I used to love NPR and recommend it to everyone, but sometime around 2015 they just lost me.
If I had to speculate, I'd say it came down the explosion in podcasts giving them a much larger audience than just folks listening to the radio, coupled with a sort of org-wide understanding that media had a hand in creating the culture war as it stood. You see the same sort of more-outspokenness in a lot of other media outlets doing their level best to balance out the impact of Fox News, with varying degrees of success.
Rather than BBC and other world news, my local NPR station seems to be exclusively focused on hyper focused representation life style issues.
Some of that is of course fine but I would rather hear about actual news particularly during prime time driving.
That has always been part of the show. Typically the stories are snapshots of a moment in life and often life isnt bubbly and happy. But it seemed like every single episode was just depressing.
I still listen to Embedded which is good depending on the topic and Serial and occasionally pop the local NPR station on on drives but it does feel like there was a change for the worse around that time.
Same. I couldn't do it anymore. I eventually realized that when I seek out specific media to consume, I need it to be less depressing than I found that show to be.
Anyway, Wait Wait and Planet Money have paid ad-free podcast tiers now.
The rest do seem to be serial podcasts about true crimes or otherwise why you should feel bad about someone somewhere.
The “experts” they interview are so damned hand-wavy and imprecise, it’s like listening to a middle-schooler’s book report.
[1] https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-t...
Among other things, NPR feels like among the most aggressive advertisers in podcasting, usually advertising for other NPR shows in which I have no interest.
The daily “Boston Public Radio” talk show is pretty fun, but more Boston based.
Personally, I started listening to NPR in 2007, and have consistently found them on point, unbiased, and including programming that enriches all. I tried to listen to talk radio (AM, some FM local) before that point and was decidedly turned off to most, if not all, of it (admittedly, I do not listen to every show).
They do overwhelm my ears, however, and I can't often make it through a full episode in one sitting.
Long enough, in other words, to grow quite significantly older.
> Terri Gross and the whole lot abdicated their responsibility to be neutral.
Gross was never a journalist, and her show never had any aspirations toward neutrality. It's an interview show at the intersection of culture, politics, art and science. Of all the people you would pick as having "abdicated their responsibility", she's probably the worst possible choice, because there never was any responsibility implied or explicit.
Source: me, take this all with a huge grain of salt
Edit: Upon reading which podcasts were cancelled, I feel my theory is somewhat validated.
I don't even disagree with most of what they are saying, but it feels like it just became more about campaigning for what they had already decided was the truth rather than actually producing good journalism. There was a time where I actually started listening to old podcasts from years ago because my podcast feed had just became an endless barrage of BLM and culture wars.
I think it has gotten a bit better again over the last year or so, but maybe I just got used to it.
> it feels like it just became more about campaigning for what they had already decided was the truth rather than actually producing good journalism.
I'm really hoping at some point they'll come back because they were my favorite news source, but if they have views like many of the people I've discussed this with then they don't even realize there is a problem.
Note that I still like quite a bit of their content, but…
The frequency and aggressiveness with with some NPR folks try to seek out perceived “victims of society” can be eye-roll worthy. I realize that it’s a narrative that resonates with their audience, but they can definitely cherry-pick their sources to the point that one could reasonably argue that their sources are not representative of the population/group (often by a lot).
This has certainly been true when I’ve known the populations/groups well. Friends from other areas/domains have confirmed similar bias in their geographic areas and/or areas of professional expertise.
>> Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
ps. re: a bible quote, I am either an atheist or at best a radical agnostic in the James Randi tradition of "I don't know - and you don't know either".
The issue I have is when NPR uses sources theoretically representing “the least of these brothers and sisters” who do one or more of the following:
- refuse help
- actively sabotage themselves or their situation
- leave out key details of the story
- lie about key details of the story
It’s these types of folks who both undercut the veracity of NPR coverage and push away moderate listeners (again, most of whom are on board with helping those in need).
They're quick to mock the right's media not realizing their biases and blindspot are just as bad, just in a different way.
I'll post the source if I find it but, yes, npr changed their content to cover these subjects dramatically more at that point.
Contemporary with NPR and NYT talking about racism and sexism more is Twitter and other social media getting a lot more vocal about such topics (while #metoo really hit its stride in 2017, it started in 2006, for instance. Likewise, Black Lives Matter got its start in 2013), where individuals are sharing their stories a lot more.
That's not to say that I don't think it was a deliberate move on their part, but rather I think the move was part of a feedback loop that already existed.