Maybe I'm an old and out of touch, but I love NPR. I like that I can get well researched, calmly presented news at any time of the day by flipping to my local station. Podcasts just don't do it for me-I prefer music in the background while I'm working, and npr/music when I'm driving.
I've been listening to NPR for ~2 hours each day during my commutes for about 2 years. While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe. They don't always up and say it, but their most common tactic is bringing on an 'expert', who pontificates about X while the host nods in agreement and says how smart they are. Listen closely when talking about Israel, Bernie/Hillary (I couldn't stomach the 15 minute puff piece on her yesterday), and digital privacy (David Greene got called a government shill by Darrel Issa on-air). I still listen to it but occasionally I have to put it on mute for a segment or two.
I honestly didn't notice it until the presidential coverage this year. The specific word choices their hosts make when comparing candidates shows an extreme bias toward HRC. I don't know if maybe it's the on-air hosts' age?
That, and anything at all relating to Israel. Even when (?) did the series on Palestinian perspectives, every Palestinian they spoke to 'understood' why Israel does what it does. My guess is there are other voices available.
All that being said, I'll take a little bias to have access to stories that are actually researched and thought about, instead of the 30 second sound bite bull-shit pieces you get with the large nationals.
I used to listen to WNYC constantly in high school (late '00s), and when I was delivering pizza between semesters in college.
I feel like the fluff-to-content ratio has increasedto the point where it doesn't stand apart anymore, and it's just upper-middle-class background noise. Maybe my interests are just shifted, but I feel like there's a lot less news then there was five years ago. I feel like a lot of what they report on just isn't important or relevant.
But I don't listen much anymore, so ironically I might be missing all of the good content and then ragging on NPR for not having good content.
I should specify that I've been mainly listening to WNYC. I wouldn't exactly call their run-of-the-mill pieces "fluff", but they're becoming more of an attempt at radio clickbait. "Stay tuned to hear the tale of a disadvantaged minority!" I can only listen to so many of these before I shut it off and listen to the engine.
> While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe.
I've never really heard NPR hosts/reporters claim it to be a bastion of unbiased journalism. In fact, I don't think any news organization really claims to be unbiased except Fox News (and that isn't a judging statement, I say that based only on their "Fair and Balanced " tag line).
I think NPR does make a fairly honest effort to avoid bias, and they're also receptive to accusations of bias; it's not uncommon to hear callers on various programs call in to say that they think the coverage of a certain topic is one sided or myopic, and in most cases the host allows the caller to speak their mind and let the criticism air for all to consider. I'd also add that NPR is not monolithic and the programming schedule of a given station is usually composed of sources from various studios around the country as well as local content for the region.
Still, the bias cannot be denied, and I'd love to get a recommendation regarding a less biased or more reliable source of news programming (even if that means I'll have to stream a non-local station).
My local station goes on during the pledge drives about how NPR brings an unbiased, facts-based view of the world. the station definitely promotes it, and I believe the org thinks it, too.
Certain programs are expected to have less bias than others, IMO. Panel shows like Diane Rehm, On Point and Fresh Air aren't necessarily meant to be completely unopinionated, while things like All Things Considered and Morning Edition (and perhaps Here and Now) are expected to bring a balanced perspective. They don't always succeed.
Yes, but there is another form of bias which is guest selection. NPR guests on shows like Morning Edition are overwhelmingly mainstream establishment voices (often from think tanks like Heritage and Cato). I'd prefer a wider range of voices over some faux unopinionated notion.
Fair enough. I haven't really heard that myself, but it does sound plausible based on some of the other over-the-top promotional lines I've heard during the pledge drives.
Every human being has opinions, a world view, attitudes about what it means to be fair, civil, respectful, what makes a good program, grounding in a particular culture, socioeconomic class, etc.
Anytime you get your news from a human being or group of human beings it is going to be "biased". If you want to avoid it entirely (not a goal I think is reasonable, feasible, or even attractive), the Associated Press generally just describes facts so your "bias" there is confined mostly to the facts they choose to describe (incidentally, the most impactful and insidious form of bias -- is this story about the police shooting someone news? Not if you don't think it's part of an ongoing pattern and story about police violence racism and abuse of power).
But I think if you switch to fact-stating-only news sources I think you will walk away far less informed. It's a personal opinion of course but I'd much rather hear from a human (and therefore "biased", whatever that means) expert who does a thorough analysis and tries to explain the issues in the cleanest and most deep way possible, including subtext, context, and every other relevant text as he or she sees them.
I think when most people say "unbiased", they don't mean the dictionary definition which is, as you say, unattainable, but they instead mean "without pushing a political agenda".
The best anyone can hope for is a diverse enough staff (with all definitions of "diverse", not just the popular ones nowadays) so that enough people get input on what stories are coming out that the broadcast isn't the result of one or two people's opinions.
The problem is that delivering the news "without pushing a political agenda" is just a status quo bias. Every news source is inherently biased, so it is important to recognize this and react accordingly.
...I mean how and why? Reporting on the news as it is without trying to influence it is not necessarily a bias. Otherwise, that word no longer has any meaning.
Look above at the slavery example. Every news story inherits the bias of the people responsible for it. Even the choice of stories to cover is a significant source of bias.
During their pledge drives they do mention unbias and when donors call in to say that they donate because of unbias the hosts of the drives underscore that take. So, while officially they make no claims, in practice those claims are made, specially during their pledge drives.
I agree. I've been increasingly less impressed by their news coverage. You said it exactly right, there are puff pieces and lack of true experts representation on all sides of issues.
However, for me, NPR's true value is it's shows. Diane Rehm and Terry Gross are great interviewers. Planet Money, Wait Wait, and of course all the local public radio shows like Freakonomics or Radiolab. Of course, this speaks a bit to the point of the article, though.
Their coverage of digital privacy for me is what made me realize NPR has its own biases, albeit more subtle than others. They consistently underrepresent the arguments against encroaching surveillance and give way too much airtime to the other side.
Very much agree. They didn't cover Sanders to the point they had to issue an apology last year, but their coverage since has been paper thin. Their mailers are also practically campaigning for hillary https://i.imgur.com/UYeA1QQ.png. Recently they've not even been saying his name and just referring to hillary's competitor.
Like others, I didn't notice it until this presidential election cycle. Used to be a huge fan and financial supporter of NPR but that undid it for me.
It's a bummer because there was, and still is, a lot of good content on there but I'm disappointed at their bias, I thought they were better than that.
I haven't really found a solid replacement for them, it's a little here and a little there and more research on my part.
As with any reported data item, you should always diversify your sources. I have found that I get bias from NPR one direction and bias from my local AM talk-radio station the other way, it helps balance out my perspective.
My take is that on ordinary things they try to be unbiased [try is key here], but on more political items, they take the mantel of the underrepresented of those they think are in the weaker position. This is specially true for the local affiliates who make it a point to bubble up less know issues [the plight of the Georgians whose single legacy community building is about to be razed to build condos, as a made up example].
But, their most insidious tactic, when they want to favor a cause or a person is one to frame things and couch things in deliberate terms and to have the unfavored person sound bad by prompting them to say ridiculous things and conversely prompting the person or cause they like for favorable things.
It could be something like, so you say you are in favor of the North Korean regime, why is that? Why do you think a dominant patriarchal society is best for women there?
They know their audience well and they codeswitch well and know the language of their audience and put in the proper language cues.
I used to listen all of the time but finally got to where I couldn't stand it. Personally I find it intellectually abusive.
Just guessing, what it looks like happens is that special groups pitch their press releases at NPR. NPR selects a few. Then they hook up with an "expert" -- most likely recommended by the same group or mentioned in the release. The reporting consists of re-reading the PR lead, then throwing some softballs at the expert, who then basically just gives an impassioned speech about whatever their pet topic is.
Put in startup terms, there's a hell of a lot of submarine pieces for various political causes.
If you like that kind of thing that's fine. I have no problem with various editorial styles. I think what was off-putting to me was the clash between the smugness and self-congratulatory nature of the style -- and the actual quality of the reporting I was receiving.
When I can't stomach puff pieces on NPR, I usually blame it in my extreme liberal bias, but still take in the information. I still haven't yet heard ANY in-depth stories taking Trump or Cruise to task for their many false statements. At the same time, I've heard quite a few stories on how Sander's policies aren't viable, or the number of ways Secretary Clinton may have broken the law by demanding a Blackberry phone.
I don't think the research suggests that you're out of touch, but it does suggest that you're probably older. People who are not older prefer to listen to much of the same content on demand. The audience for the broadcast channels is aging dramatically, and quickly.
Your local station is probably not airing NPR content at every time of the day – it could be airing local content, or content produced or distributed by one of NPRs competitors. Interestingly, NPR is sort of a special case among these groups because they are bound to serve the broadcast channels not only by the current market realities, but by charter. It's why you are never asked to make donations directly to NPR, but to your local station (or in rare cases, directly to programs not produced by NPR).
I feel the same about BBC Radio 4 or the World Service.
Podcasts are generally great if you want something that's exciting and casual, but there's still something inexplicably appealing about NPR or the BBC radio.
Same here, Im in the waning years of my 30s and find NPR to be the perfect commuting companion. The calm presentation manner is the perfect antidote for road rage. It isn't unbiased, and most of the time the bias is contrary to what I think. I've yet to hear any station/program follow my political leanings though. I also think that the variety of stories covered are greater than most mainstream news, which is refreshing.
I love NPR too, and I do not think podcasts can even begin to match the audio-documentary experience that NPR provides. Having BBC on it is an amazing bonus.
As the article goes into, I think you're conflating "NPR" with the stuff that airs on public radio stations in various cities like Boston and New York--much of which programming is also available as podcasts. Thus Radiolab for example (which certainly qualifies for audio-documentary experience) is produced by WNYC and is not NPR.
"NPR" gets used as a shorthand for a lot of the programming that touches public radio stations (or that is created by people who are/were associated with public radio)--I do so myself--but it's not accurate.
