not a ton of damage, a majority of people who have something negative to say have admitted they arent big listeners and often can't cite specific examples with detail, like @fybush said elsewhere
-
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
not a ton of damage, a majority of people who have something negative to say have admitted they arent big listeners and often can't cite specific examples with detail, like @fybush said elsewhere
OK I go with Project Veritas as my first pick given their history to go after anybody not tied to Trump. Also James O'Keefe goes after anybody that is not tied to Trump. Heck Project Veritas even had a history of going after a local Fox O&O News director one time for not going with the GOP Party line one time.
Last edited:
Can you cite an example of an NPR story that's "editorializing"?
Just.... one.... actual.... story....
Otherwise, there's nothing in your critique that anyone else can even begin to engage with.
Look, I have been a reporter for 30+ years and in public media for 20. Everything I do is about understanding facts and putting them together in a way that gives my audience a deeper understanding of the world around them.
Every reporter everywhere who's more than a stenographer exercises some degree of editorial judgment in how they take a firehose of facts and do more than just regurgitate them.
You seem to think "editing" and "editorializing" are the same thing.
I'm sorry you seem unable to understand that part of what we do, and why it matters. I would like to understand where you're coming from a little better, but you're giving me absolutely nothing to go on other than vague hand-waving.
NPR is National Public Radio. It's right there in the name. If you want more local coverage, that's up to your state and local sources of public radio to provide. You can help by voting for political leaders who think they deserve the necessary funding to expand their local coverage. And of course, if you so choose, you can help provide some of that funding yourself.
This is actually the worst take of all... "it doesn't matter, they're ALL the same."
There is a strain of political influence that has been on the upswing recently that thrives on sowing discontent with "all of them." It's designed to drive people's interests away from politics and reduce voter engagement and participation, and when that happens, it's helpful to ask yourself who wins as a result?
NPR has an editorial process and standards. So do MSNBC and CNN. It's never perfect and sometimes badly flawed, but it's there, which is why Dominion isn't suing them.
"They're all just as guilty" is more meaningless hand-waving. It glosses over so much that's interesting to explore about why each of those entities is in fact very different in the way they do what they do.
And what "school" is out of range of NPR signals in 2024? I went to the most remote college in the lower 48 (look up "Deep Springs" if you're curious) and there's even a repeater signal that gets public radio into that distant valley now.
I’m confused, are you trying to say that CNN and MSNBC are great examples of journalistic integrity? When it comes to news, any cable news network would be one of the last places I would go for information. Tune in to any of the major networks, and you’re greeted with a panel of hosts heavily editorializing the news one way or the other.
I will definitely agree with the point that NPR is more objective than a cable news network.
I doubt he's going to do much damage. There will be a kerfuffle and possibly an investigation that will lead to a report that gathers dust. Perhaps some of the DEI stuff will be toned down. But NPR won't be much affected.
As I've mentioned upthread, I'm not sure what Berliner's objectives were. Reading that resignation letter that he posted on the Twitterx, he comes across as having felt disrespected. But it's not as if he suddenly becomes more respected (at least by those whose respect he has sought) by leaving. Even so, it did appear that his position was increasingly untenable.
Deep Sorings! Fascinating school set amongst so much scenic beauty. I believe that’s on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada outside of Bishop. They have a rigorous curriculum. I once wrote a student a letter of recommendation for Deep Springs. They’re very selective. ( Apologies for being off topic. Now back to broadcasting).
I am saying there is absolutely a distinguishable difference on any given day between what's on MSNBC and CNN as opposed to FNC or Newsmax, yes.
Authoritarian leaders do. Putin, Orban (the Hungarian leader, not the audio processing guy!), and Xi thrive on portraying Western democracy as a messy, complicated, broken system full of crooks. It makes it easier to condition their population to tune out of politics completely, not have to worry about different parties to choose from when voting, and just let the strong man in charge take care of everything.
But wouldn’t that perspective be heavily biased if you find the content on one of the networks resonating more with your beliefs than the others? I come across a lot of people who insist that the network they watch is telling the truth, while the others are lying and need to be shut down. The reality is that I don’t personally believe that anyone receives the whole truth from any of the major cable networks. Instead, they end up getting commentary that validates their beliefs (which ultimately is easier than being challenged on their worldview).
The reality is that every network has been involved with various scandals, with many anchors and personalities that have come through with varying levels of popularity, influence, and journalistic integrity.
Realistically, I’d probably be more tempted to agree with some of the talking points that I hear on Fox News. But I don’t watch it. At the end of the day, it’s heavily biased news coverage. And I’m sure that the content would not help me form informed opinions about the world around me. I’d encourage anybody to try to look at the networks that try to appeal to them with the same level of criticism.
The fundamental problem with FOX News is not its bias. It's that it was specifically designed by its founder, the late Roger Ailes, a Republican political consultant (who ironically created America's Talking, which was ultimately rebranded as MSNBC) to provoke specific responses with its topic choices, repetition, use of the second person "you" as hosts speak directly into the camera, and its willingness to broadcast things it knows to be untrue....
...a willingness that cost it hundreds of millions of dollars:
To say nothing of the simply bat*** insane attempts to turn anything into a skirmish in the culture wars:
Two years ago, researchers recruited FOX News viewers to switch to CNN for a month, with a control group of people who continued to watch FOX. Quizzes were given to ensure that the first group were in fact watching CNN. The results are fascinating:
What happens when a group of Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month?
A study that paid viewers of the rightwing cable network to switch shed light on the media’s influence on people’s views
MSNBC is absolutely an opinion channel. And when I watch, there are times that I find myself saying "that conclusion might be a stretch", because I'm aware that it's an opinion channel. But I know that the issue or the incident being discussed actually occurred, a presumption of accuracy that FOX News shredded for itself.
So while it's true that FOX News and MSNBC are both opinion channels, it's nowhere near fair to say that they are somehow equivalent.
If you are confused, you are definitely choosing to be confused.
There are opinions, then there are lies. There is a difference. FNC has lost major lawsuits because they lie, a fact proven in court. NOT because they offer a "different opinion."
Well I personally view much of the content on MSNBC as being a more Democratic leaning answer to some of the content you see on Fox. And to reiterate, I view a lot of what is said on Fox as being extremely biased, and not worth watching or listening to. I also sample MSNBC from time to time, and find their commentary equally concerning.The fundamental problem with FOX News is not its bias. It's that it was specifically designed by its founder, the late Roger Ailes, a Republican political consultant (who ironically created America's Talking, which was ultimately rebranded as MSNBC) to provoke specific responses with its topic choices, repetition, use of the second person "you" as hosts speak directly into the camera, and its willingness to broadcast things it knows to be untrue....
View attachment 6905
View attachment 6906
...a willingness that cost it hundreds of millions of dollars:
To say nothing of the simply bat*** insane attempts to turn anything into a skirmish in the culture wars:
View attachment 6907
Two years ago, researchers recruited FOX News viewers to switch to CNN for a month, with a control group of people who continued to watch FOX. Quizzes were given to ensure that the first group were in fact watching CNN. The results are fascinating:
What happens when a group of Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month?
A study that paid viewers of the rightwing cable network to switch shed light on the media’s influence on people’s viewswww.theguardian.com
MSNBC is absolutely an opinion channel. And when I watch, there are times that I find myself saying "that conclusion might be a stretch", because I'm aware that it's an opinion channel. But I know that the issue or the incident being discussed actually occurred, a presumption of accuracy that FOX News shredded for itself.
So while it's true that FOX News and MSNBC are both opinion channels, it's nowhere near fair to say that they are somehow equivalent.
As an example, the MSNBC coverage of Trump’s New York City trial has been marked by giddy anchors who commented on the psychological torture he’s likely to face. That, to me, is a bit extreme. But to be fair, the folks in Fox are believe the trial should be thrown out all together. There has to be a happy medium between those two perspectives.
Beyond that, there’s no point in arguing any further because I’m positive that we share very different perspectives on politics. I respect anyone’s right to seek out content that fits their worldview, but that content is likely to be ripe with bias.
Having just walked away from what was almost certainly my last newsroom job, I no longer even have a dog in this hunt.
So I'll just offer one example: the nonsense a few weeks ago about Easter coinciding with Trans Visibility Day. Fox pumped it up in every show. There's no equivalency to that on "the other side," if you will.
So I'll just offer one example: the nonsense a few weeks ago about Easter coinciding with Trans Visibility Day. Fox pumped it up in every show. There's no equivalency to that on "the other side," if you will.
Politico media critic Jack Shafer has a somewhat different angle, arguing that Berliner didn't line up support in the NPR newsroom before publishing his criticism - and attributes more motivation than I've been willing to do:
Anyway, it's a different perspective than the usual two-tribes-talking-past-each-other line of reasoning.
It's all kind of sour, even tawdry, and that line about Medicare is a cheap shot, but that's Shafer's MO. At the end of his essay, he links to another article published in 1993 that was highly critical of NPR's apparent world view of the time. (Disclaimer: that 1993 article quotes a University of Missouri journalism professor in a manner that makes him look somewhat naïve. I've known that professor for 45 years...he's still around...and he's anything but naïve. But selective quotation in the service of making a point is nothing new for opinion columnists.) Shafer's point in doing that is muddled, but suggests that criticism of NPR is nothing new as well.
Anyway, it's a different perspective than the usual two-tribes-talking-past-each-other line of reasoning.
Would be to me, too. Got specifics?
Fair warning: I've been watching a decent amount of MSNBC, and while there's been discussion of Trump's likely discomfort with being expected to obey the rules of the court all day long for up to two months, I have heard exactly ZERO discussion of "psychological torture", nor any giddiness.
Fair. I was pointing out an issue in general, not saying it is one that NPR needs to fix.
I’m not sure if I would be able to dig through and find a video clip, but it was a panel with Rachel Maddow (and some of the other hosts) talking the audience through what was going on with Trump during the trial. Someone brought up how he’s surely facing psychological torture (while having a giant smirk on his face). I thought that was a bit much. I know for sure NPR wouldn’t phrase it that way (so I will tip my hat to them for doing what they can to not cheer for someone else’s misfortune).
I won’t say too much else. I like you, Michael. Hopefully that feeling is mutual and me not talking politics too much keeps it that way (lol)
They are not all exactly the same - I'll concede that without question.
I'm frankly not going to debate over which opinions are more valid, etc. I do agree that certain networks have been caught telling outright lies and obviously that is not equivalent to networks not doing that. But as far as editorial is concerned... it's an issue with all of the major networks, especially on television. Obviously it's not exactly the same in manner and extent on all of the networks.
I tend to get my news from CBS radio news updates (or ABC or Fox ones depending on the station I'm listening to). They all appear to be fairly straight down the middle. Then again, when you've got a bunch of stories to fit in such a short timeslot... there's not time for much more than facts.
I just checked RadioLocator.com for the town my college is located in to make sure I'm not missing something... Set to local stations, there are few that come up but no NPR affiliates. Even set to "distant" stations, there are zero NPR affiliate stations that come up. Setting it to "fringe" brings one up but there's absolutely zero chance it's coming in here - I struggle to pick it up a half-hour drive closer to the transmitter site with a good car radio. Even then, I don't have an FM radio at school with me aside from in my car. All of the radios I have in my dorm are AM portables (and no, that is not to listen to political talk radio - there are several AM music stations in the area that I listen to).
And as I said above, you're right - I need to listen to more NPR programming to have a better informed opinion.
- Status