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