Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonporridge | Hacker News Reader

KUOW in Seattle seems to be in trouble too. Their sponsors have been getting increasingly cringeworthy. Just last week I heard a long sponsor message from Christian Science. They seem to scraping deeper into the bottom of the barrel and sponsor message seem to be increasing in quantity.

View on HN

Are you sure it was from Christian Science and not the Christian Science Monitor which has been a long-time sponsor (and if I recall occasional reporting partner) of NPR.

It was a pretty explicit message along the lines of "come discover how to connect with God with us".

Not one is actually going to make you do it though. I’m not sure what the complaint is. You’re mad they paid to sponsor an NPR station?

Not mad, disappointed. It just seems embarrassing for them that they're struggling so hard to live up to their value of being "listener supported" that they have to accept sponsors like this to survive.

I’m still confused.

Are Christians not also listeners?

It sounds to me like you are disappointed that the liberal bubble isn’t as thick as it could be. That even accepting supporting money from the bad people is compromising.

It seems that you are implying that the sponsors of NPR get a say in their programming and reporting? Seems like that is the thing I would be upset about, not that the “wrong people” are supplying the money.

It’s NPR, and clearly an atheistic listener there. Are you surprised at this complaint? Christianity is largely anti-science and works against many of the purposes NPR espouses like climate, public health, science and tech, major topics all over NPR. It’s not a stretch to accept this complaint as valid to many left wing rationalist NPR listeners.

The Christian Science Monitor has long had top quality journalism, and sections on religion. What is their relationship with Christian Science (and what is that? is there a unified institution?)?

There is, main HQ over in Boston. Both orgs were founded by the same people. I believe the Monitor offices are right next to the main Christian Science complex/are in it.

Christian Science Monitor has been my favorite news source for a long time despite not really being religious. It's so objective and fair even on the most contentious of topics, and really tries to understand the human experience.

They were founded by the same woman, Mary Baker Eddy, like a century ago, but today they just have one specifically-cited Christian Science article in each print.

It seems they may have the same owner still, but seems like they very much have editorial independence, judging by the things I read.

Christian Science is a church founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879. They're most famous for believing in faith healing, which is part of a larger collection of beliefs with a "mind/faith over matter" flavor. They have churches throughout New England. In practice, they tend to be pretty mellow in that old-school "New England religious movement" sort of way.

The Christian Science Monitor is a well-respected newspaper associated with the church. The few times I've read a paper copy, there was usually one editorial with a religious theme. Their religion did not otherwise color their reporting.

I am not the least bit suprised that the Christian Science church might support NPR. Demographically, Christian Science members probably have very high overlap with NPR listeners. And they are, after all, a church which is best known for being associated with a newspaper. I would not be the least bit surprised if they donate to NPR mostly because they want to support public radio.

I definitely listen to KUOW a lot less than I used to. The main reason is that a few years ago they had a lineup on Saturdays that kept me listening most of the day. It included:

• A Prairie Home Companion [1]

• The Vinyl Cafe [2]

• Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! [3]

• Says You! [4]

• The Swing Years and Beyond [5]

Those I'm sure were on Saturday. I know I'm missing 4 other programs from Saturday. I remember the following programs as being on weekends at the time, but can't remember which were Saturday and which were Sunday.

• This American Life [6]

• The Moth Radio Hour [7]

• Snap Judgement [8]

• Radiolab [9]

• Freakonomics Radio [10]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Prairie_Home_Companion

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vinyl_Cafe

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Wait..._Don%27t_Tell_Me!

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Says_You!

[5] https://archive.kuow.org/show/swing-years-and-beyond

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_American_Life

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moth

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Judgment_(radio_program)

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolab

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics_Radio

I was a long time listener and donor to KUOW. My intention was to support local radio, hopefully get some more community pieces, and so on ... and that matched the donation drive pitches.

When they decided to use their cash to empire build and buy a Jazz station for $8M, I completely gave up and could no longer even stomach listening. I like Jazz, but it hardly needs the help. It seemed like an utter betrayal.

I understand your position. I only want to add that jazz most definitely needs help it is not a financially successful genre for radio. That being said i bet you they bought it on the hopes of getting more revenue and programming and not to save jazz.

But Seattle (and Boston) are very blue areas, the issues that Berliner is suggesting wouldn't seem to apply to those areas, they would seem more likely to apply to the hinterlands. The Boston situation probably implies that they just need to combine the two stations into one.

Mostly because the issues he mentions are not related to the actual reason people are dropping, the reason is _there is a lot of competition for everyone's attention_. Last time I turned on the radio i was a teenager, maybe 20 years ago, with the internet and podcasts there's very little reason to tune in, i have car play in the car and both pocketcasts and spotify, why would I ever tune in?

I listen to a lot of NPR podcasts and contribute to WHYY monthly but I don't think i ever tuned into WHYY, i don't even know the frequency they use :P

Reality is that all media is pretty much toast unless you're some big name like the NYT and this is really sad because i really love the NPR podcasts, but not sure how they can survive long term without the local radios.

NPR is (or was) one of those "big names like the NYT".

The goal wasn’t really to make a profit so no, definitely not like the NYT. And that might be the demise, had they done something like NPR one much sooner with direct subscriptions it might have been easier to make it work.

I hope they survive though, hard to find content with the same quality and consistency elsewhere.

I don't think making a profit has to do with being a "big name" though.

I agree that I really want NPR to thrive!

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm trying to get away from digital media. I've got a pretty cool shortwave radio, and am always looking for interesting things to listen to. But, our local NPR station is insufferable at least half the time, so much so that I don't even bother trying it most days. As an aside, we are almost always listening to the NPR classical music station. It's absolutely beautiful, and a gift to listeners everywhere. I just wish they'd give up their jazz Fridays and opera Sundays.

Yeah, this seems more likely than Berliner's political explanation. There are so many podcasts now vying for your auditory attention.

Either that or their ideological fart-huffing has finally alienated even the "very blue" reservoirs.

NPR has always been a very particular neoliberal bent as well, with equal skepticism for leftists as for the right. The both-sidesism and he-said she-said reporting, and the general third-way-ness of it all has always been fucking intolerable for half of the blue party too.

There probably is no org more emblematic of the backslide of journalism into “reporting facts, not taking perspectives” than NPR. They are simply craven, they have no perspective or spine, they stand for nothing, and that makes them instinctually repulsive. Like they literally are the journalists in movies who will happily say whatever their masters want this week. It’s disgusting, you might as well be VOA for all the perspective you’re getting.

Swapping Diane Rehm for JJ Johnson or whatever is emblematic of that change for example. Diane Rehm never let a guest gish-gallop unopposed etc, JJ just went into sputter mode and was like “I don’t think all of that is true but-“ and gets run over again on his own show etc. It’s just bad in an aggressively “it’s your right to feel that way but…” kinda milquetoast way. They stand for nothing and have no position or perspective. And I know that’s the new school of journalism today but jesus christ it’s pathetic to see in action.

What makes a man turn neutral? Unironically.

I think your response is terrifying. I think you are actually the problem.. and people like you of course. You want a news organization (who should be reporting the facts in a method completely devoid of emotion) to decide to sway their content either to the left or to the right? That is terrifying quite frankly because it's exactly what has happened. NPR is almost perfect like it is, if they would just stop overemphasizing "woke terminology" into every story they publish. Otherwise the stories are fine it's just annoying as hell.

"You are actually the problem" good grief, the vaunted HN manners and couth in action.

I think if they really are losing a lot of listeners (for whatever reason), it must be mostly from exactly those blue areas, because that's where they have a lot of listeners. You can't lose listeners in places you don't already have them!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com