If you want to see an agenda-driven news organization in action, pay closer attention to the BBC's coverage. I think they're guiltier of what you accuse NPR of than is NPR itself.
-
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
National Public Radio Journalist Believes That NPR Listening Demographics Have Changed And...
- Thread starter Daryl Lynn L.A.
- Start date
- Status
How about the other 33%? How many hip-hop listeners like country music? How many classic hits listeners like CHR? Everyone is in their own silo.
MAGA listeners want MAGA. They're not going to listen to anything that tells them Biden won. They're not looking for real news.
Last edited:
Might want to edit that... One too many negatives.
During the COVID 19 pandemic, KUOW in Seattle decided not to carry any press conferences from Donald Trump, because each press conference was alleged to be full of misinformation. I’m not here to comment on anything that was either said (or not said) by Trump, but does it really reflect well on your news outlet if you’re deciding not to carry news?
I’m not trying to throw NPR (as a whole) under the bus, because I’m sure that many NPR outlets did carry the press conferences, but it is pretty clear that some NPR stations do indeed have a bias if they suggest that you shouldn’t hear the news as it’s happening. Frankly, it felt more like an insult to listeners, as if they couldn’t handle it.
My opinion is true regardless of who is in office, or what political party is in control. I want to know the facts as they are presented. A NPR outlet suggesting that I wasn’t mentally capable enough to hear the information first-hand never sat well with me (and this what ultimately has made me lose interest in NPR all together). I’m sure conservative stations manipulate information (or elect not to share certain information) to fit their agenda, but the KUOW is a pretty clear-cut example of it happening on a supposedly trustworthy source.
Last edited:
I listen to BBC sometimes, very late at night, when it's morning in London; and they are reporting news in Europe / Middle East. Are you meaning to say that BBC's reporting is slanted towards the Israel / Hamas conflict? (Just checking for clarification, as I want to make sure that I correctly understand your message. Thanks. - D. )
I think part of the resentment stems from the fact that many (not all but many) are borderline violent or seditionist in their rhetoric, if not on the air on their social media presence, in terms of what they would like to see happen to liberals or even "RINOS." When the side with more guns literally talks as if they'd like to extinguish you, and they have the loudest voice at least in terms of talk radio, it feels not only imbalanced but literally threatening. Usually it isn't the left showing up at school board meetings and town halls with "rope, tree, journalist - some assembly required" shirts. Yes, the left has extremists too. But you hear a lot more of that violence and revolution winked at on the AM airwaves than the likes of NPR, or a random community station that carries Democracy Now and Thom Hartmann.
Also, while NPR rates well in metro areas, there's a heck of a lot more AM stations between the coasts carrying influence with one side of the narrative to the people that have the guns and form the militias. So it isn't just "contrary voices" - it's that some people, particularly marginalized people without much leverage, literally feel threatened. And it isn't reasoned advocacy for lower taxes or debate about federalism versus states rights that causes that. It's actual inflammatory rhetoric. To a degree that far outpaces any voice for leftist radicals. I have heard some great conservative hosts who were funny, compelling, and not hateful. But they weren't the ones stockpiling ammo and conflating every lifestyle they didn't understand with a globalist or Communist plot, or talking about trials for NBC News anchors/reporters.
Conservative talk radio doesn't make every moderate or liberal angry. It makes a lot of them sad, or fearful for established norms and existential safety.
Try being a school teacher in a red state, where you're being told you're grooming kids to get transgender surgery.
No, It's not the way you believe, either. My comment was based on the BigA's question: why are people who don't listen so angry at those who do? I'll quote his question:
To me, the interesting part is I read lots of comments here from people who say that radio is dead, that nobody listens, and that it's irrelevant and obsolete. If that's true, why are people so angry?
And he makes a good point. Look at the talk station ratings, compared to even your own reaction to what I said. Not many people listen, when compared to overall radio consumption. Conservative talk radio gets low ratings, incredibly low ratings compared to NPR stations everywhere. In my metro KUOW is often near #1, at least 6+. A lot of people listen to KUOW. The highest conservative talkers are much, much lower in 6+, and probably lower than that in the real ratings.
So why should people complain about maybe 100 stations nationwide, most of which have low ratings, most of which are on the (dying) AM band?
And the writer of the article showed that there are occasions that today's NPR isn't the NPR of the 1980s and 1990s.... Suppressing the lab leak theory story, suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop information (where the right wingers were more accurate than the mainstream media, which followed the gov'ts BS "Russian Disinformation" theory.
Sure, their headline news is probably accurate. But so is Fox Radio News that you can hear on hundreds of stations at the TOH nearly in every market. The headlines are the headlines. Hard to screw them up on the radio, no matter which station you listen to.
The fact is, the internet has a lot more pull than either of these OTA radio media. The J6'ers all used social media, for example. Younger demos tend to shun radio for their news. In fact, around 30% of younger demos get their news from TikTok, of all places.
Their fears are unjustified. Like I said, look at the numbers of stations, and then look at their ratings. Small numbers. Internet websites have much more influence on political partisans and extremists than conservative talk radio has. And on the other side of the coin, Daily Kos and Daily Beast probably have much more influence over leftist leaning people than NPR.
Threatened by what -- by AM stations? Have you even looked at the numbers of the stations carrying talk radio nationwide?
The rural areas of the US are well served by NPR. Here's a coverage map courtesy of Atlantic Magazine.
Map: The Nation's Public Radio Stations
A rainbow network of broadcasts fills America's cities and frontiers.
I have looked at the number of stations, and it's the majority of commercial talk radio in this country. You'd be hard pressed to find a moderate on commercial talk radio in most markets in the US, much less a liberal.
If it's such a small unprofitable format, why is it where the bulk of talk radio and syndicated product tends to play?
Anecdotal, but none of the liberals I know and regularly associate with are that invested in what Daily Kos and Daily Beast say about anything, more of them trust NPR. And the bulk of them likely regularly engage with neither.
If it's such a small unprofitable format, why is it where the bulk of talk radio and syndicated product tends to play?
Anecdotal, but none of the liberals I know and regularly associate with are that invested in what Daily Kos and Daily Beast say about anything, more of them trust NPR. And the bulk of them likely regularly engage with neither.
Point taken, but they probably got all their info online. The few anti-vaxxers I know got all their info online. Everything is online, because you know, "if I saw it online it's got to be true." And I think in your part of Trumpesee the NPR station is #4 in the market with a 4.6 (6+) and the conservative talker is #9 with a 3.0 (also 6+).
Obviously, as we're talking radio here, the NPR station, even in your area, has the greater ratings.
I hear a lot of liberals repeat the opinions and the slant on news stories you see on Daily Kos, Daily Beast, and even Raw Story when it was popular. Vice, Vox -- all these liberal and progressive slanted news sites, all are very popular with the left. I recall some of them being quoted here on RD in the past.
As for the number of conservative talk stations, it's relatively small in comparison to NPR stations, where some larger metros have more than one NPR station serving the area, and maybe just two low rated AMs with conservative talk.
Conservative talk gets big play here on RD because RD people are into radio. However, the average radio listener probably is probably at least aware of NPR, because most NPR stations are on the FM band, but they're not aware at all of conservative talk radio, because they probably don't skew conservative and they don't listen to AM. They may be aware of conservative podcasts, if some of them come up on their YT sidebar, but aside from that, for probably most under 50 demographics conservative talk radio is a non-starter.
The Beeb covers the Gaza war a lot, and it's difficult to mistake their coverage as being anything but biased towards Hamas and against Israel.
Particular NPR stories sometimes tilt towards sympathy for the Gazan people, based on "information" (read: propaganda) that originates from Hamas or its captive agencies (like the "Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry"), but in a different NPR story the tilt could revert back towards sympathy for Israelis killed or displaced by the Hamas attacks. The totality tends to balance out over time.
But not the BBC. Their coverage is unmistakably skewed towards Gazans, Palestinians, Hamas. Continuously, consistently, in newscasts, in interviews or extended topic shows, which guests have views that are challenged verses guests who are allowed to push their viewpoints without any serious challenge. NPR at least tries for balance, but the Beeb has become an advocacy organization, and to me it isn't subtle.
Also notice what you don't hear. Ukraine has receded from the story rundowns. Sudan's war is barely mentioned. (NPR had one about it earlier today, and that war's been at least as bloody as Gaza, but we don't hear the sides in the Sudanese "conflict" being hammered multiple times a day.) Somalia? Tanzania? (Fresh Air had an interview about that yesterday, but that's Fresh Air, not the marquee news programs.) Nope, the international coverage has been disproportionately Gaza for six months.
If I've written this accurately, that is what I'm observing, and what I'm trying to express, Daryl.
Well, NPR obviously has narrowed its niche. It's catering to the people who support the stations -- the 67% who skew liberal (although Uri didn't quote a study that broke down the actual numbers, but I suppose he'd know what he's talking about).
"MAGA listeners" are over 50-55. Sure, they're not going to want to listen to anything else. They'll use talk radio. The younger MAGAs go online, where there are conservative podcasts galore.
But it's the same with the NPR listeners. They'll go to NPR, even over non-political news talkers like KIRO-FM in Seattle or maybe KCBS in San Francisco.. And NPR is going to cater to that 67% of core listeners because they donate. If you are depending on donations to keep building those revenues to keep your stations on the air, the last thing you want to do is alienate the core listeners. As you said -- everyone is in their own silo.
Well, here on RD there are obviously some people who don't like conservative talk radio, but as for raw data, I doubt that Pew Research or Gallup have done those numbers. It's anecdotal, obviously.
How do you know? How does Uri know? The fact is they contribute. That's what matters, not liberal or conservative.
How likely are conservatives to contribute to charity? That's what you want to know. The political question is irrelevant.
That whole line of talk in Uri's commentary doesn't matter. This week, he did a bunch of conservative talk shows because he gave them red meat. They don't like any kind of diversity. They don't like LGBTQ. He was in a hostile space. My question to him would be: After talking to that group who don't listen to NPR, what do you think it would take to get them to listen? Would slanting the news to them change their opinion of NPR? Or would it just alienate the people you have now? That's the choice.
I haven't heard KIRO in a long time, but even when I lived in the Seattle region, over 40 years ago, KIRO was moderate and balanced in their talk programs, and even-handed in their news coverage. Similarly to what KGO used to be like. KGO is gone as the Bay Area's talk station (unless your idea of "talk" is sports betting), and KCBS doesn't do any talk programming except for a weekly public affairs show on Sunday morning. KCBS is like WCBS, WBBM, WTOP, KNX -- all news, almost all the time. Network news at the TOH, lots of traffic and weather together. SFBA has a couple of talk stations on AM, but they're in that same right-wing mold we're discussing. If you want something moderate and fact-based, your choices are not on AM, they're the NPR member stations KQED and KALW, both of which are heavy on the satellite-delivered programming and light on locally produced content, which, by virtue of the constituency for that kind of programming, do lean progressive.
- Status