NPR Study

May 26, 2004 10:27 AM

How Public is Public Radio?
When National Public Radio was launched in 1971, it promised to be an alternative to commercial media that would “promote personal growth rather than corporate gain” and “speak with many voices, many dialects.”

Does NPR really represent the "public?"
Do those "not-advertisements" present an alternative to commercial radio?
For those who consider NPR a "liberal bastion", know that the times they are a changing. Give to Air America instead with your donations perhaps?
posted by nofundy (42 comments total)

Pretzel twisted last sentence. Apologies.
posted by nofundy at 10:29 AM on May 26, 2004

I'm confused: Do we want NPR to remain a "liberal bastion" or do we want it to "speak with many voices, many dialects?"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:33 AM on May 26, 2004

When I made The Switch to NPR, it wasn't a switch from another news/talk station, it was a switch away from the Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting domination in L.A. (:

I moved to KCRW because the music shows are stellar and their regular news/commentary shows are consistently good/interesting.

As far as the not-advertisements -- they don't bother me so much. I've actually looked up and keep tabs on quite a few of the trusts, funds, groups, etcetera. They get rote after hearing the NPR-guy announce them for the 3rd time in a day, but the breaks are usually short, so I deal.
posted by sarajflemming at 10:39 AM on May 26, 2004

Air America is a (theoretically) for-profit company; donating to them is not tax deductible, although they may have a supportive charitable "foundation" running in parallel with them.
posted by MattD at 10:45 AM on May 26, 2004

I like some of their magazine format shows, and they have some great radio talent there, e.g. This American Life, Fresh Air, and so on. But I think NPR news is pretty bad; too DC-centric; very poor quality writing, especially in the op-eds/short essays; poor coverage; it's canned so it's not reactive; limp political interviewing, if any; and so on. And their anti-conservative jabs are just painful and embarrrassing to listen too. Actually, I'm not concerned as to whether they're biased either left or right, and as they're accused of both, they must be in the middle somewhere; it's just bad radio.
posted by carter at 10:56 AM on May 26, 2004

ZenMasterThis - I can only speak for msyelf.



From This October 2, 2003 PIPA report [315KB PDF]

"The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) carries out research on public opinion on foreign policy and international issues by conducting nationwide polls, focus groups and comprehensive reviews of polling conducted by other organizations.

PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland."

_______________________________________

That said, Public Radio has been slipping in a fair amount of disinformation and shoddy reporting - for several years now - amidst it's higher quality fare.

Write them a letter explaining that 1) you mostly respect their reporting but 2) you don't trust their impartiality as much as you once did and so you are giving money instead to Air America, Buzzflash, Cursor, Counterpunch, Truthout.......
posted by troutfishing at 10:58 AM on May 26, 2004

reclaim the media
posted by troutfishing at 11:01 AM on May 26, 2004

Like a lot of people, I listen to NPR because it's an alternative to the shrill, dumbed-down content of commercial radio, not because it has a particular political point of view. If, by some miracle, there was a right wing radio station that covered the breadth of topics that NPR does, I'd listen to that too.

The not-ads don't seem to have much effect on their programming. It was always fun to listen to the Archer Daniels Midland "The nature of things to come" sponsor message just before news reports about their $100 million price-fixing fine.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:03 AM on May 26, 2004

I'm confused: Do we want NPR to remain a "liberal bastion" or do we want it to "speak with many voices, many dialects?"

There's a difference? Read the definition of "liberal."

BTW folks, I still love many NPR shows. I am rather unhappy at times with the news broadcasts however.
posted by nofundy at 11:07 AM on May 26, 2004

By contrast, NPR’s left-of-center commentators were not progressive movement firebrands. Two commentators consistently took liberal political positions—columnists Lenore Skenazy of the New York Daily News and Joe Davidson of BET.com—but neither one is an activist pundit comparable to Williams, York or Loconte.

That's a good thing, surely: activist pundits are the shit in the back of the shrimp of public discourse. Don't add "firebrands of the left"; get rid of the "foamy demons of the right". I would much rather listen to Aaron Freeman than some pundit who fits an ideological niche.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:12 AM on May 26, 2004

Write them a letter explaining that ... you don't trust their impartiality as much as you once did and so you are giving money instead to Air America, Buzzflash, Cursor, Counterpunch, Truthout.......

And the award for the most unintentionally contradictory post of 2004 goes to...
posted by pardonyou? at 11:15 AM on May 26, 2004

Does NPR really represent the "public?"

Does ABC really represent "America"?
Does KFC really represent "Kentucky"?
A name is a name, don't get tripped up on it.

Do those "not-advertisements" present an alternative to commercial radio?

Yes. I don't mind having some commercial sponsors, I understand a radio station needs money to operate. But I much prefer the 1 minute per hour of tasteful ads on NPR to the 15 minutes per hour of ear-splitting, brain-numbing ads on commercial radio.

For those who consider NPR a "liberal bastion", know that the times they are a changing. Give to Air America instead with your donations perhaps?

No. I am very liberal in my political and social views. I still wouldn't listen to Air America even if they did broadcast in my area. For the same reason I don't read AdBusters or IndyMedia any more. I enjoy some semblance of impartiality and balance in my news. NPR may have a liberal bias, but I for one prefer my news bias kept in the background, not trumpted with much bombast for all to hear.
posted by falconred at 11:27 AM on May 26, 2004

Elite sources dominated NPR’s guest-list. These sources—including government officials, professional experts and corporate representatives—accounted for 64 percent of all sources.

Would somebody explain to me why 1) this is evidence that NPR somehow lacks diversity, and 2) this is a bad thing? NPR News is just that, a news organization. Surely their definition and perception of what fits in a news show is not going to be miles away from that of, say, ABC News. You wanna do a story about Bush's proposal to drill for oil in ANWR? You're probably going to need to talk to somebody from the EPA, if for no other reason than to give the gov't a chance to repond to any charges being levelled at them by the Sierra Club, or whoever else you've talked to. You wanna do an in-depth story on how the current budget bill is going to impact those below the poverty line in your city? You'll most likely need to interview somebody from HUD, somebody from your state's Senator's office, maybe your state's Governor, and so on. To not talk to these people and find out at least what their official position is would be bad journalism.

The increase comes largely in the general public category. These are “people in the street” whose occupations are not identified and who tend to be quoted more briefly than other sources—often in one-sentence soundbites.

I'd like to see the "man-on-the-street" interviews go the way of the dodo for every news organization everywhere. They are almost always the most uninformative part of any story they're included in. About the only thing I find more annoying is a journalist reporting on the "mood here in [cityX]."

Like a lot of people, I listen to NPR because it's an alternative to the shrill, dumbed-down content of commercial radio, not because it has a particular political point of view. If, by some miracle, there was a right wing radio station that covered the breadth of topics that NPR does, I'd listen to that too.

Yes. I actually enjoy hearing, say, David Corn and William Kristol appear on the Diane Rehm show, because they're not allowed to scream at each other, and instead have to actually try to make valid arguments. And whether I agree with Mr. Kristol or Mr. Corn or not, it's usually more educational to listen to them together than it would be listening to each one individually.

I really think that, due in part to its unfortunate position as a punching bag for Republican scum like Gingrich and know-nothing blowhards like Cal Thomas and Bill O'Reilly, NPR has bent over backwards to keep itself in the political middle.

One last thing: that FAIR website's designer should be flogged; the dark portion of the background tile repeats underneath text if your browser is wide enough, making the right side of the column unreadable. A read through a web-design book is in order.
posted by deadcowdan at 11:40 AM on May 26, 2004

PardonYou - the difference between the media outlets I just cited and media on the US right such as FOX is that the prior do not manufacture facts out of thin air, and they will often even try to correct factual errors to the extent that they have the resources for original reporting (as opposed to news aggregation).
posted by troutfishing at 11:43 AM on May 26, 2004

troutfishing, your criterion for urging a letter to NPR was "impartiality," not "accuracy." I was pointing out the irony of sending a "get lost" letter to NPR on the basis of a lack of "impartiality," then going to the sources you listed. You aren't seriously contending that Air America, Buzzflash, and Counterpunch are more "impartial" than NPR, are you?
posted by pardonyou? at 11:52 AM on May 26, 2004

Actually, I'm not concerned as to whether they're biased either left or right, and as they're accused of both, they must be in the middle somewhere; it's just bad radio.

carter - what exactly, then is good radio? clear channel?

npr rocks. plain and simple. is it perfect? not at all (the Bob Edwards blunder, for example). But it does actually make me feel smarter after listening, the 'commercials' are completely tolerable, and it's obvious the reporters, if not some of the commentators, make every effort to be relatively objective, Good Journalists. They even have an active ombud. While my favorite shows (On the Media, TAL, Fresh Air, Morning Becomes Eclectic, Car Talk) are non-news shows, even NPR news is at best completely engaging (listen to Driveway Moments) and at worst an excuse to actually listen to cd's while I'm driving. Especially when compared to the rest of the radio dial, NPR keeps me going when I'm sick and tired of the media stupidity we're berated with on a daily basis.


Also, for the fellow junkies out there, this site is amazing if you like listening at work: publicradiofan.com
posted by skechada at 12:33 PM on May 26, 2004

There's a difference? Read the definition of "liberal."

Which definition:

"Classical Liberal" (e.g. Thomas Jefferson)?

or

"Socialist Liberal" (e.g. Hillary Clinton)?


Yes, there is a difference!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:39 PM on May 26, 2004

pardon - I'd make the distinction between coverage that is openly partisan and coverage which claims impartiality but, in fact, often advances a covert agenda.

I shouldn't have wrapped in Air America - that was inappropriate because I haven't listened to it ( So that was a partisan inclusion, on my part ) . Buzzflash is a highly partisan news aggregator which culled stories from all over the map - anywhere, really, as long as the story has some credibility and is detrimental to republican political interests.
But it doesn't do much original reporting (lack of resources) .

The same holds for Truthout and Cursor. Counterpunch leans left, but not always predictably so and - once again - tends to have respect for actual facts.

Once can advance a political agenda through the aggregation of carefully sifted news reporting, sure.

But there is still a basic distinction to be made between that tactic and flat out propaganda - which was why I posted that PIPA poll result earlier in this thread.

And further - identification of voice is also very important. In one recent, notorious case (I'm still digging for it) NPR ran an op-ed political piece which attacked George Soros' recent funding of the US left. The author was not properly identified as a member of a Right Wing Think tank. But' that's fully in keeping with THIS new study :

"That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives." However, it added, "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR."

The study counted 2,334 sources used in 804 stories aired last June for four programs: All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday and Weekend Edition Sunday. For the analysis of think tanks, FAIR used the months of May through August 2003.

Overall, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 61 percent to 38 percent, a figure only slightly higher now, when the GOP controls the White House and both houses of Congress, than during a previous survey in 1993, during the Clinton administration.

"Some people may think (NPR) is too left of center because they are contrasting it to the louder, black-and-white sloganeering of talk radio," said FAIR's Steve Rendall, a co-writer of the report. "

____________________________________________

If anyone can find good examples of left leaning bias at NPR, here's a guy who'll post your example on his blog (or so he claims).

Now, I don't buy FAIR's study hook line and sinker because - for one thing - it wasn't a comprehensive survey of ALL NPR's programming, and there are in fact major and distinct differences in tone and approach among different NPR productions. FAIR may have simply cherry picked, I suppose, but they did cover NPR's flagship, most widely distributed nationally syndicated shows. So I'd say that they apportioned their study resources appropriately.

I certainly do note instances of left bias on NPR, but I would agree, overall, that there are significantly more cases of right bias.

Basically, NPR is now RIGHT of CENTER. ( flashing lights, sirens *woo woo woo woo woo woo!* )

Here's a pet peeve of mine, the failure of media coverage of the now very prescient protest of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq : at the outset of the big antiwar protests, Public Radio was among the worst offenders of this and - at the October protests, I believe - talked about the disappointing turnout and cited crowd numbers about 1/10 the size of the figures which the MAINSTREAM media eventually settled on (which were still probably too low).

This generated so much outrage from NPR listeners that Public radio was forced towards much more honest coverage, as the protests continued. But it seemed still a bit grudging too me.

____________________________________



Bias? hell yes - right bias - and this probably has had a lot to do with the following :

1) A steady increase in corporate funding. NPR grew, and became influential . Now, they are an important advertising and PR venue. I've got a big fat frikkin'

2) many of NPR's founders have grown up and now want some - well earned - recompense for their years of living close to the bone. They want those fat salaries, retirement packages, perks - hence the increased corporate funding. ( The laziness that comes with success. )

3) This probably fits a much broader human behavioral pattern : many people become less critical of the status quo to the extent that they begin to derive personal benefit from it.

4) The US right attack media had NPR scared shitless for a while, and I think it's still lying low, kissing corporate and political ass, and hoping for things to blow over.

5) Excessive chumminess, now, between NPR reporters and the Washington DC power elite.
posted by troutfishing at 12:54 PM on May 26, 2004

here's another, earlier study on the PBS/business connection :

"A new study of news and public affairs programming on PBS stations has found that the voice of business is much louder than all others -- a troubling finding for a broadcast system established to "provide a voice for groups that may otherwise be unheard." Four years after Congressional leaders failed to "zero out" public TV, the study suggests that the cost of survival has been increasing commercialism, a persistent elite bias and the marginalization of many of the groups in society that the system was intended to serve.

The independent academic study, "The Cost of Survival: Political Discourse and the 'New PBS,'" was conducted by Prof. William Hoynes of Vassar College. It examined all of the regular public affairs programming -- news, talk/interview, business and documentary -- during a two-week period between November 30 and December 13, 1998. The study analyzed a total of 75 separate programs, including 276 stories and 651 on-camera sources. It will be published this summer in Extra!, FAIR's magazine. "
posted by troutfishing at 12:56 PM on May 26, 2004

Here's a guy who wants all your examples of NPR left-bias
posted by troutfishing at 12:59 PM on May 26, 2004

I still listen to NPR but have ceased my once regular donations since they've shown that they are not really committed to diversity and independent voices on the radio, but rather to maintaining their own monopoly as the only alternative to the "mainstream".

After the FCC changed its guidelines a few years ago to finally allow micropower radio broadcasters licenses, NPR was one of the major lobbyists who influenced Congress to legislatively reverse the decision, first under the grounds that mircropower stations would cause interference, and later, after the FCC issued a detailed technical report showing that this wouldn't be the case, apparently just because.

NPR forever lost my pledge with that decision. I still pledge to public radio, but only to non-NPR stations like KGNU and KEXP.
posted by bradhill at 1:20 PM on May 26, 2004

carter - what exactly, then is good radio? clear channel?

I think the BBC is good for news. I did say that I liked some of the NPR magazine shows, though.

I kind of feel the same way about the US press; I think the availability and quality of newspapers in the US compares unfavourably with the UK, but on the other hand, the US has some of the best monthlies I've seen anywhere.
posted by carter at 1:27 PM on May 26, 2004

Today was the first day I listened to "Morning Edition" since they fired Bob Edwards. I no longer listen with any regularity -- I checked it out today because I had convinced two local advertisers to drop their sponsorship as a protest and wanted to see if they had. I'm immediately greeted with a chatty "hard news" story featuring some vacuous bimbette trying to make a news story by mocking how Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks. Christ! I expected a change for the worse. I didn't expect it so quickly.

I will dearly miss "Morning Edition". I won't in the least miss the slop they're airing now.
posted by RavinDave at 1:30 PM on May 26, 2004

RavinDave, I heard part of that section; it was painful. I switched channels.
posted by carter at 1:38 PM on May 26, 2004

RavinDave - OHmyGAWD, that sucked so badly that I have to unravel my shirt - on the spot - for thread to sew my ears shut.

There are many things I can think of criticizing about Schwarzeneger, but that's not one one that leaps to mind.

That one sort of slithers in, dies on the floor, and then stinks up the house.
posted by troutfishing at 1:53 PM on May 26, 2004

However, it seems to be pretty much par for the course. How often does Bush get hammered for letting his regionalisms slip into his speeches?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:46 PM on May 26, 2004

Actually, it's NOT par for the course. That's why many of us are depressed about the state of NPR -- because they're engaging in it now. It bespeaks of some Dilbertesque mangerial pinhead (cough*cough*Jay*Kernis*cough) shooting off a memo saying: "Our new demographic clearly states that's there's too much serious news. Lighten it up, people! I want to see some fluff and chatter!"
posted by RavinDave at 2:57 PM on May 26, 2004

I'm immediately greeted with a chatty "hard news" story featuring some vacuous bimbette trying to make a news story by mocking how Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks. Christ! I expected a change for the worse. I didn't expect it so quickly.

My God! I was going to post about how embarrassing and annoying this was, but I didn't want to bitch too much about NPR, which I like. It was absolutely the stereotype of an elitist NPR commentator. Not only was she sneering at his accent about ten years after people realized it was funny, but she was showing how etymological she was by pointing out that he didn't use "fantastic" to mean "related to fantasy."
posted by inksyndicate at 4:42 PM on May 26, 2004

Anyway, I was hoping it was just local to my area, I didn't realize it was Morning Edition. Goodness gravy.
posted by inksyndicate at 4:43 PM on May 26, 2004

Hrm. Four shows from one public radio distributor is not my total experience of NPR. I think this post goes a lot further than the actual FAIR report does, although they do refer to it throughout as "NPR." My experience of NPR has a lot more stuff than that, including regular BBC news breaks, "The World", Maine Things Considered (a full half hour of local news, which would by itself be enough to guarantee my continued donations), the afternoon speakers from the National Press Club and such... Not to even mention all the other things that people upthread have mentioned.

Basically, any indictment of "NPR" based on four news programs is already flawed.
posted by rusty at 7:19 PM on May 26, 2004

rusty - well, NPR started the whole US public ball rolling, and so it's not surprising that those four programs are probably the most widely distributed public radio programs in the US.....

There's a bit more research along that "bias" line too, but I'd rather not rock your boat overly much right now.
posted by troutfishing at 9:12 PM on May 26, 2004

I'm immediately greeted with a chatty "hard news" story featuring some vacuous bimbette trying to make a news story by mocking how Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks.

That "vacuous bimbette" you so blindly dismiss happens to be Patt Morrison, best known for her wide array of hats (she's balding and chooses not to wear a wig). She is not vacuous and was trying to be funny, which apparently didn't get through to you. In fact, she hosted the intelligent Life & Times and held her own against the neoconservative Hugh Hewitt for years.

Not to mention Patt has been doing commentary for years for NPR. So please don't blame the regime change for this.

Morning Edition has not significantly changed since Bob Edward' departure, aside from the loss of Bob Edwards' formidable presence. It has a similar feel, although I think that Renee Montagne is not awake at 2 am in the morning (LA time).
posted by calwatch at 9:46 PM on May 26, 2004

npr rocks. plain and simple. is it perfect? not at all (the Bob Edwards blunder, for example). But it does actually make me feel smarter after listening, the 'commercials' are completely tolerable, and it's obvious the reporters, if not some of the commentators, make every effort to be relatively objective, Good Journalists.

I agree. I started to listen to NPR after the Bob Edwards flap and can't listen to another commercial set on news or talk radio again.

NPR shouldn't be liberal or conservative. If anything, they are statist. As a taxpayer, I do not want to be paying for a particular viewpoint to be proselytized (this means you, Pacifica). What NPR does provide is more content for the amount of time spent (because commercials are shorter on NPR) and longer stories than commercial radio. I can get my local news fix through the newspaper, and in fact hit the button to the other NPR station when they run local news during Morning Edition. I also don't really like Marketplace during my Morning Edition, but perhaps that's just personal preference.
posted by calwatch at 10:04 PM on May 26, 2004

the following: bill moyers, pacifica, ian masters, and talking points memo - cover the issues on a daily and weekly basis far better than the now tepid mpr and its sagging hard to the right midmorning program - have me just about ready to bag my financial support.
posted by specialk420 at 10:08 PM on May 26, 2004

NPR's ombusdsman responds.
posted by boredomjockey at 11:10 PM on May 26, 2004

Well, Patt's Schwarzenegger act was absolutely dreadful. Maybe there were people titering out there at an Arnold Schwarzenegger imitation, people who hadn't really heard of him during the 1980s.
posted by inksyndicate at 1:12 AM on May 27, 2004

She is not vacuous and was trying to be funny, which apparently didn't get through to you.

Oh, right. Anyone who didn't chortle like an oxygen-deprived halfwit is obviously a humorless prig bereft of any sense of whimsy. No chance that she actually wasn't funny, eh?

And I don't care if she previously won the Nobel Prize for particle physics -- if it walks like a bimbette and quacks like a bimbette ...

If they wanna do this on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" or "Prairie Home" -- fine. But it's flatly inapproriate for a serious news show. Try as I might, I don't recall similar shallow juvenalia during the Edwards tenure. I'm entirely justified in attributing this to Kernis's implicit goal of revitalizing stuffy ol' Bob Edwards with what he imagines will appeal to its younger demographic target.

It's amazing you feel obligated to defend this petty horseshit.
posted by RavinDave at 7:37 AM on May 27, 2004

From boredomjockey's link above where the NPR ombudsman responds:
The Heritage Foundation (see Web Resources) on the other hand is open about its conservative roots and ideology.

Now here is exactly where the problem lies.
A clear discernment must be made between what is "conservative" and what is a Republican partisan political organization.
Much of what the Heritage Foundation does cannot be described as "conservative" even under the most forgiving definition.
He makes a comparison to the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation.
One is a true "think tank" and the other is a purely political operation.
That is a false comparison and leads to a bias when presenting the news.
Smarter ombudsmen at NPR please.
posted by nofundy at 11:16 AM on May 27, 2004

Try as I might, I don't recall similar shallow juvenalia during the Edwards tenure. I'm entirely justified in attributing this to Kernis's implicit goal of revitalizing stuffy ol' Bob Edwards with what he imagines will appeal to its younger demographic target.

It's amazing you feel obligated to defend this petty horseshit.


Because a) I find Patt marginally entertaining (more than some of the other commentators) and b) it has nothing to do with the regime change.

Get it over your head. Listen to this, this, this, or this. All of which was in the Bob Edwards era. Just because you might have selective memory doesn't mean the rest of the world does too.
posted by calwatch at 1:28 AM on May 28, 2004

You seem to believe that the complaint was based on the lack of gravity -- as if we are all demanding that every news story on ME deal with dire issues and be delivered in somber funerial tones. Nothing could be further from the truth. Part of the magic of ME was their unique mix of unadorned serious news with qirky and offbeat human interest pieces.

Mocking Schwarzenegger's accent with smugness and frat-boy glee does not fall into either category. It's cheap, petty and juvenile. It's worthy of Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage -- not NPR.
posted by RavinDave at 3:56 AM on May 28, 2004

I'm listening to public radio right now. It makes me gnash my teeth, but there is nothing better on the airwaves.

Plus, given the mere 23% propaganda quotient, listening to public radio serves to hone my ear for covert bias.

If I listened to FOX, I'd get totally desensitized from the 80% propaganda quotient and wind up assuming that everything I heard on mass media was a lie - and so I might as well just make up my own random fake news stories to believe in :

"Small potatoes found growing on George W. Bush's head! - Doctors blame diet, ideology."

"Aliens land, call for world peace, reveal secrets of time travel and immortality but say that Cold Fusion just isn't practical."

"Talking psychic chicken reveals conservative senator's secret bondage fetish."

My own fake news is just better than any fake news I could get from network TV (especially FOX).
posted by troutfishing at 6:13 AM on May 28, 2004

You seem to believe that the complaint was based on the lack of gravity -- as if we are all demanding that every news story on ME deal with dire issues and be delivered in somber funerial tones. Nothing could be further from the truth. Part of the magic of ME was their unique mix of unadorned serious news with qirky and offbeat human interest pieces.

Mocking Schwarzenegger's accent with smugness and frat-boy glee does not fall into either category. It's cheap, petty and juvenile. It's worthy of Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage -- not NPR.

No, Patt was trying to use humor to make a point about the Schwarezengger administration. Apparently you didn't appreciate it, but others certainly did.
posted by calwatch at 2:36 AM on May 30, 2004