

Though Asian Americans are the country’s fastest-growing electorate, Asian American candidates have not fared well in big-city races. Of the country’s 100 largest cities, six have Asian American mayors, all in California or Texas, according to the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies.

Hmmm.  6% of the mayors of the 100 largest cities are Asian American.  Hmmmm.  Isn't that about . . . Sure enough.  From Wikipedia:

During the 2010 United States Census, there were a total of 17,320,856 Asian Americans, including Multiracial Americans identifying as part Asian. This made Asian Americans 5.6 percent of the total American population.

So 5.6% of Asian Americans have been here long enough to run for office and 6% of them have won the mayor race for America's 100 largest cities.  

How does 5.6% support the "Asian American candidates have not fared well in big-city races"?  It doesn't.  The statement is obviously untrue.  The journalist is wanting to create a negative race story when there simply isn't one.

Now to be fair, the excerpted Wikipedia text is from the 2010 Census.  I checked elsewhere to see if the more recent 2020 results were yet available.  Indeed, as the fastest growing segment of the population, Asian Americans are now 7.2% of the nation's population.  At some point between 2010 and 2020, they passed the 6% mark.  It remains true, especially given election cycles, that Asian American mayors are roughly in proportion to their percentage of the population.

Whether NPR or NYT - are journalists just innumerate or are they ideological racists.  It is quite possible they are both.