Maybe I'm an old and out of touch, but I love NPR. I like that I can get well researched, calmly presented news at any time of the day by flipping to my local station. Podcasts just don't do it for me-I prefer music in the background while I'm working, and npr/music when I'm driving.
I feel the same about BBC Radio 4 or the World Service.
Podcasts are generally great if you want something that's exciting and casual, but there's still something inexplicably appealing about NPR or the BBC radio.
I've been listening to NPR for ~2 hours each day during my commutes for about 2 years. While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe. They don't always up and say it, but their most common tactic is bringing on an 'expert', who pontificates about X while the host nods in agreement and says how smart they are. Listen closely when talking about Israel, Bernie/Hillary (I couldn't stomach the 15 minute puff piece on her yesterday), and digital privacy (David Greene got called a government shill by Darrel Issa on-air). I still listen to it but occasionally I have to put it on mute for a segment or two.
I used to listen to WNYC constantly in high school (late '00s), and when I was delivering pizza between semesters in college.
I feel like the fluff-to-content ratio has increasedto the point where it doesn't stand apart anymore, and it's just upper-middle-class background noise. Maybe my interests are just shifted, but I feel like there's a lot less news then there was five years ago. I feel like a lot of what they report on just isn't important or relevant.
But I don't listen much anymore, so ironically I might be missing all of the good content and then ragging on NPR for not having good content.
I should specify that I've been mainly listening to WNYC. I wouldn't exactly call their run-of-the-mill pieces "fluff", but they're becoming more of an attempt at radio clickbait. "Stay tuned to hear the tale of a disadvantaged minority!" I can only listen to so many of these before I shut it off and listen to the engine.
When I can't stomach puff pieces on NPR, I usually blame it in my extreme liberal bias, but still take in the information. I still haven't yet heard ANY in-depth stories taking Trump or Cruise to task for their many false statements. At the same time, I've heard quite a few stories on how Sander's policies aren't viable, or the number of ways Secretary Clinton may have broken the law by demanding a Blackberry phone.
I honestly didn't notice it until the presidential coverage this year. The specific word choices their hosts make when comparing candidates shows an extreme bias toward HRC. I don't know if maybe it's the on-air hosts' age?
That, and anything at all relating to Israel. Even when (?) did the series on Palestinian perspectives, every Palestinian they spoke to 'understood' why Israel does what it does. My guess is there are other voices available.
All that being said, I'll take a little bias to have access to stories that are actually researched and thought about, instead of the 30 second sound bite bull-shit pieces you get with the large nationals.
I agree. I've been increasingly less impressed by their news coverage. You said it exactly right, there are puff pieces and lack of true experts representation on all sides of issues.
However, for me, NPR's true value is it's shows. Diane Rehm and Terry Gross are great interviewers. Planet Money, Wait Wait, and of course all the local public radio shows like Freakonomics or Radiolab. Of course, this speaks a bit to the point of the article, though.
Their coverage of digital privacy for me is what made me realize NPR has its own biases, albeit more subtle than others. They consistently underrepresent the arguments against encroaching surveillance and give way too much airtime to the other side.
I used to listen all of the time but finally got to where I couldn't stand it. Personally I find it intellectually abusive.
Just guessing, what it looks like happens is that special groups pitch their press releases at NPR. NPR selects a few. Then they hook up with an "expert" -- most likely recommended by the same group or mentioned in the release. The reporting consists of re-reading the PR lead, then throwing some softballs at the expert, who then basically just gives an impassioned speech about whatever their pet topic is.
Put in startup terms, there's a hell of a lot of submarine pieces for various political causes.
If you like that kind of thing that's fine. I have no problem with various editorial styles. I think what was off-putting to me was the clash between the smugness and self-congratulatory nature of the style -- and the actual quality of the reporting I was receiving.
> While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe.
I've never really heard NPR hosts/reporters claim it to be a bastion of unbiased journalism. In fact, I don't think any news organization really claims to be unbiased except Fox News (and that isn't a judging statement, I say that based only on their "Fair and Balanced " tag line).
I think NPR does make a fairly honest effort to avoid bias, and they're also receptive to accusations of bias; it's not uncommon to hear callers on various programs call in to say that they think the coverage of a certain topic is one sided or myopic, and in most cases the host allows the caller to speak their mind and let the criticism air for all to consider. I'd also add that NPR is not monolithic and the programming schedule of a given station is usually composed of sources from various studios around the country as well as local content for the region.
Still, the bias cannot be denied, and I'd love to get a recommendation regarding a less biased or more reliable source of news programming (even if that means I'll have to stream a non-local station).
My local station goes on during the pledge drives about how NPR brings an unbiased, facts-based view of the world. the station definitely promotes it, and I believe the org thinks it, too.
Certain programs are expected to have less bias than others, IMO. Panel shows like Diane Rehm, On Point and Fresh Air aren't necessarily meant to be completely unopinionated, while things like All Things Considered and Morning Edition (and perhaps Here and Now) are expected to bring a balanced perspective. They don't always succeed.
Fair enough. I haven't really heard that myself, but it does sound plausible based on some of the other over-the-top promotional lines I've heard during the pledge drives.
Yes, but there is another form of bias which is guest selection. NPR guests on shows like Morning Edition are overwhelmingly mainstream establishment voices (often from think tanks like Heritage and Cato). I'd prefer a wider range of voices over some faux unopinionated notion.
Every human being has opinions, a world view, attitudes about what it means to be fair, civil, respectful, what makes a good program, grounding in a particular culture, socioeconomic class, etc.
Anytime you get your news from a human being or group of human beings it is going to be "biased". If you want to avoid it entirely (not a goal I think is reasonable, feasible, or even attractive), the Associated Press generally just describes facts so your "bias" there is confined mostly to the facts they choose to describe (incidentally, the most impactful and insidious form of bias -- is this story about the police shooting someone news? Not if you don't think it's part of an ongoing pattern and story about police violence racism and abuse of power).
But I think if you switch to fact-stating-only news sources I think you will walk away far less informed. It's a personal opinion of course but I'd much rather hear from a human (and therefore "biased", whatever that means) expert who does a thorough analysis and tries to explain the issues in the cleanest and most deep way possible, including subtext, context, and every other relevant text as he or she sees them.
I think when most people say "unbiased", they don't mean the dictionary definition which is, as you say, unattainable, but they instead mean "without pushing a political agenda".
The best anyone can hope for is a diverse enough staff (with all definitions of "diverse", not just the popular ones nowadays) so that enough people get input on what stories are coming out that the broadcast isn't the result of one or two people's opinions.
The problem is that delivering the news "without pushing a political agenda" is just a status quo bias. Every news source is inherently biased, so it is important to recognize this and react accordingly.
...I mean how and why? Reporting on the news as it is without trying to influence it is not necessarily a bias. Otherwise, that word no longer has any meaning.
Look above at the slavery example. Every news story inherits the bias of the people responsible for it. Even the choice of stories to cover is a significant source of bias.
During their pledge drives they do mention unbias and when donors call in to say that they donate because of unbias the hosts of the drives underscore that take. So, while officially they make no claims, in practice those claims are made, specially during their pledge drives.
Like others, I didn't notice it until this presidential election cycle. Used to be a huge fan and financial supporter of NPR but that undid it for me.
It's a bummer because there was, and still is, a lot of good content on there but I'm disappointed at their bias, I thought they were better than that.
I haven't really found a solid replacement for them, it's a little here and a little there and more research on my part.
As with any reported data item, you should always diversify your sources. I have found that I get bias from NPR one direction and bias from my local AM talk-radio station the other way, it helps balance out my perspective.
Very much agree. They didn't cover Sanders to the point they had to issue an apology last year, but their coverage since has been paper thin. Their mailers are also practically campaigning for hillary https://i.imgur.com/UYeA1QQ.png. Recently they've not even been saying his name and just referring to hillary's competitor.
My take is that on ordinary things they try to be unbiased [try is key here], but on more political items, they take the mantel of the underrepresented of those they think are in the weaker position. This is specially true for the local affiliates who make it a point to bubble up less know issues [the plight of the Georgians whose single legacy community building is about to be razed to build condos, as a made up example].
But, their most insidious tactic, when they want to favor a cause or a person is one to frame things and couch things in deliberate terms and to have the unfavored person sound bad by prompting them to say ridiculous things and conversely prompting the person or cause they like for favorable things.
It could be something like, so you say you are in favor of the North Korean regime, why is that? Why do you think a dominant patriarchal society is best for women there?
They know their audience well and they codeswitch well and know the language of their audience and put in the proper language cues.
I don't think the research suggests that you're out of touch, but it does suggest that you're probably older. People who are not older prefer to listen to much of the same content on demand. The audience for the broadcast channels is aging dramatically, and quickly.
Your local station is probably not airing NPR content at every time of the day – it could be airing local content, or content produced or distributed by one of NPRs competitors. Interestingly, NPR is sort of a special case among these groups because they are bound to serve the broadcast channels not only by the current market realities, but by charter. It's why you are never asked to make donations directly to NPR, but to your local station (or in rare cases, directly to programs not produced by NPR).
I love NPR too, and I do not think podcasts can even begin to match the audio-documentary experience that NPR provides. Having BBC on it is an amazing bonus.
As the article goes into, I think you're conflating "NPR" with the stuff that airs on public radio stations in various cities like Boston and New York--much of which programming is also available as podcasts. Thus Radiolab for example (which certainly qualifies for audio-documentary experience) is produced by WNYC and is not NPR.
"NPR" gets used as a shorthand for a lot of the programming that touches public radio stations (or that is created by people who are/were associated with public radio)--I do so myself--but it's not accurate.
Same here, Im in the waning years of my 30s and find NPR to be the perfect commuting companion. The calm presentation manner is the perfect antidote for road rage. It isn't unbiased, and most of the time the bias is contrary to what I think. I've yet to hear any station/program follow my political leanings though. I also think that the variety of stories covered are greater than most mainstream news, which is refreshing.
I am "Lara" in this article's sense, and I love NPR. Being able to listen for any amount of time and still get news that I haven't heard before is nice. At the same time most of the segments I hear are interesting, heartwarming, or really sad. Nothing on NPR seems outdated, but maybe that's simply because I've grown up with it.
It's important to separate NPR from Public Radio. NPR, for most people, is Morning Edition and All Things Considered. A very significant amount of the schedule on most public radio stations is not NPR. Market research that this article references seems to suggest that the audience for NPR's broadcast material is aging.
All Things Considered and Fresh Air are daily things for me, although I listen to the podcasts since I'm not in the US. Planet Money, Wait Wait, This American Life, and Ask Me Another are also regular shows I listen to. I've also been listening to KCRW's Left, Right & Center, and they're part of the NPR network, though I don't know who ends up funding that show.
Sometimes I wish All Things Considered had more details on some of the stories, but if all their stories were longer, I would start picking and choosing what I listen to and not get as much variety.
All Things Considered, Fresh Air, and Wait Wait are all traditional NPR broadcast programs, but since you're not listening via broadcast, your listening behavior is covered here, and it's important to understand why (I'll get into that in a bit).
The rest of the shows are either strictly podcasts (Planet Money), not NPR produced (This American Life, Left Right & Center) or built specifically to fight this trend (Ask Me Another).
The reason why the way you listen matters is because NPR gets its money from broadcast stations. Every time they do something that has a whiff of asking listeners to donate directly to them, there is a backlash from the stations they are bound by contract to serve. If you listen via podcast and you don't donate to your local public radio station, there's no very good way for NPR to get paid for that listening. Ads exist, but they generally do not support this type of programming entirely and NPR has a complicated relationship with them anyway.
Fresh Air is a little too biased for me... Terry Gross fawns all over guests she agrees with, and is very aggressive with ones she disagrees with.
I much prefer Diane Rehm, who is generally appropriately tough with everyone. My absolute favorite interviewer is Carol Off (As It Happens). She's very polite, but doesn't let anyone get away with anything, no matter what side of the issue they are on.
Ack. A jittery gif amongst the content. Had to cut out at that point. NPR stations could adapt to the digital shift in content distrubution without a painful disengagement from existing contracts. It just needs the incentive to go through the process.
Is there any real neutral/unbiased radio or TV these days? NPR is not that "bad" but I feel I need listen to multiple radios/TVs these days to make a sane decision, I guess that is just the way it is now, i.e, everybody has to be kind of a news report him/herself but damn we're all short on time.
> Is there any real neutral/unbiased radio or TV these days?
Is that even possible? News stations that try to do this end up covering politics like horse races, avoiding actually investigating the substance of claims.
Take slavery in the U.S. in the early 19th century. How would an unbiased person cover the controversy? "Calhoun said this and that in support of slavery. His poll numbers are up in South Carolina." Is that unbiased? Do we even want that? In my view, dispassionately summarizing some facts is itself taking a stance on the issue, one of dispassion.
My current theory is that we just need to be diligent about getting many perspectives on issues and current events, assuming everything is biased in one way or another.
Doesn't that end up with artificially polarizing issues? To make them sound as interesting as possible. This is so common in fact, that we often talk about 'seeing the other side' of an issue, as if issues are naturally polarized. Its worked itself into our language!
Larry Niven had an imaginary race in his books called the Motie. They had three arms, two for manipulation and one strong one for holding things.
He had them talk of issues as "On one hand, X. On another hand, Y. But on the Gripping Hand, Z!"
> Doesn't that end up with artificially polarizing issues?
If you only get two sources of news, it probably seems like there are only two sides of the issue, if that's what you mean.
But it should be really obvious by the primary races in the U.S., if nothing else, that there's more going on than that. Ideally I would catch some perspectives from at least a news source sympathetic to each.
It's pretty apparent to me that there are giant shortfalls here given how surprising the Trump candidacy in particular has been. Lots of stories guessing what Trump voters actually do and think as if they're writing xenoantropology pieces or something. I say that as someone who doesn't really understand his appeal, to be clear.
I listen to a lot of NPR, but the longform shows (This American Life, Serial, Planet Money, Freakanomics, Radiolab), and always in podcast form. I don't want to listen to my news - I listen to a decent number of podcasts, and I want to be able to choose what I listen to based on momentary whims. That means that the content had better be relatively timeless, which rules out pure news shows that are made of 4 minute segments.
Maybe this doesn't bode well for the flagship NRP programs, but I don't want to listen to my daily news. I want to read it - I read the NY Times daily. The speed at which I can get an understanding of the daily news is so much faster when reading than listening. When I listen, I want a single story or concept in depth.
Of the programs you listed, only Planet Money is an NPR program. The distinction is very, very important in the context of this article. This American Life, an independent entity which also produces Serial, is decidedly NOT impacted by the shift mentioned in the article, and WNYC (which produces Radiolab and Freakanomics Radio) is producing this on-demand content in part to combat the demographic shifts of their broadcast audience.
"...the median age of NPR’s radio audience has steadily climbed from roughly 45 years old two decades ago to 54 last year—and one it would need to reach in order to guarantee its survival."
I've been in nonprofits since 1993. My wife has been in different nonprofits since 1998. My friends are mostly in nonprofits. Every single one I'm aware of--with the possible exception of NYPL--has dealt/is dealing with an aging constituent base. Every interview I go on, they want to know what I can do to help them reach, court, and convert young people.
Not to diminish NPR's problem ... that's a pretty fast aging rate compared to some others I've seen. But clearly there is something going on here that's bigger than NPR.
I've had tangential dealings with arts organizations based in San Francisco, and fundraising is pretty dire - donors are dying out, and despite the incredible amount of wealth in the area, younger folks aren't filling the gap. It's kind of a cultural thing. The same people who'll pay thousands of dollars for VIP tents at Coachella aren't interested in things like NPR, new music, choral groups, independent theater, or art galleries. In Europe, this is less of an issue because there are much greater government-sponsored art initiatives, but that sort of thing's been destroyed in the US both nationally and on a state-by-state basis.
> In Europe, this is less of an issue because there are much greater government-sponsored art initiatives, but that sort of thing's been destroyed in the US both nationally and on a state-by-state basis.
Europe has a tradition of state funding; the U.S. has a dying tradition of voluntary funding.
What have been some of the strategies suggested. There is a definite desire from the younger age groups to do something, but non-profits I have worked with or know are experiencing the same issue as you are seeing.
A professor of mine declared that he would donate to NPR when he had money, is it a case where the loan debts from the students is sapping the monies that used to go to the non-profits?
The general approach is "meet them where they are." I.e., throw parties with free-ish drinks, publish to & engage on social media, bring art to public spaces, etc.
There's often a "storytelling" kind of aspect too--take our artworks and stop being so fussy about them, tell a story that relates, etc. I haven't really seen that work in big numbers. E.g., The Metropolitan Museum of Art does tons of online storytelling, that gets small fractions of the traffic that goes to the Timeline of Art History and the Collections search and the online Exhibition components.
A couple other responses here mention a) millenials are struggling financially, and b) we're an aging population and the old man, he's got all the money. I think both are true. Lots of museums have experimented with low-cost memberships (Brooklyn Museum was a pioneer). But you can donate tiny amounts of money to NPR. Maybe it's a question of really meaning it when you say "every little bit counts."
If my friends and colleagues are any indication (late-20s, midwest), the problem is not that we don't like non-profits or the work they do, it's that we don't have enough money to freely give.
My wife works in an art museum, and they have the same problem, but they've been trying very hard with events aimed at "millenials".
I'm sure there are some cultural shifts that might factor in for some organizations, such as the type of things in the article where there is a reluctance to fully embrace new media due to old bureaucratic structures and paradigms.
> Every interview I go on, they want to know what I can do to help them reach, court, and convert young people.
I don't think it's going to happen. The younger generations have been raised on a culture of collective, forced participation rather than voluntarism. Ironically, the community service many of them were forced to perform in order to graduate taught them not to volunteer. They are not members of churches, of civic associations, of non-profits: instead, then tend to call for others to fund their desired initiatives (i.e., for taxes rather than donations).
This is not an unintended consequence: a collective state cannot tolerate free association.
I love NPR and I donate to the local affiliate station but I read it more then I listen due to the horrible vocal fry of many NPR reporters, which causes my own throat to tighten up painfully in sympathy.
I love NPR, but I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't support my local station financially. We were subscribers up until the flap with Juan Williams, who I continue to believe was wrongly terminated from NPR.
NPR's news reporting and insight is as good as any broadcast network, even if they're a bit left.
My local NPR affiliate (ncpr.org) is, by far, the best local news source available to me, and I give to them twice per year. Beyond the 5 minute NPR news breaks, however, I'm not too concerned with the national coverage.
I love NPR especially with the programs they co author with the BBC World Service but I also love their programs like Fresh Air and I especially love On Point. There are just no other programs like them.
"[S]eriously, NPR does matter unless you want to live in a world with ONLY 30 minutes of vocal fry on the value and meaning of Mold (which is GREAT) and not, also, let’s say ... news of a terror attack in Belgium."
It's difficult to concisely unpack and dissect everything wrong with this line. To put the tunnel vision of it in context, ponder the tiny minority of people who heard about the Belgium attack on NPR first, or even from them at all.
You can't posture in defense of NPR on the basis of a service that people can get anywhere else, and in the case of young listeners, are getting almost everywhere else. (Not even in-depth news - if you want that, you'll read something. Something younger people appear to do more of.)
I also found the "vocal fry" comment unnecessary - it's basically a way of saying "voice of a young person", since that's just how some young people talk. Kinda ironically, my source for this is an NPR program, This American Life: https://jenmacdonald.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/vocal-fry-on-t...
(Well, a blog that mentions the program, but I figured people are more likely to read the conclusions from this blogger than listen to the whole segment. The irony is thick in this comment.)
Yes, a lot of people use "NPR" as shorthand to mean all programming that is associated with public radio stations in some way (often because they don't know that there is a distinction). But that doesn't make it correct--especially when the distinction is quite relevant as in the context of this article.
Correct, not all young people speak with vocal fry, but it is more common among young people than old. So if someone is complaining about vocal fry specifically, they're basically complaining about young voices.
All voice is learned, so I don't see how that distinguishes it from any other vocal phenomenon. We don't talk the same way as people did in, say, the 40s. That's learned.
Pretty good article, but gah! This trend of putting animated gifs into long read articles has to die. How are readers expected to concentrate when there's a gratuitous dancing picture next to the copy?
NPR has the same problem any large segmented bureaucracy has, the inability to pivot. They have killed upstart, personalized shows filled with really creative, talented young voices appease the old local radio stations.
Journalism is in an extremely sad state of affairs as a whole, and that includes the radio stations such as NPR and BBC. If they want to survive, they need to be less about being stenographers for power and outlets for operation mockingbird style propaganda, and instead actually do something hard hitting.
I listen to some podcasts and get some NPR news through Alexa daily. This is actually my preferred method for getting the news, although I don't donate or hear the campaign drives, but a donate/subscribe button on Amazon for the feed could help that.
I also consider them about as biased a Fox News, even if there position is a bit more "calm" or reasonable, they're still heavily biased towards incumbent democrats like Clinton over say Sanders. I'm aware of the bias though and just ignore them for political based news. I care more about world events coverage.
So when this guy is asking to reform "All Things Considered" and "Fresh Air" to attract a more younger audience all alarm bells have to ring. The goal is to attract an intelligent audience, not the young audience everyone else is tracking.
His next idea will be to move "This American Life" to a bad slot.
Don't listen to him.
81 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadPodcasts are generally great if you want something that's exciting and casual, but there's still something inexplicably appealing about NPR or the BBC radio.
I feel like the fluff-to-content ratio has increasedto the point where it doesn't stand apart anymore, and it's just upper-middle-class background noise. Maybe my interests are just shifted, but I feel like there's a lot less news then there was five years ago. I feel like a lot of what they report on just isn't important or relevant.
But I don't listen much anymore, so ironically I might be missing all of the good content and then ragging on NPR for not having good content.
That, and anything at all relating to Israel. Even when (?) did the series on Palestinian perspectives, every Palestinian they spoke to 'understood' why Israel does what it does. My guess is there are other voices available.
All that being said, I'll take a little bias to have access to stories that are actually researched and thought about, instead of the 30 second sound bite bull-shit pieces you get with the large nationals.
However, for me, NPR's true value is it's shows. Diane Rehm and Terry Gross are great interviewers. Planet Money, Wait Wait, and of course all the local public radio shows like Freakonomics or Radiolab. Of course, this speaks a bit to the point of the article, though.
Former freelance writer here.
I used to listen all of the time but finally got to where I couldn't stand it. Personally I find it intellectually abusive.
Just guessing, what it looks like happens is that special groups pitch their press releases at NPR. NPR selects a few. Then they hook up with an "expert" -- most likely recommended by the same group or mentioned in the release. The reporting consists of re-reading the PR lead, then throwing some softballs at the expert, who then basically just gives an impassioned speech about whatever their pet topic is.
Put in startup terms, there's a hell of a lot of submarine pieces for various political causes.
If you like that kind of thing that's fine. I have no problem with various editorial styles. I think what was off-putting to me was the clash between the smugness and self-congratulatory nature of the style -- and the actual quality of the reporting I was receiving.
I've never really heard NPR hosts/reporters claim it to be a bastion of unbiased journalism. In fact, I don't think any news organization really claims to be unbiased except Fox News (and that isn't a judging statement, I say that based only on their "Fair and Balanced " tag line).
I think NPR does make a fairly honest effort to avoid bias, and they're also receptive to accusations of bias; it's not uncommon to hear callers on various programs call in to say that they think the coverage of a certain topic is one sided or myopic, and in most cases the host allows the caller to speak their mind and let the criticism air for all to consider. I'd also add that NPR is not monolithic and the programming schedule of a given station is usually composed of sources from various studios around the country as well as local content for the region.
Still, the bias cannot be denied, and I'd love to get a recommendation regarding a less biased or more reliable source of news programming (even if that means I'll have to stream a non-local station).
Certain programs are expected to have less bias than others, IMO. Panel shows like Diane Rehm, On Point and Fresh Air aren't necessarily meant to be completely unopinionated, while things like All Things Considered and Morning Edition (and perhaps Here and Now) are expected to bring a balanced perspective. They don't always succeed.
Anytime you get your news from a human being or group of human beings it is going to be "biased". If you want to avoid it entirely (not a goal I think is reasonable, feasible, or even attractive), the Associated Press generally just describes facts so your "bias" there is confined mostly to the facts they choose to describe (incidentally, the most impactful and insidious form of bias -- is this story about the police shooting someone news? Not if you don't think it's part of an ongoing pattern and story about police violence racism and abuse of power).
But I think if you switch to fact-stating-only news sources I think you will walk away far less informed. It's a personal opinion of course but I'd much rather hear from a human (and therefore "biased", whatever that means) expert who does a thorough analysis and tries to explain the issues in the cleanest and most deep way possible, including subtext, context, and every other relevant text as he or she sees them.
The best anyone can hope for is a diverse enough staff (with all definitions of "diverse", not just the popular ones nowadays) so that enough people get input on what stories are coming out that the broadcast isn't the result of one or two people's opinions.
What does this even mean?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias
I'm happy that MSNBC, Fox, NPR, BBC etc exist, but don't claim to be unbiassed when you're not.
It's a bummer because there was, and still is, a lot of good content on there but I'm disappointed at their bias, I thought they were better than that.
I haven't really found a solid replacement for them, it's a little here and a little there and more research on my part.
But, their most insidious tactic, when they want to favor a cause or a person is one to frame things and couch things in deliberate terms and to have the unfavored person sound bad by prompting them to say ridiculous things and conversely prompting the person or cause they like for favorable things.
It could be something like, so you say you are in favor of the North Korean regime, why is that? Why do you think a dominant patriarchal society is best for women there?
They know their audience well and they codeswitch well and know the language of their audience and put in the proper language cues.
Your local station is probably not airing NPR content at every time of the day – it could be airing local content, or content produced or distributed by one of NPRs competitors. Interestingly, NPR is sort of a special case among these groups because they are bound to serve the broadcast channels not only by the current market realities, but by charter. It's why you are never asked to make donations directly to NPR, but to your local station (or in rare cases, directly to programs not produced by NPR).
"NPR" gets used as a shorthand for a lot of the programming that touches public radio stations (or that is created by people who are/were associated with public radio)--I do so myself--but it's not accurate.
I'd be shocked if there weren't podcasts out there that are a pretty close fit to your political leanings.
Sometimes I wish All Things Considered had more details on some of the stories, but if all their stories were longer, I would start picking and choosing what I listen to and not get as much variety.
The rest of the shows are either strictly podcasts (Planet Money), not NPR produced (This American Life, Left Right & Center) or built specifically to fight this trend (Ask Me Another).
The reason why the way you listen matters is because NPR gets its money from broadcast stations. Every time they do something that has a whiff of asking listeners to donate directly to them, there is a backlash from the stations they are bound by contract to serve. If you listen via podcast and you don't donate to your local public radio station, there's no very good way for NPR to get paid for that listening. Ads exist, but they generally do not support this type of programming entirely and NPR has a complicated relationship with them anyway.
I much prefer Diane Rehm, who is generally appropriately tough with everyone. My absolute favorite interviewer is Carol Off (As It Happens). She's very polite, but doesn't let anyone get away with anything, no matter what side of the issue they are on.
Is that even possible? News stations that try to do this end up covering politics like horse races, avoiding actually investigating the substance of claims.
Take slavery in the U.S. in the early 19th century. How would an unbiased person cover the controversy? "Calhoun said this and that in support of slavery. His poll numbers are up in South Carolina." Is that unbiased? Do we even want that? In my view, dispassionately summarizing some facts is itself taking a stance on the issue, one of dispassion.
My current theory is that we just need to be diligent about getting many perspectives on issues and current events, assuming everything is biased in one way or another.
Larry Niven had an imaginary race in his books called the Motie. They had three arms, two for manipulation and one strong one for holding things.
He had them talk of issues as "On one hand, X. On another hand, Y. But on the Gripping Hand, Z!"
If you only get two sources of news, it probably seems like there are only two sides of the issue, if that's what you mean.
But it should be really obvious by the primary races in the U.S., if nothing else, that there's more going on than that. Ideally I would catch some perspectives from at least a news source sympathetic to each.
It's pretty apparent to me that there are giant shortfalls here given how surprising the Trump candidacy in particular has been. Lots of stories guessing what Trump voters actually do and think as if they're writing xenoantropology pieces or something. I say that as someone who doesn't really understand his appeal, to be clear.
Maybe this doesn't bode well for the flagship NRP programs, but I don't want to listen to my daily news. I want to read it - I read the NY Times daily. The speed at which I can get an understanding of the daily news is so much faster when reading than listening. When I listen, I want a single story or concept in depth.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1132089...
"...the median age of NPR’s radio audience has steadily climbed from roughly 45 years old two decades ago to 54 last year—and one it would need to reach in order to guarantee its survival."
I've been in nonprofits since 1993. My wife has been in different nonprofits since 1998. My friends are mostly in nonprofits. Every single one I'm aware of--with the possible exception of NYPL--has dealt/is dealing with an aging constituent base. Every interview I go on, they want to know what I can do to help them reach, court, and convert young people.
Not to diminish NPR's problem ... that's a pretty fast aging rate compared to some others I've seen. But clearly there is something going on here that's bigger than NPR.
Europe has a tradition of state funding; the U.S. has a dying tradition of voluntary funding.
A professor of mine declared that he would donate to NPR when he had money, is it a case where the loan debts from the students is sapping the monies that used to go to the non-profits?
There's often a "storytelling" kind of aspect too--take our artworks and stop being so fussy about them, tell a story that relates, etc. I haven't really seen that work in big numbers. E.g., The Metropolitan Museum of Art does tons of online storytelling, that gets small fractions of the traffic that goes to the Timeline of Art History and the Collections search and the online Exhibition components.
A couple other responses here mention a) millenials are struggling financially, and b) we're an aging population and the old man, he's got all the money. I think both are true. Lots of museums have experimented with low-cost memberships (Brooklyn Museum was a pioneer). But you can donate tiny amounts of money to NPR. Maybe it's a question of really meaning it when you say "every little bit counts."
My wife works in an art museum, and they have the same problem, but they've been trying very hard with events aimed at "millenials".
The median age of the US population increased from 32.9 in 1990 to 37.2 in 2010.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/241494/median-age-of-the-...
I'm sure there are some cultural shifts that might factor in for some organizations, such as the type of things in the article where there is a reluctance to fully embrace new media due to old bureaucratic structures and paradigms.
I don't think it's going to happen. The younger generations have been raised on a culture of collective, forced participation rather than voluntarism. Ironically, the community service many of them were forced to perform in order to graduate taught them not to volunteer. They are not members of churches, of civic associations, of non-profits: instead, then tend to call for others to fund their desired initiatives (i.e., for taxes rather than donations).
This is not an unintended consequence: a collective state cannot tolerate free association.
NPR's news reporting and insight is as good as any broadcast network, even if they're a bit left.
As mentioned in the article, On Point is an independent (non-NPR) production by a local station, in this case WBUR-Boston.
It's difficult to concisely unpack and dissect everything wrong with this line. To put the tunnel vision of it in context, ponder the tiny minority of people who heard about the Belgium attack on NPR first, or even from them at all.
You can't posture in defense of NPR on the basis of a service that people can get anywhere else, and in the case of young listeners, are getting almost everywhere else. (Not even in-depth news - if you want that, you'll read something. Something younger people appear to do more of.)
(Well, a blog that mentions the program, but I figured people are more likely to read the conclusions from this blogger than listen to the whole segment. The irony is thick in this comment.)
All voice is learned, so I don't see how that distinguishes it from any other vocal phenomenon. We don't talk the same way as people did in, say, the 40s. That's learned.
This isn't new, in 2007 there was the Bryant Park Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_Park_Project
And much of the talent there is now elsewhere and leaving NPR. Podcasts are going to eat NPR's young audience if they are not careful.
I also consider them about as biased a Fox News, even if there position is a bit more "calm" or reasonable, they're still heavily biased towards incumbent democrats like Clinton over say Sanders. I'm aware of the bias though and just ignore them for political based news. I care more about world events coverage.
His next idea will be to move "This American Life" to a bad slot. Don't listen to him.