At the same time, not knowing in advance what the content will be is sort of a killer for me...on-demand has a bit of social proof through reviews and comments, whereas live audio is sort of a crap shoot.
>... whereas live audio is sort of a crap shoot.
Crap shoots can be fun, though!
For twenty years I consumed hours of NPR content per day and was even a contributor, but now I can't stand NPR.
A few years ago I got a job where I could listen every morning again after a few years without. The virtue signalling was so intense that it came off almost like a comedy.
To be fair though, I am talking more about the local affiliate station (WNYC) than NPR itself. However, NPR still doesn't stray far from the core demographics of their member stations.
Agreed but with heavy emphasis on "occasionally."
I grew up listening to NPR. It's not the same any more - and not just compared to way back when but even when compared to a mere ten years ago. The amount of (relatively subpar) content that is purely picked and broadcast for the purpose of showcasing <instance of behavior or existence of person meeting certain carefully selected bullet points determined by the political policy of the broadcasting station> makes the signal-to-noise ratio for non-agenda-sharing listeners rather poor.
It's a real shame because there are such treasures on there that drown in the sea of subpar content picked only because it serves the agenda of the station in question, and doubly-so because the national NPR w/ independently run regional stations model is absolutely terrific for promoting local journalism.
I can’t even begin to imagine how one can have a positive reaction to that gruel.