Fox News is an exclusively cable channel, as are MSNBC and CNN. “Traditional media” is over the air broadcast and print journals.
Some folks define “new media” as anything you have to pay a subscription or fee for
-
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
Musk Calls for NPR and PBS Defunding
- Thread starter sdwulfdawg
- Start date
- Status
Some folks define “new media” as anything you have to pay a subscription or fee for
I often see a blanket condemnation of a group or party because one person is an idiot. Greene is one, but so is Jasmine Crockett
There can be a variety of reasons for not liking NPR, and not all are pure politics.
Last edited:
But the only reasons brought up at today's hearing had to do with politics. Nobody talked about the boring or stilted presentation.
Probably because none of the repubs have ever actually listened. But they all read Uri Berliner's column. So that makes them all experts.
CNN launched in 1980. That makes it 45 years old. They hired people at launch from other "traditional" news organizations. TV news is about 32 years older. Newspaper people consider TV and radio as "new media."
By the way, once upon a time, I subscribed to one or more daily newspapers - and I either paid for a subscription or put down some coins. Same for Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report....
Traditional media are not defined by their distribution technology but by the extent to which they adhere to ethics and practices of traditional journalism.
No, they don't. In fact, it was 100 years ago that newspapers started putting radio stations on the air, so it is hardly "new" to them. As mentioned before, my stepbrother edited and published a fairly well known paper and he never saw radio or TV as "new" despite his being well known in the industry.
So did most of us who are over 50 or so. But we find the content we want online (which is stating the obvious).
"Traditional Media" by the very meaning of "tradition" (start singing that Fiddler on the Roof song now) means "old" and does not include "new media" which is not.
That is not my point, which is that many people find the style and overall content of NPR not to be interesting and useful to them. The most poignant comment I have head comes from my wife, a 50-year radio and TV personality and programmer: "NPR is like the attitude in New York City, neither or which I like or is part of my culture."
I'm sure anyone in politics has listened. The real issue is whether NPR speaks for all Americans, both culturally and politically... as it should.
That's fine. As we all know, there is no format that is interesting to everyone. I don't know if there ever has been. That's not the point. Nobody is required to listen to ANY radio format.
Why is that? Nobody speaks for ALL Americans. The president thinks he does, but he doesn't. He doesn't even try. He doesn't even speak for all in his party, as we often discover. However, I'll say this about NPR: They TRY to include people from all parts of the country, from diverse backgrounds and interests. More than any other radio format. They make the effort. Of course diversity and inclusion are now politicized and demonized. Trying to reach out to everyone is seen as radical left. So they're screwed either way. That's the problem here. The politicians want one single universal way of thinking: their way. Any divergence from it is un-American and communist. There is no such thing as "one America." That's what makes us American.
Rubbish. Yeah right, all New Yorkers are the same. You've just stereotyped 7 million people.
It's impossible to expect any TV, Radio or any other media source to speak for "All Americans". When people cannot agree on facts, there is no common ground...
This is where we get into a discussion of how NPR can offer something to all Americans. If it does not do that, it is not being faithful to its purpose of being a "public radio" voice.
You are making a political point about what I think is an overall content point about NPR. Many people in my circle of friends and associates find that NPR does not speak to them. Those who can analyze it generally say somewhat similar things to what my wife says (in synthesis) "white men from New York talking to others like them".
While not everyone may say something as extreme, the point I am making about NPR is that, even if they do the required EEO hires, its attitude sounds more like the white Northeast and not much like many others.
I'll give an example that is not NPR focused but which reflects attitudes of just one tiny group: calling Hispanics or Latinos "LatinX". That was a term originated by, you got it, white men in the Northeast and well hated by every Hispanic I know. This is a non-radio observation, but I use it to illustrate how NPR may need an "attitude" check so that it better reflects the whole country.
And yet somehow WABC is one of the most listened-to radio stations in NYC. Just proving you can't typecast New Yorkers.
Doing so is the textbook definition of prejudice. Like assuming all Hispanics like the same music or even speak the same dialect.
Really interesting discussion thread here ! Loyal NPR subscriber here with the tote bag to prove it.
. All true NPR subscribers have a closet of tote bags. Here is an article from the L.A. Times about 12 days ago, written by Steve Oney, who has a new book out, ‘’On Air ‘’ about the history of funding battles of CPB and NPR. These funding issues have been going on awhile. There does not appear to be a pay wall, so I am linking it below.
,
Contributor: NPR faces a real threat in defunding fight that's coming
Over its 55-year history, defunding scares have come like clockwork at National Public Radio, timed to GOP power. Will 2025 be the end?
www.latimes.com
Once again, name a format that speaks to all Americans.
That's fine. It doesn't have to. Just because something receives federal funding doesn't mean it has to appeal to everyone. The federal government funded a modern classical music piece. I went to the premiere. It was awful. No melody, lots of dissonance. But it received federal funding. I can't even remember the name or the composer.
NPR is a radio format. There is no radio format that speaks to everyone. I'd think you'd understand that.
Nobody talks about that anymore. Totally irrelevant to this discussion. You're dealing in your own personal grievances. Which fits given what was said at today's hearing. Lots of personal grievances. A friend of mine says this when his rich friends complain: No whining on the yacht. I think that applies. We are the richest country in the world, and all we can do is find fault with other Americans.
Yet WABC sounds like New York. The language, the pacing, the topics. You are confusing political perspectives with the attitude of a geographic area.
What defined New York to me was a visit to what may be the world's most famous photo shop decades ago. I was looking at several low-4 figure cameras and asking some questions, as nobody sold those and few people had them back in San Juan. After one of the several questions, the employee just said, "well, are you going to buy something or just talk about it". Obviously, I did not buy anything... but many friends "back home" said they had gotten the same attitude in NYC.
And whether it is WABC or not, that city has a feel that is different from, let's say, Dallas or Fresno or Boise.
Cities around the world have a "feel" to them. Lots of different people, but each city has a personality.
I agree that the term "LatinX" is idiotic. Taken a step further, you would have to "de-sex" virtually every noun in the beautiful Spanish language and that really would moronic. Come to think of it, you would have to de-sex almost every noun in the German language as well. Oy vey, where would this end?
No, you are. Once again, you're generalizing. I grew up in NYC and WABC doesn't reflect me at all. I don't like 60 year old music, and I don't like the know-it-all attitude of their hosts. The radio programmer in me knows those people exist, but I'm not one of them.
I agree with that, but WABC doesn't sound like New York. It sounds like a 5 share, which is good enough to get in the Top 5. But that's 5%. Not 100.
NPR is like television, with block programs. So it is like ABC, CBS and NBC: something for everyone. Balance is achieved by variety.
That is a valid point, and brings up to what extent the government, severely in debt, should be funding any of this. But NPR has a valid purpose, but I feel it lacks balance in a variety of areas. A block programmed radio network or program provider can actually offer "something for (nearly) everyone)".
No, it is a network as I just said. It is block programmed. Name a successful commercial station today that has vastly different program blocks throughout the day.
But that is where NPR can add some balance in appeal, in my opinion.
The "LatinX" term endures in lots of places, but that's not my point. The term was generated by others than the people the term covered. In fact, "Hispanic" is an invented term, coming from the OMB and the Census Bureau ahead of the 1980 Census. They needed a term to cover people who were white, Black, Indigenous, Asian and every possible blend of those and who did not even all speak the same language... so a bunch of bureaucrats came up with a new meaning for an archaic term because they needed something.
While it has taken about a half-century to become semi-universal in the U.S., I still get people I know in Latin America asking me what that term means and why was it adopted.
Or, the best: one of my daughter's T-shirts says...
Not Hispanic
Not Latina
Puerto Rican
Question: the media uses terms like Latino, Hispanic, Mexican, Mexican American, Tejano, and, of course LatinX. How do you feel, how do your friends feel about such terms? Or are they so used and sometimes misused that "it's not worth being bothered about"?
I can recall back when I first started in radio at R&B WJMO in Cleveland where I was the "token white guy" there was already discussion of whether the term "Negro" should be used on the station... and that was 1960.
I totally agree with that sentiment. Rich people, especially billionaires, shouldn’t complaIn about anything, EVER.
Are you talking about NPR or the stations? NPR is not block programming. NPR is a program syndicator, like United Stations or Premiere. Stations are free to use their budget to buy the programming and run it as they see fit.
That's up to the stations. NPR is just one programming source of many. It's up to the stations to provide the balance.
- Status