NPR temporarily stopped it's twitter accounts in a "state-media" beef with Elon Musk

[fordranger797]

Quite honestly, I don’t see how this move helps NPR. Why not stay on the platform and try to explain why Musk’s assessment isn’t accurate, or use the platform to promote the content they want their listeners to see/hear/interact with?

Back in 2020, I began to notice a tend with NPR. At the time, I was looking for some neutral coverage of the pandemic and the general election, but the coverage on NPR did not appear to be neutral at all. They refused to air press conferences from Donald Trump, stating that the information would be wrong anyway (so there’s no point in airing it). I’m not going to refute that point (as I know most people on RD are not fans of the former president), and certainly NPR is free to air/not air any content they want (within the boundaries of the FCC). However, I think it’s problematic when NPR decides which news is “acceptable” and “unacceptable.” I think most people would rather receive all of the information, and then use it form their own opinion (because that is what news is supposed to do). If the NPR personalities want to come on afterward and fact check, that’s perfectly fine, but it’s a slippery slope when you decide that certain content can’t be aired. Even more concerning, NPR hasn’t changed their approach in the three years since then.

NPR has traditionally been considered a more “left” leaning media platform. While I’m not saying that’s true or false, I don’t think that abandoning twitter is helping NPR disprove that. This approach of refusing to engage with anyone (or anything) that challenges their status quo is getting a bit old. In a world of endless podcasts and on-demand media, it may not be wise to keep using the same tricks.

CBC shares many similarities to NPR (though there are many differences as well). They too, have a base of loyal listeners. At the same time, there is a large group of people who find the coverage biased and irrelevant.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I can think of several Radiodiscussions.com participants who likely fit that description...

Obviously not "who don't have the wherewithal to have internet access or know how to harness it."

 

[vchimpanzee]

I will say one reason I listen to NPR on an actual radio is the podcasts don't include the introduction to "Wait! Wait!" which I think is important but obviously they don't. There are always at least two or three jokes. I don't think the podcasts include some of the information on where they get their funding because I heard the audience laugh and since I couldn't go back, I tried the podcast and it wasn't there.

 

[kevtronics]

Back in 2020, I began to notice a tend with NPR. At the time, I was looking for some neutral coverage of the pandemic and the general election, but the coverage on NPR did not appear to be neutral at all.

NPR is not neutral. They're objective. That's an important difference.

We had a commander in chief who told us that injecting bleach and taking horse dewormer would cure Covid. There's no way to broadcast those myths without the ability to do immediate fact-checking and remain objective.

If you try to remain neutral against a barrage of lies and conspiracy theories, then you're complicit in spreading them.

 

[fordranger797]

NPR is not neutral. They're objective. That's an important difference.

We had a commander in chief who told us that injecting bleach and taking horse dewormer would cure Covid. There's no way to broadcast those myths without the ability to do immediate fact-checking and remain objective.

If you try to remain neutral against a barrage of lies and conspiracy theories, then you're complicit in spreading them.

I look at it this way, whenever there’s a government official telling me anything, I want to hear it for myself (and hear the entire clip without edits). Regardless of political affiliation, we do ourselves a disservice if we just trust a news service to weed out what we should or shouldn’t hear. Trump gave a speech after his arraignment in New York. MSNBC refused to air his speech, stating that it would all be lies anyway (so there’s no point in airing it). Is that realistically helping anyone understand the political climate?

 

[kevtronics]

I look at it this way, whenever there’s a government official telling me anything, I want to hear it for myself (and hear the entire clip without edits). Regardless of political affiliation, we do ourselves a disservice if we just trust a news service to weed out what we should or shouldn’t hear.

Fox News was famous for cutting away from Obama's speeches, even during their so-called "hard news" programs. They cut away from one just to show an empty stage where Trump was expected to begin one of his campaign rallies, a half-hour later.

Trump gave a speech after his arraignment in New York. MSNBC refused to air his speech, stating that it would all be lies anyway (so there’s no point in airing it). Is that realistically helping anyone understand the political climate?

By your own standard, Trump isn't a government official anymore; he's a private citizen. If you think him being a presidential candidate warrants live coverage nonetheless, would you apply the same standard to Marianne Williamson?

 

[fordranger797]

Fox News was famous for cutting away from Obama's speeches, even during their so-called "hard news" programs. They cut away from one just to show an empty stage where Trump was expected to begin one of his campaign rallies, a half-hour later.


By your own standard, Trump isn't a government official anymore; he's a private citizen. If you think him being a presidential candidate warrants live coverage nonetheless, would you apply the same standard to Marianne Williamson?

It depends entirely on the message. Again, nobody has to like Donald Trump, but this is a significant news story that is of great interest to most Americans. For that reason, I don’t see it helping anyone to avoid direct coverage and editorialize instead. As for the Obama example, I agree 100%. I want to hear the entire speech.

Back to NPR, they could really differentiate themselves from other news outlets if they focused more on delivering news without getting bogged down in some of these other distractions.

 

[davideduardo]

Fox News was famous for cutting away from Obama's speeches, even during their so-called "hard news" programs. They cut away from one just to show an empty stage where Trump was expected to begin one of his campaign rallies, a half-hour later.

Despite the "News" word in the names of the principal political talk and opinion channels, these channels are only remotely news sources.

By your own standard, Trump isn't a government official anymore; he's a private citizen. If you think him being a presidential candidate warrants live coverage nonetheless, would you apply the same standard to Marianne Williamson?

Fox is a conservative socio-political talk outlet. Trump is their current standard bearer, not Marianne Williamson (who?) so it is natural that Fox cover him rather incessantly.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Despite the "News" word in the names of the principal political talk and opinion channels, these channels are only remotely news sources.

Fox is a conservative socio-political talk outlet. Trump is their current standard bearer, not Marianne Williamson (who?) so it is natural that Fox cover him rather incessantly.

I think Fox is in a quandry at the moment. Their base is still very attached to Trump but Murdoch would really like to move on to DeSantis. Meanwhile, there's the Dominion libel case which is not looking so good for Fox. The Smartmatic case isn't as far along but could have some impact as well.

I refer to cable "news" channels as point-and-shout channels. We've cycled back to the state of the media in the mid-19th century, with highly partisan newspapers and various feuds. We haven't yet gotten to where duels have become the way of settling differences between editors and politicians, but give it time.

 

[spiritof67]

We haven't yet gotten to where duels have become the way of settling differences between editors and politicians, but give it time.

Yep.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Why you aren’t seeing new tweets from Boise State Public Radio

Boise State Public Radio is joining NPR and public radio stations across the country in support of their editorial independence and the integrity of our journalism. Effective today, we have suspended sharing new posts on Twitter.

www.boisestatepublicradio.org

Boise Public Radio is joining NPR by boycotting Twitter.

 

[gr8oldies]

It depends entirely on the message. Again, nobody has to like Donald Trump, but this is a significant news story that is of great interest to most Americans. For that reason, I don’t see it helping anyone to avoid direct coverage and editorialize instead. As for the Obama example, I agree 100%. I want to hear the entire speech.

Back to NPR, they could really differentiate themselves from other news outlets if they focused more on delivering news without getting bogged down in some of these other distractions.

The networks didn't interrupt their entertainment programming for Trump's after-indictment speech either and there was no need to. You may recall Fox News did not air any of the January 6 hearing coverage, and aired either something completely irrelevant or lame defenses of Trump. Fox News also aired a piece claiming that we did not see what we clearly saw with our eyes on January 6.

 

[gr8oldies]

Despite the "News" word in the names of the principal political talk and opinion channels, these channels are only remotely news sources.

Fox is a conservative socio-political talk outlet. Trump is their current standard bearer, not Marianne Williamson (who?) so it is natural that Fox cover him rather incessantly.

Even when Rupert wants to dump Trump and move toward DeSantis, circumstances change and it's right back to Trump

 

[Mikey Radio]

The issue is that many Americans (perhaps people in general) want to watch news sources or be fed information that reinforces what they already believe to be true and that aligns with their viewpoint. It's one of the reasons why, on the day Trump was arraigned, CNN fell into 3rd place while Fox and MSNBC were top 2 in the ratings. As one very wise, notably objective journalist stated during the last election cyle, if you watch a "news" source that never even once challenges you to rethink your attitudes, beliefs or impressions, or that never causes you to think you might even be at least a bit wrong about a particular subject, you're probably being pandered to and what you're watching or listening to is probably not objective news and information, but it's most likely slanted or at minimum, giving you only one viewpoint or emphasizing one portion of the facts or one snippet of a much larger story to sway your thinking or satisfy their base. It's one of the reasons Fox News got lambasted by their own viewers so badly after the 2020 presidential election because, according to their own management, when that network had to simply start giving truthful election results and telling people how the election was turning out, their viewers simply didn't know how to handle it as they were being forced to listen to reality for once, rather than being spoon fed and pandered to. The facts weren't sitting well and the network got quick and sharp blowback.

Personally, I prefer to read news stories, and I want the whole story, I want all the facts, I don't want to be "sold" an idea, I don't want to be told what to think and I don't want to be pandered to. In my case, I use a few aggregators which list a particular news story and then show the headlines from a few different news agencies, both left, right and center. This allows me to see how each is reporting the story, the headline each has printed about it and to read up and draw my own conclusions. Myself and many others view networks like the BBC, CBC and NPR as mostly objective. None are perfect, but in my experience NPR tries to tell both sides of a story, they bring on guests from both sides of a particular issue and they try not to pander or sway opinions. The problem is, when people are so used to being pandered to and watching/listening to "news" that only aligns with their views, then networks like NPR, by comparison, do seem like they must be slanted or trying to go to bat for the other side politically. That doesn't mean it's true.

 

[spiritof67]

If you try to remain neutral against a barrage of lies and conspiracy theories, then you're complicit in spreading them.

And you profit from your viewer's/listener's ignorance. It's kind of what this business has become. Elon is just another spoke in that wheel.

 

[spiritof67]

Personally, I prefer to read news stories, and I want the whole story, I want all the facts, I don't want to be "sold" an idea, I don't want to be told what to think and I don't want to be pandered to. In my case, I use a few aggregators which list a particular news story and then show the headlines from a few different news agencies, both left, right and center. This allows me to see how each is reporting the story, the headline each has printed about it and to read up and draw my own conclusions. Myself and many others view networks like the BBC, CBC and NPR as mostly objective. None are perfect, but in my experience NPR tries to tell both sides of a story, they bring on guests from both sides of a particular issue and they try not to pander or sway opinions. The problem is, when people are so used to being pandered to and watching/listening to "news" that only aligns with their views, then networks like NPR, by comparison, do seem like they must be slanted or trying to go to bat for the other side politically. That doesn't mean it's true.

And Mikey, that is what likely makes you an 'outlier.' If you can't be marketed to, or pandered to, then today's mass media really isn't interested in you.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Despite the "News" word in the names of the principal political talk and opinion channels, these channels are only remotely news sources.

Fox is a conservative socio-political talk outlet. Trump is their current standard bearer, not Marianne Williamson (who?) so it is natural that Fox cover him rather incessantly.

America is listening to Fox News!

That's what they say on the radio, but the radio version at the top of the hour isn't biased.

 

[gr8oldies]

America is listening to Fox News!

That's what they say on the radio, but the radio version at the top of the hour isn't biased.

There isn't that much time for a short newscast to be biased. Because we cut our cable package way back, we don't have Fox News, CNN or MSNBC (though I can hear audio on SiriusXM). We found Fox News Live, which is not the Fox News Channel but just breaking coverage (along the lines of what would be fed to Fox broadcast affiliates). I hate to say it, but in the absence of the Weather Channel, Fox Weather isn't all that bad though needs some work.

 

[Kelly A]

Obviously not "who don't have the wherewithal to have internet access or know how to harness it."

If you say so Chimp.

 

[awsherrill]

None are perfect, but in my experience NPR tries to tell both sides of a story, they bring on guests from both sides of a particular issue and they try not to pander or sway opinions.

The NPR hosts certainly take great pains to present both sides of a given story, and to remain as objective as possible.

The reporters, perhaps not so much. It is subtle, but you can sometimes detect where they stand on an issue by the words they choose, or the way they deliver them. Certainly not as overtly as the average Fox News "reporter", but there sometimes is detectable bias.