Questions on what public radio really does for listeners

[morningchill]

Do you think public radio builds public opinion?

Does it make people more involved in societal issues? Does it enable or encourage political action (in the broadest sense of political)?

Is the medium of radio outdated?

 

[stevensonair]

I think public radio, by presentation style, often appeals more to the "conscious" types or those who are more involved.

I'm not sure that it creates it, but I believe it stimulates the conversation and thinking of those who are inclined to be involved and consider themselves "aware." Active as opposed to passive audiences.

 

[FredLeonard]

I agree, Steve. Involved people are the kind who seek out content like public radio.

Public radio does not build opinion. People look for content that supports views they already hold. There is a major body of research spanning decades to support this. People seek confirmation - not information. In that regard, public radio is not different from commercial political talk radio. People listen to radio that tells them what they want to hear.

And for some listeners, public radio is sort of like a club. They even have memberships. As a public radio listener you can identify with some people and set yourself apart from others. Like other "brands," people use it as a badge. You say something about yourself by saying you listen to public radio. Just as you say something about yourself by saying you listen to Rush, drive a BMW, drink craft beer, play bridge...

Is the medium of radio outdated? Whole different topic. Yes. Public radio's future, and more specifically NPR's future, depends on the extent to which it's allowed to adapt to new media and new communications technology. Content is not outdated. Radio is a distribution medium and it is outdated.

 

[listener-in]

As a long-time listener and contributor to public radio, I find its news coverage second to none among American media. However, there’s one big caveat. The opinions it airs are more and more those of Washington insiders. Its range of viewpoints differs very little from what you hear from the usual suspects on the TV networks’ Sunday political shows. If Washington’s politicos and pundits talk about it, you’ll hear it on NPR; if they don’t, chances are you won’t. Case in point: when budgets are discussed, you hear all about the Republicans’ proposal and the President’s - end of story. There’s been another one out there for quite a while, longer than the President’s in fact. It’s from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and it promotes more job creation, and balances the budget, sooner than the alternatives. And the media – including public radio – go about their business as if it did not exist.

 

[dyeingeye]

I agree with listener-in's second sentence and that is why I think public radio is important, regardless of how it changes people's opinions or political activism. Like stevensonair stated, the listeners are, for the most part, people already engaged, but I don't see that as a fundamental flaw.

Why do you ask whether it changes people's opinions? Is that its mandate?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Woven through this "thread" is a certain amount of agreement that all people are programmed alike.

I don't buy the claim that ALL people just seek reinforcement of what they already believe.

I came off the farm and moved to the city. What the farm community taught me about life begged for some new guidance when it came time to adapt to life in the city.

I worked for entrepreneurs and mom-and-pop organizations for years and then I moved into the world of publicly held corporations. I had to seek not reinforcement but to learn how to plow new ground. (See, I do remember some of the language of the farm. ;D )

At mid-life I moved my religious inquries from the world of Evangelical Fundamentalism over to a Mainline Protestant mode of inquiry.

Here in Georgia our ex governor Zell Miller made quite a stir by speaking at the Presidential Nominating Convention of "the other party" that he was there because my party ran off and left me! About the same time I chose to make the exact opposite journey because the party HE ran toward... had run off and left me!

I took so many psychology courses in college that they came to me and said: "Enough already!" We will NOT grant you credit toward your degree on any more psychology courses. Find something else to obsess over! Because of my training and education I can't buy the idea that there is a body of evidence that people never seek new thinking.

To this day I enjoy probing people who have made the transition from the farm to the city, and people who have made the transition from the city to the rural area.

To this day I enjoy probing people who have crossed the line (going either direction) who have worked in the world of mom-and-pop and worked in the world of giant corporations. What did you like and not like?

I sit in Bible classes and other discussion groups and listen as people relate at what point in their life they switched one way or the other between liberal and conservative, quiet and pious vs loud and rowdy.

And in lectures on political issues or at town hall meetings or meeting of political parties, it is always interesting to figure out how many people in the room have changed alliances one or more times in their adult life.

And in all of those setting I bump into people who have totally changed their thinking because they started watching Fox News or listening to Rush, and other people who have totally changed their thinking because the started listening to NPR or watch C-span.

Some people want to be part of a culture that gives them rules so they can obey them.

Other people want to be part of a culture that gives them running room to find their niche.

And sometimes we jump-ship between those two groups.

That's what makes it so much fun to sit down and try to figure out how to program a radio station!!!!

 

[morningchill]

I agree with listener-in's second sentence and that is why I think public radio is important, regardless of how it changes people's opinions or political activism. Like stevensonair stated, the listeners are, for the most part, people already engaged, but I don't see that as a fundamental flaw.

Why do you ask whether it changes people's opinions? Is that its mandate?

I don't see it as a mandate at all. I was just thinking recently that public radio could be a sort of public sphere (a la Habermas) and was wondering whether or not listeners interpret it as such. Granted, its a very different sort of public, one in which individuals do not directly engage one another, but I think sites like this one serve to remedy that. I'm still not entirely decided.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I was just thinking recently that public radio could be a sort of public sphere (a la Habermas) and was wondering whether or not listeners interpret it as such. Granted, its a very different sort of public, one in which individuals do not directly engage one another, but I think sites like this one serve to remedy that. I'm still not entirely decided.

That may be the most intellectually challenging question I have come across in these forums in ten years of observation and participation.

Though we share a lot with our European cousins, how we approach things in this country is profoundly different because of our "frontier development" days. And much of our angst today comes from a major portion of our citizens today wanting life to still be shaped the way the frontier affected it... even though we have many citizens who live in high-density urban centers... who live in high-rise condos rather than log cabins on the prairie.

But could we say that NPR more than some other media does meet the Habermas quality of being a 'public sphere' because they do receive input from listeners via messages on the answering machine, via e-mails to program hosts, and more than any other broadcast media, the NPR people travel to markets all across the county to speak to local forums organized by local NPR stations who reward donors with tickets to the events.

 

[FredLeonard]

But could we say that NPR more than some other media does meet the Habermas quality of being a 'public sphere' because they do receive input from listeners via messages on the answering machine, via e-mails to program hosts, and more than any other broadcast media, the NPR people travel to markets all across the county to speak to local forums organized by local NPR stations who reward donors with tickets to the events.

No, I don't think we could say that? The comments on the NPR Ombudsman page show NPR routinely ignores comments and concerns from listeners - either emailed to the ombudsman's office or to specific programs. Their phone numbers are not available to listeners and the NPR switchboard does not put through calls from listeners. In my experience, NPR personnel make a point of being unreachable. I also detect a certain elite journalistic arrogance which causes them to what they want and make a point of ignoring what listeners think.

Making a speech is not listening to people. And an audience of big ticket donors is not representative.

As someone who as studied psychology, you must be familiar with the body of research substantiating patterns of media usage, and of the fallacy of substituting personal anecdote for data.

 

[morningchill]

The comments on the NPR Ombudsman page show NPR routinely ignores comments and concerns from listeners - either emailed to the ombudsman's office or to specific programs. Their phone numbers are not available to listeners and the NPR switchboard does not put through calls from listeners. In my experience, NPR personnel make a point of being unreachable. I also detect a certain elite journalistic arrogance which causes them to what they want and make a point of ignoring what listeners think.

Making a speech is not listening to people. And an audience of big ticket donors is not representative.

So NPR itself comes under critique rather than the state?

 

[aaronread]

Public radio does not build opinion. People look for content that supports views they already hold. There is a major body of research spanning decades to support this. People seek confirmation - not information. In that regard, public radio is not different from commercial political talk radio. People listen to radio that tells them what they want to hear.

That's more than a little uncharitable. Just because a lot, if not the vast majority, of non-music radio has drifted entirely into the opinion-mongering category does not mean that NPR automatically does.

Ask a lot of NPR listeners why they listen to NPR and they'll tell you it's because they like being informed about what's going on in the world. Not because it tells them "what they want to hear".

 

[w9wi]

Interestingly enough, I have had at least two people tell me they are conservatives who believe NPR programming is biased in favor of the left*, but they listen because they still feel they're better informed after listening.

* personally I would disagree, although it certainly seems to be the case that NPR *listeners*, taken as a whole, are more liberal than the country as a whole.

 

[aaronread]

I've spoken to a couple NPR reporters who regularly interact with elected officials from both parties at the state and federal levels. And the vast majority of the officials...even some who routinely paint themselves as hard right-wing conservatives and are always yelling for an end to "government-funded radio"...confess in private that they are regular NPR listeners.

But of course, they always follow up that admission with: "but don't quote me on that!" :

 

[FredLeonard]

Public radio is a good thing to have around.

Maybe getting public radio started and seeing it through it's early years was a valid and appropriate use of government funds.

OK. That was then. This is now.

Public radio does not need the money. NPR, especially, does not. Maybe there are some small public radio stations which are struggling. If they perform a worthwhile service, some source of funding should be found to help them. If not, too bad.

Public radio management is stupid - and insensitive to public opinion - to keep hanging on the CPB spigot. They admit, it accounts for only a small portion of total revenue. But it makes public radio susceptible to political pressure and an object of controversy to the public.

Let it go.

 

[TheBigA]

But it makes public radio susceptible to political pressure and an object of controversy to the public.

There really is no "political pressure" and as far as controversy goes, those few people will complain regardless of where the money comes from.

The CPB money is available to anyone who applies, not just NPR. To deny NPR access that money is to single them out needlessly. It would be a form of discrimination because they happen to be NPR. Plus, it would require the Public Broadcasting Act to be amended, and I don't think Congress can get the votes to do that.

 

[TheBigA]

But of course, they always follow up that admission with: "but don't quote me on that!" :

When I was working on Capitol Hill, I would regularly hear WAMU and WETA playing in the offices of Senators and Congressmen regardless of party. I can testify to its popularity among elected officials. They definitely listen.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Public radio management is stupid - and insensitive to public opinion - to keep hanging on the CPB spigot. They admit, it accounts for only a small portion of total revenue. But it makes public radio susceptible to political pressure and an object of controversy to the public.

I disagree with your concept that the small stipend from CPB subjects NPR to political pressure from the government. It is their security blanket. When big corporate donors and big foundations come and try to pressure NPR, it is a perfect "out" to say: "Sorry but what you are asking us to do would put us in violation of Federal policies. We have to "play an even hand". Big corporate donors and doting heirs herding their foundation investments can be just as meddlesome and troublesome as a big government.

What we have is something of a big "balance beam scale" at work.... and it may be working reasonable well.

 

[TheBigA]

I disagree with your concept that the small stipend from CPB subjects NPR to political pressure from the government.

Also, the relationship with CPB puts all the political pressure on CPB. That's legally their role. CPB is the group that goes before Congress, not NPR. Commercial broadcasters have more to fear, not because of funding, but because political pressure could lead to the loss of their license. Not that it's ever happened, but the threat has always been there.