You make it sound like NPR programming consists of calculus equations and nuclear physics discussions, when most of it is just dry news reporting, along with a few arts oriented features. It's really not that intellectually demanding. Just drier delivery.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Talk Radio Scoreboard for Major Markets: October 2014
- Thread starter Gregg.
- Start date
You make it sound like NPR programming consists of calculus equations and nuclear physics discussions, when most of it is just dry news reporting, along with a few arts oriented features. It's really not that intellectually demanding. Just drier delivery.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
To intellectual snobs, drier delivery means "more intelligent". It's not much different from those who get the vapors when someone uses "hell" or "damn", but are themselves incredibly rude, albeit without using certain trigger words.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Mostly their writing is clear and concise. But they choose serious topics, not the lightweight fluff or TV local news and tabloids or the hate speech and incendiary political diatribe that dominates right-wing talk. It's not that you have to be highly educated to understand NPR reporting but uneducated are not likely to be interested in serious topics or anything that requires a little thought.
Again, since you say "NPR" when you mean "public radio," you must not be a regular listener. The only programs NPR produces are Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Some other programs are distributed by NPR. The rest come from PRI, APM and PRX. What actually gets on the air is chosen by local stations.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Hogwash! When I listen to All Things Considered, I often hear segments on aspects of pop culture more appropriate for People Magazine. As for the "hate speech", they will say things every bit as hateful as anything heard on commercial radio, but with a sugar-coated delivery that masks the true content.
Like what? And by "they" do you mean their hosts, or their guests?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I mean the reporters and other voices heard on All Things Considered. Whether it is an interviewer or a guest, as long as the people in charge approve something to go out over the airwaves, it is the entity responsible for the program that is responsible for its content. They can include disclaimers out the wazoo, but that doesn't change reality.
Big difference between a host saying something and a guest saying something. When the guest says it, that is a quote, attributable to that guest, not the publication or radio show. That's how reporting works. The people in charge approve it for legal and obscenity reasons. That's about it. If the POTUS says something that gets him in trouble, and the media use it, HE or his people have to answer for it, not the media. If you don't understand that, it's your problem.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
No, it's a small difference if the discussion is about the bias or lack of objectivity of a radio network or other program source. It's only a big difference in matters of courts or lawsuits.
It's a small difference if the person making the observation chooses to be obstinate about how the media works. It's a big difference to those of us who know and understand.
More insulting people who listen to something different. Classy.
As are as "NPR" becoming synonymous with "public radio", that's not unique to people who don't listen to public radio. It's something called "genericization". The brand name for a product becomes the common term. Would you accuse someone who calls a tissue "Kleenex" of being uneducated? Of course not. It's just another weak arguing tool for someone who doesn't have anything better to offer.
Everyone here knows all public radio isn't NPR. We know how the different programs from different providers end up on stations. Stop insulting peoples' intelligence, especially when you're in no place to do so.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I just figured out what the "A" in TheBigA stands for.
Those of you (meaning only you and one or two others) who claim to know all there is to know about how the media works are totally clueless about how the audience works. It's no wonder that you people are driving the radio industry into the ground. You have no respect for, or understanding of, the people you're trying to get to listen to your stations.
Don't assume that the rest of the audience is like you. They're not. We respect the audience, and give them credit for being intelligent enough to know the difference between the hosts and the people they interview. It's not that complicated. It's been going on for a hundred years. I gave you credit for that as well, but you're telling me I'm wrong.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
I don't insult your intelligence. I insult your lack of intelligence.
I don't think anyone who posts here who is actually employed in radio believes that they "know all there is to know".
Radio is constantly changing. Witness to this is the change in the very meaning of "radio" which now pretty much includes any real time audio without pictures that is delivered by any of a variety of methods to a listener.
Audiences are constantly changing. Witness to this is the chasm between the way Millenials use media and the way Gen X and Boomers do.
Unless those of us in radio get constant listener feedback, we are doomed. And Nielsen is not listener feedback... it's a report card. What we need to know is that below a certain age, an "oldie" is a "throwback" and hundreds of other similar things that define tastes and usages.
You, on the other hand, don't have any real proof that radio is being "driven into the ground" by the folks who create radio. Radio is challenged by changes in the way listeners want to consume entertainment, and radio people are trying to figure out how to continue serving listeners while still being profitable.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Knowing the difference between the interviewer and the interviewee is one thing. Dropping a station from your list of stations you listen to because you don't like what you hear, regardless of who said it, is something else. I don't give a damn if it's one of the All Things Considered interviewers or their guests who are saying things that disgust me. Life is too short to waste time listening to disgusting things.
That's fine. That's your own personal choice. But don't assume everyone else hears it the same way.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Again, you demonstrate what the "A" stands for. I do not assume that everyone else finds the content disgusting. Some hear it and find it delightful. But, I stand by this statement applying to the broad, mass audience, the very audience you claim to know and understand. The majority of listeners will stop listening to any spoken word station that assaults their ears with excessive amounts of content that is inflammatory or otherwise unpleasant to listen to regardless of whether or not that content is spoken by an interviewer or an interviewee.
News is often unpleasant, and some people simply can't handle it. Oh well.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
And this is why right-wing talk gets less than five per cent of listeners.
This indicates that even a substantial portion of tea party voters find right-wing talk an "assault" on their ears. Most of the choir doesn't like the preaching.
Classy.
- Status