The Fight for the Future of NPR

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.

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.

Yes, you are correct.

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.

> 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).

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.

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.

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.

> I've yet to hear any station/program follow my political leanings though.

I'd be shocked if there weren't podcasts out there that are a pretty close fit to your political leanings.

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.

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."

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!"

That is an important distinction to make, and I'm surprised they did not make that distinction in the article. If I'm confused by it, I suspect many people are.

This American Life is not an NPR program, it never has been. Not all public radio comes from NPR.

not all young people use a vocal fry; it is learned; it is increasing; a lot of people find it annoying.