National Public Radio Journalist Believes That NPR Listening Demographics Have Changed And...

[tbolt909]

Young guy here. I don't listen to NPR much - I find their presentation exceptionally dry and the production lacking (yes, I know the loose sound is intentional but it drives me crazy). That said, it seems almost every time I tune in, the host is trying to link whatever the current subject is to race or climate change or wealth inequality. That is not middle of the road, unbiased coverage.

Maybe I'm unlucky in that I end up catching occasional programs talking about those things when I tune in... I suspect that's not the case.

My impression is very much that they are a left-leaning organization. Almost everyone I know that listens to NPR is left of center, and not moderately so, either.

Just my personal experience with them. Might not count for much but I thought I'd share it.

Perhaps you simply don't like topics such as Climate Change, Race or Wealth inequality. How many NPR listeners do you actually know? Since you said you rarely listen to NPR stations, you're not qualified to offer a cogent opinion. You've already made up your mind without listening to the content...

 

[Weiserguy]

Also, you need to be clear on what you're actually hearing at any given time you tune in. Are you listening to the marquee news magazines, All Things Considered or Morning Edition? Is it Here and Now, which is a partnership with NPR and WBUR Boston? Is it one of the discussion/interview programs like Fresh Air or 1-A, which come out of a member station (in this case, WHYY and WAMU, respectively)? Or is it a locally-produced and aired show? Or even Marketplace, out of American Public Media, itself owned by Minnesota Public Media? It's important to take note of that context, because a lot of public radio programming flies under the descriptor of NPR, but isn't actually a product of the National Public Radio organization.

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

How my NPR colleague failed at “viewpoint diversity”

Uri Berliner gave a perfect example of the kind of journalism he says he’s against.

steveinskeep.substack.com

Here is NPR's Steve Inskeep and a response op-ed in all of this.

Excellent article by Steven Inskeep, host of Morning Edition, pointing out some mistakes in Berliner's article. Inskeep talks about his own work in interviewing journalists and others both from Israel and Palestine. (One of Berliner's main objections seems to be what he considers slanted coverage against Israel).

 

[Mark Roberts]

Young guy here. I don't listen to NPR much - I find their presentation exceptionally dry and the production lacking (yes, I know the loose sound is intentional but it drives me crazy).

It may be repelling you, but NPR and public radio have sounded like that since the 1970s. If anything, I think the presentation has gotten livelier in recent years.

That said, it seems almost every time I tune in, the host is trying to link whatever the current subject is to race or climate change or wealth inequality. That is not middle of the road, unbiased coverage.

It seems to be younger generations who are the ones bringing up these issues the most. Their views on bias and objectivity may also be different as a result.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

Perhaps you simply don't like topics such as Climate Change, Race or Wealth inequality. How many NPR listeners do you actually know? Since you said you rarely listen to NPR stations, you're not qualified to offer a cogent opinion. You've already made up your mind without listening to the content...

Politics aside (not getting into what my politics are here because I do not think that is relevant), relating stories to those three things repetitively which have little to do with them is... not good reporting. Good reporting focuses on facts. I'm simply calling a spade a spade there regardless as to where my beliefs lie. Obviously, Fox's obsession with relating so many unrelated things back to Hunter Biden's laptop is not good reporting either.

I know a couple dozen NPR listeners. As I said, I am aware it is a small sample. But my own experience seems to confirm what this fellow is saying.

While I do not consistently listen to NPR, I do have it saved as a preset in my car and tune in for a few minutes while out and about driving. Do that for a couple of years and you get a decent idea of what a station has to offer, even if you don't listen to them daily.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

It may be repelling you, but NPR and public radio have sounded like that since the 1970s. If anything, I think the presentation has gotten livelier in recent years.


It seems to be younger generations who are the ones bringing up these issues the most. Their views on bias and objectivity may also be different as a result.

Oh, I know the sound is a longstanding tradition and I respect that. It's just... not for me. I appreciate the sound of a tight board and NPR ain't that.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

Also, you need to be clear on what you're actually hearing at any given time you tune in. Are you listening to the marquee news magazines, All Things Considered or Morning Edition? Is it Here and Now, which is a partnership with NPR and WBUR Boston? Is it one of the discussion/interview programs like Fresh Air or 1-A, which come out of a member station (in this case, WHYY and WAMU, respectively)? Or is it a locally-produced and aired show? Or even Marketplace, out of American Public Media, itself owned by Minnesota Public Media? It's important to take note of that context, because a lot of public radio programming flies under the descriptor of NPR, but isn't actually a product of the National Public Radio organization.

This is actually a great point. I believe most of what I have heard has been All Things Considered, Morning Edition, & Fresh Air. It's been a few months since I've tuned in because I don't get their signal here at school.

 

[fordranger797]

Oh, I know the sound is a longstanding tradition and I respect that. It's just... not for me. I appreciate the sound of a tight board and NPR ain't that.

I'm on the younger side as well, and I agree with a lot of what you said. Not trying to discredit that there are some good nuggets hidden within NPR, but the service as a whole really isn't for me. I feel like they do top of the hour headlines well, but a lot of the other content is editorialized to a point where the biases start to creep in. I can't even fault them for that, because that's what naturally happens with any sort of talk program.

Newsradio stations (like KNX) can get around this problem, since they roll national news at the top of the hour, and then air local stories, traffic, weather, etc. They do this on a loop, with small changes and updates as time goes by. You probably wouldn't listen to KNX 24/7, but you probably would listen on your commute to work.

NPR provides a different style of service. It's not really talk radio, and it's not straight-up newsradio either. I'd argue that a lot of it is national news, with deep dives on some of the major stories (which naturally will lead to editorialization).

I'm beating a dead horse (so I promise I won't mention it again), but I find the best NPR radio stations to be those that pick and choose some of the programming, while curating the rest of their airtime with something else. The NPR stations that I don't care for roll NPR content 24/7. Honestly, it's just not for me. Many of my more liberal friends enjoy it, since they enjoy deep dives on many of the major national topics. Other friends who are more moderate or conservative find it's not really for them, either.

 

[fybush]

Oh, I know the sound is a longstanding tradition and I respect that. It's just... not for me. I appreciate the sound of a tight board and NPR ain't that.

As someone who actually runs a (tight) board at a member station, I don't know what it is you're hearing, if you're actually listening at all. Especially during Morning Edition, the NPR clock is very tight.

The sound of the flagship network shows has changed pretty dramatically in the last 20 years. I could point you to lively younger voices like Ayesha Rascoe on Weekend Edition Sunday, but you'd have to actually listen and engage with what's really on the air, not with what "a dozen (imaginary?) friends" tell you they think they've heard.

The Venn diagram between "I don't actually listen but I will happily tell you what I think NPR sounds like anyway" and "I will point to the Uri Berliner screed as being gospel truth because it confirms all my priors, but I will ignore what Inskeep and others have to say" is a perfect circle, isn't it?

 

[fybush]

Want me to respect your critique of "NPR"?

Start by not critiquing "NPR" as though it's just one thing. Even limiting to just content that actually comes from NPR itself, it's hourly newscasts, it's four distinct flagship magazine shows (which are not "talk shows" at all), it's midday shows that are co-produced with member stations (1A out of WAMU, Here & Now out of WBUR), it's a deep-dive conversation show focused on the arts (Fresh Air), it's a music unit, it's a zillion podcasts of varying quality, it's a freaking comedy quiz show.

A lot of what those various units do is long-form because there's nowhere else on the dial that can or will go deeper into stories. Some (but not enough) makes creative use of sound because, again, it's one of only a tiny handful of places on the radio that can do that. I did a series for WXXI helping listeners get ready for the eclipse that was made up of six 4-minute features with lots of nat sound and music weaved through them. Where else does that live on today's radio? Not over on commercial talk stations with 20 minutes of spot load, 3 minutes of network headline news, the same three classic rock music bumpers and one guy filling the other 33 minutes of the hour with unscripted political opinion.

Just once, I'd like to hear serious criticism in a thread like this that's more like "I heard Juana Summers' reporting from Rwanda on ATC and I thought the pieces were too long and dragged," or, "I turned on Fresh Air and didn't need to hear from David Byrne for 20 minutes straight." What I'm saying is, engage with the content if you're going to criticize it. Cite SOMETHING specific you've listened to.

You'll never see a post from me anywhere with my thoughts on the quality of the mixes on Hot 97 or the production work on KLVE, because those are outside my area of expertise and I would be blowing hot air if I pretended otherwise. (I engineer the hip-hop/R&B station and a Spanish tropical station in this market, but I still claim less than zero credentials to evaluate what they program. I just make sure it stays on the air!)

 

[fybush]

Oh, and one more thing as long as I am ranting after a long and annoying flight home from Vegas:

One of the very unfortunate side effects of the extreme polarization of the country is the way anything that's any deeper than lowest-common-denominator becomes automatically perceived as "liberal" or "elite," to the point where some people will choose not to even sample it because "it's not for me."

And that's a load.

Some of the best journalists who've come through NPR don't even have college degrees. There's no particular political position or social status you should need to have to be interested in the world around you. Storytelling is for everyone, and few other places let their journalists tell stories as deeply. (60 Minutes and CBS Sunday Morning are notable exceptions.)

No, it's not shouting "NEWS ALERT" with a siren every ten minutes or feeding you a new distraction every 30 seconds. There are plenty of other places that do that, if that's what you like.

Don't feel intimidated about giving it an actual listen. I'm happy to recommend specific entry points. (I'm especially partial to Weekend Edition's pace and vibe - there's a great sports conversation every Saturday, the famous puzzle segment every Sunday, and usually at least one really good musician interview.)

I'll even tell you the parts *I* don't like - but if you're not a listener, it won't mean much to you.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Oh, and one more thing as long as I am ranting after a long and annoying flight home from Vegas:

One of the very unfortunate side effects of the extreme polarization of the country is the way anything that's any deeper than lowest-common-denominator becomes automatically perceived as "liberal" or "elite," to the point where some people will choose not to even sample it because "it's not for me."

Oh, it was happening way before that, at least in some places.

I recall being instructed by the News Director From Hell at KTRH in 1985 to target stories to "Joe Six-Pack" and to have a high story count in newscasts. Crime news featured prominently - even though aforesaid NDFH had terminated the police beat reporter - and all political beats established by the previous news director except for one were abolished. The investigative unit was retained but de-emphasized. While "storytelling" is a term that didn't come into popular usage until more recently, we were explicitly discouraged from doing that. Just the facts, and move on.

Possibly not entirely fair on my part, but the experience cemented my conviction that the powers that be in commercial radio were actively opposed to any display of intelligence or initiative. Just feed 'em the fires and wrecks and sports scores. In other words, one could be too smart for commercial radio and, to succeed, the key was to dumb yourself down.

Problem for me was, at the time, public radio did not seem to provide a viable alternative. It seemed to veer too far in the other direction, of being obsessed with features and Boswash politics, and not being firmly attached to the real world. As someone who grew up either in rural areas or a working-class suburb, I found it alienating. I would be proved wrong on those points but, by then, I had moved on.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

NPR reporter claims conservative activist Chris Rufo is 'targeting' NPR CEO with her old pro-Democrat posts

NPR went after conservative journalist Christopher Rufo after he reposted old leftist tweets from NPR CEO Katherine Maher from before she was at the outlet.

www.foxnews.com

NPR C.E.O. Faces Criticism Over Tweets Supporting Progressive Causes

Katherine Maher, who took over the public network last month, posted years ago on Twitter that “Donald Trump is a racist.”

www.nytimes.com

'As blobby as it gets': Why NPR CEO's resume has conspiracy theorists convinced she's in the CIA

Maher's background was scrutinized—but not everybody bought it.

www.dailydot.com

Update now NPR CEO Katherine Maher is now the target of the right. Yes cue the same talking points about NPR given that this is an election year and expect political interference to hit the local NPR and PBS affiliates in some parts of the country.

 

[TheBigA]

We should be clear that the CEO of NPR has no actual role in reporting news. Should Ruppert Murdoch's political views make him ineligible to be a CEO of a company that calls itself News Corp?

 

[tbolt909]

Politics aside (not getting into what my politics are here because I do not think that is relevant), relating stories to those three things repetitively which have little to do with them is... not good reporting. Good reporting focuses on facts. I'm simply calling a spade a spade there regardless as to where my beliefs lie. Obviously, Fox's obsession with relating so many unrelated things back to Hunter Biden's laptop is not good reporting either.

I know a couple dozen NPR listeners. As I said, I am aware it is a small sample. But my own experience seems to confirm what this fellow is saying.

While I do not consistently listen to NPR, I do have it saved as a preset in my car and tune in for a few minutes while out and about driving. Do that for a couple of years and you get a decent idea of what a station has to offer, even if you don't listen to them daily.

Once again, this is ridiculous. Not every story or program on NPR tries to "circle back to connect to Climate Change, Race, or whatever else you don't like". Your premise is absurd.

We get it. You don't like the content or the way it's presented likely because of "your political beliefs". On the brief occasions you actually listened, you didn't get what YOU wanted. Fact based reporting is rejected by many because they don't like the truth...

 

[AMRadioGuy]

I'm on the younger side as well, and I agree with a lot of what you said. Not trying to discredit that there are some good nuggets hidden within NPR, but the service as a whole really isn't for me. I feel like they do top of the hour headlines well, but a lot of the other content is editorialized to a point where the biases start to creep in. I can't even fault them for that, because that's what naturally happens with any sort of talk program.

Newsradio stations (like KNX) can get around this problem, since they roll national news at the top of the hour, and then air local stories, traffic, weather, etc. They do this on a loop, with small changes and updates as time goes by. You probably wouldn't listen to KNX 24/7, but you probably would listen on your commute to work.

NPR provides a different style of service. It's not really talk radio, and it's not straight-up newsradio either. I'd argue that a lot of it is national news, with deep dives on some of the major stories (which naturally will lead to editorialization).

I'm beating a dead horse (so I promise I won't mention it again), but I find the best NPR radio stations to be those that pick and choose some of the programming, while curating the rest of their airtime with something else. The NPR stations that I don't care for roll NPR content 24/7. Honestly, it's just not for me. Many of my more liberal friends enjoy it, since they enjoy deep dives on many of the major national topics. Other friends who are more moderate or conservative find it's not really for them, either.

The editorializing is exactly it. It's hard to do a "deep dive" into a story and not editorialize and it's hard to editorialize without bias creeping in. As you say, it's not talk radio, either, so it's not like callers can disagree with the editorial. It's more of a take it or leave it kind of thing.

Glad I'm not the only younger guy who thinks this.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

NPR’s new CEO Katherine Maher scrubs hyper-partisan posts: ‘Trump is a racist’

It’s unclear when or why Maher deleted the post, or if it was related to her new NPR gig, which touts its “fact-based reporting; opinion and commentary are secondary.”

nypost.com

NPR’s new CEO Katherine Maher haunted by woke, anti-Trump tweets as veteran editor claims bias

The woke, anti-Trump tweets of NPR’s new CEO are coming back to haunt her after she struggled to refute bombshell charges of journalistic bias lodged this week by a veteran editor.

nypost.com

OK then now the right wing goes after Katherine Mahers tweets. How does this add up to political interference at NPR itself besides accusing her of "being woke" which is a generic term for anybody not MAGA at this point.

We have more examples of political interference of local NPR and PBS affiliates from firing local reporters to threats to "Defund Public Broadcasting" on the state levels. Yes in some parts of the country the local affiliate of NPR and PBS are owned by state universities which in turn is tied to funding education.

Oklahoma governor axes PBS funding over shows with LGBTQ+ content

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt has received questions after denying funding for the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority over shows with LGBTQ+ content.

wsbt.com

Reporter's dismissal exposes political pressures on West Virginia Public Broadcasting

A reporter was dismissed after state officials complained — the latest instance of political pressure on the station from Gov. Jim Justice's administration and some state legislators.

www.houstonpublicmedia.org

 

[fordranger797]

The editorializing is exactly it. It's hard to do a "deep dive" into a story and not editorialize and it's hard to editorialize without bias creeping in. As you say, it's not talk radio, either, so it's not like callers can disagree with the editorial. It's more of a take it or leave it kind of thing.

Glad I'm not the only younger guy who thinks this.

No you’re definitely not alone on this one. And just taking the politics out of the equation for one minute, national headlines and deep dives don’t really hold my interest for that long. I’m sure there are lots of people who do want to dig into the national headlines more, but it gets kind of old for me.

A local talk show would have more content that’s focused on what’s happening in my home city, and I find that a lot more appealing overall. Not to say that there isn’t local content on NPR as well, but a lot of it is more focused on what’s going on in Washington DC, and some of the other major national stories.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

Once again, this is ridiculous. Not every story or program on NPR tries to "circle back to connect to Climate Change, Race, or whatever else you don't like". Your premise is absurd.

We get it. You don't like the content or the way it's presented likely because of "your political beliefs". On the brief occasions you actually listened, you didn't get what YOU wanted. Fact based reporting is rejected by many because they don't like the truth...

Fact based reporting is about facts. The moment editorializing begins, it is editorial and no longer fact based reporting. Trying to link a particular set of facts to another unrelated thing is... not fact based reporting. Sorry, but it just isn't. It is editorial. And biased editorial at that. My beliefs about climate change, race, or whatever else do not factor into this at all.

Actually, I'm a young guy, who's political beliefs are still very much in formation. What helps form those? Factual reporting. What does not help is editorial. I can make my own connections and don't need (nor really want to spend my time) hearing what some pundit has to say. But I can only do that with the facts in front of me.

And lemme be straight - I'm not a fan of the way right-leaning news organizations editorialize, either. I've mentioned NPR because this thread is about them. Nothing I've said about NPR is unique to them. Fox, MSNBC, Newsmax, CNN... they're all just as guilty.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

No you’re definitely not alone on this one. And just taking the politics out of the equation for one minute, national headlines and deep dives don’t really hold my interest for that long. I’m sure there are lots of people who do want to dig into the national headlines more, but it gets kind of old for me.

A local talk show would have more content that’s focused on what’s happening in my home city, and I find that a lot more appealing overall. Not to say that there isn’t local content on NPR as well, but a lot of it is more focused on what’s going on in Washington DC, and some of the other major national stories.

This 1000%. Washington is of minimal interest to me. It's not something I need a deep dive into on the daily. If I'm going to take the time to listen to a deep dive, I want to learn about my community and local government. I'm kinda tired of the Washington crap. It's mostly just negative drivel that doesn't have a whole lot of impact on me - certainly not compared to the local level.

Unfortunately, my local NPR affiliate just let go a lot of its local staffers and canned some of the local shows.