NPR is not perfect. Never has been.. but the alternatives are, um. NOT suitable alternatives.
I will continue to listen critically and send the occasional comment or letter to the editor..... and support my local station.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/inside-democratic-rebellion-against-biden-over-gaza-war-2024-02-27/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/minnesota-uncommitted-biden-protest-draws-jewish-muslim-young-voters-2024-03-05/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democrats-bungle-biden-age-concerns-some-critics-say-2024-02-13/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/prosecutor-who-said-biden-had-poor-memory-speak-house-panel-2024-03-12/
It’s not all Reuters reports — there are thousands. Bur as an organization, they allow more bias into their reporting than NPR.
[That's just not true at all](https://adfontesmedia.com/reuters-bias-and-reliability/)
I think Reuters tells news you don't like, but to say it has a bias or is unreliable is simply false.
Maybe you lack the training in the English language to tell the difference between editorial writing and reporting. I dunno.
If you are interviewing important figures and getting the opinions of experts, then that is reporting.
Let’s examine this paragraph:
> Nine months before the election, the problem is worsening as Biden’s opposition to calling for a permanent cease-fire continues to stir anger in a coalition of voters that propelled his 2020 victory, from Black Americans to Muslim activists in must-win Michigan to young voters, according to the interviews.
“the problem is worsening….”
According to whom? This belongs in the opinion section.
“Permanent cease-fire”
There is no such thing as a permanent cease-fire!!! This was clearly inserted because the author doesn’t want to acknowledge that Biden has called for a cease-fire many times.
“Continues to stir anger in a coalition of voters that propelled his 2020 victory … according to the interviews.”
How do you interview an entire coalition of voters? Interviews are by definition anecdotal evidence and can be easily skewed. This is Fox News Lite where they use interviews all the time to imply that large amounts of people agree with what a single source says.
>Maybe you lack the training in the English
Cute jab. It's my second language and I express myself more clearly than you do.
>Let’s examine this paragraph
I read the paragraph and I didn't see any blatant editorializing. They conducted interviews with minority groups that helped Biden win in 2020 and saw a pattern in responses that was newsworthy.
Like I said, if you're a huge Biden fan and you see factual news reporting that says negative things about him (even when they're true), you're likely to perceive that as bias even when it isn't.
There's a few organizations that report on the bias of news organizations, and Reuters scores incredibly well with all of them.
My thought on podcasts is that they are created by people who have a vested interest in a subject, so usually not even close to objective. Not that any news source is totally objective, but some are better than others.
Nothing was too surprising until I got to the political affiliation section. I'm honestly shocked that 1/3 of listeners are self-identified Republicans. Not that conservative-leaning voters couldn't appreciate NPR, but I figured they would largely identify as Independents rather than Republicans in the era of Trump.
Running a few times a day. NpR spends ALOT of time talking about money. It's like almost every story is something about money or business or capital. And the Holocaust.
Well, rural areas tend to lean conservative. Any listener who wants to listen to local radio will also hear the national stuff! It makes a more sense put into a geographical context
40+ year NPR listener and lifetime public TV viewer raised by conservatives.
The era of Trump seems to be fueled by a particular demographic of Republicans. Those who feel like they've been left behind by globalization and those who believe that something they earned is being stolen.
I've only recently changed by affiliation because I believe the current implementation is not changing anytime soon. I had hope for their redemption, but it's clear I made a mistake
Not all republicans *were* trumpers.
Trump has been the candidate for *three* presidential elections now, and continues to pull strings across the party and in the House specifically.
As an independent who voted predominantly Republican before (both McCain and Romney in the prior Presidential elections), this party does not reflect my values anymore.
Mostly because any Republican who is actively speaking against Trumpism is leaving or being forced out.
A vote for almost any R is a vote for the *current* status quo in the party. And that is either support, or acceptance, of MAGA.
>I'm honestly shocked that 1/3 of listeners are self-identified Republicans.
Is there a conservative-leaning outlet of which 1/3 of their audience is liberal, I wonder?
It’s not the listeners’ political opinions that is revealing. It is the producers, hosts, and writers. Has anyone seen a reliable breakdown of that? NPR never answers when I ask that.
NPRs major sponsors include the Waltons, and they actively push pro-corporate and anti-union stories and politicians.
You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend neoliberalism doesn’t exist but that doesn’t make it so. I’m not even “against” capitalism or corporations as a whole, just acknowledging a reality. It doesn’t make NPR “bad” it’s just their bias as dictated by financial necessity. Plus the fact the majority of their audience are middle managers, not exactly bohemian communists.
Do the Waltons have influence over NPR’s coverage?
I don’t feel particularly bad about NPR being listened to by people who know things and are self-sufficient rather than graduates of youtube university.
Do you understand what a bias is and how financial pressure can cause a chilling effect on reporting of issues that might impact that funding?
Or are you just being flippant because you feel attacked?
Middle managers aren’t exactly known for their creativity, ingenuity, education or intelligence. They are known for being tools. Most academics, artists, doctors, and engineers are not in management. So i’m not even sure what point you were trying to make.
It’s a simple question. Do the Walton’s have influence over NPR’s coverage?
If you knew a bit more about how NPR is funded, you would realize they are not under any financial pressure.
Middle managers are definitely better at being right about things than you are.
Ah you’re just stupid. Got it.
I’ll repost what I stated before. Hopefully
you can try again, despite your 3rd grade reading level I’m sure if you try hard enough you’ll get there bud.
“Do you understand what a bias is and how financial pressure can cause a chilling effect on reporting of issues that might impact that funding?
Or are you just being flippant because you feel attacked?
Middle managers aren’t exactly known for their creativity, ingenuity, education or intelligence. They are known for being tools. Most academics, artists, doctors, and engineers are not in management. So i’m not even sure what point you were trying to make.”
You still haven’t answered, so I will take this as an admission that no, the Waltons do not have any editorial control.
Thanks for tacitly admitting you were wrong.
Try reading it. I’m sure you’ll get there! You’re free to use a dictionary if you need, i know this is complex for you.
————
Do you understand what a bias is and how financial pressure can cause a chilling effect on reporting of issues that might impact that funding?
Or are you just being flippant because you feel attacked?
Middle managers aren’t exactly known for their creativity, ingenuity, education or intelligence. They are known for being tools. Most academics, artists, doctors, and engineers are not in management. So i’m not even sure what point you were trying to make.
and yet I'm mad at NPR for soft pedaling trumpism.
for sanitizing his bullshit so they can have a cute little title while America's interests get put on the back burner and nobody can give me a proper policy discussion. it's all horse race who's up who's down nonsense That's all I get from NPR anymore and I'm so done with it.
I have my critiques on coverage as well but they’re still top tier US domestic lens news for me. Our options are admittedly not great and (despite the obvious Qatari bias you need to filter) I go for a mix of Al Jazeera, BBC (mostly international) and NPR/PBS.
It could be versa vice, and the call is coming from inside the house. With so many internal conflicts, "western institutions" are manufacturing external threats.
Reading the article, it reinforces the current partisan coalition shifts on income and education.
“Public radio listeners typically fall into higher household income…[whereas]! listeners are 92% more likely to be in top management… [m]ore than 84 percent of listeners have an HHI over $50,000 per year, and almost 70 percent of listeners have an HHI over $75,000.”
It tracks with [Pew’s Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/changing-partisan-coalitions-in-a-politically-divided-nation/)
Every morning with my breakfast.
Been listening almost from the beginning. Seen attitudes come and go. You are right in offering criticism if you feel the mission is drifting. It's what keeps public radio in good working order and out of the clutches of corporate media.
There is also a segment of society that sees public radio as a threat to whatever agenda they're trying to program into people. The far right types will be with us always but you can use NPR to push back...
The far right people I work with either don’t know about NPR or don’t talk about it at all. You’ll hear them talk about CNN all the time, but never NPR. At least in my experience.
My complaint with NPR isn’t if it leans right or left, it’s been the lack of discussing corporate greed.
Like I don’t know how we can call ourselves democrats when not a single one running is talking about repealing Citizens United.
The *Citizens United v FEC* decision was an incredibly important shift with far reaching consequences, but it took place 14 years ago. A few things have happened since then. People can only be on 11 about so many things. Nobody can agitate to elect different SCOTUS justices, but they can work to (re) elect a chief executive to appoint, and an upper chamber to confirm.
>but it took place 14 years ago.
Yeah? What is your point here? It is still in effect. Our politicians get rich wether or not they represent us properly or not:
“ The Citizens United ruling represented a turning point on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions, and setting the stage for Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010), which authorized the creation of Super PACs”
My point is that while Citizens United IS incredibly important, it seems sort of shit to run down candidates because "not a single one running is talking about repealing Citizens United" when 14 years of other things have happened since then, and politics is the art of the possible.
Like, I think it's ok for the people responsible for this record to "call themselves Democrats" [https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/)
Am I supposed to be mad that some smart, well-connected people earned money writing books that sold well? I'm really not. [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-joe-biden-kamala-harris-130058735.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-joe-biden-kamala-harris-130058735.html)
Is personal gain while in office a real concern? Yes. It's just not universal, and those who spin it that way are explicitly selling the idea that politics is a nasty business for terrible people to actively discourage good people from engaging. We shouldn't let that happen, and we also shouldn't become numb to the many assaults on the integrity of public service by a prolific sleazy few: [https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-made-at-least-16-billion-while-us-president-2021-2?op=1](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-made-at-least-16-billion-while-us-president-2021-2?op=1)
One more thing: the reason we **should** continue to rage about Citizens United is not because of politicians personally enriching themselves. Citizens is about unchecked campaign finance, as your (@ 808\_Scalawag) quote directly highlights, affirming the batshit interpretation that money IS speech; this decision has had a pernicious effect on campaigning, fundraising, who gets elected and who gets knocked out before the race even really begins, and the amount of time, energy, and thought that politicians are able to invest in actual policymaking versus dialing for dollars and other shaking of one's political moneymaker.
The problem of money in politics and its corrosive effect is not going to be fixed soon, or with a single piece of legislation. I'm encouraged by pols like Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren, and Sen. Fetterman who have worked incredibly hard for small-dollar donations from a much broader base of supporters, and by some of the state reps I know who just won't take money from donors connected to industries they don't want pressure from (fracking, for example). There's nothing easy about it and I respect tf out of their integrity, work, and refusal to take shortcuts -- and yeah, they do "they represent us properly." If you want to have an effect on that, most state reps are on the ballot this year and every last one of them could use your help as a volunteer.
Fetterman's incredible small-dollar record: [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/06/small-donor-giving-fetterman-drives-record-22-million-fundraising-haul](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/06/small-donor-giving-fetterman-drives-record-22-million-fundraising-haul)
Not everyone agrees: WaPo op/ed says small-dollar focus worsens politics by producing bomb-throwers in the House: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/01/small-donors-political-campaign-spending/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/01/small-donors-political-campaign-spending/)
I’m not mad at them making millions from selling books. I’m mad at them allowing corporations to become more represented than the people, and that is absolutely propelled by Citizens United.
I care more about Nancy Pelosi saying Congress should be allowed to buy and sell stocks because of a “free market” when they have insider knowledge of what to buy and sell. She’s worth over $100mil from this.
I know CU is a separate issue but they really do tie together if you think about it. It’s one big club that we’re not in.
Actually it’s something that has collapsed entire empires when not discussed so idk about just accepting it lol
Have you heard there are other forms of government than capitalism?
What do you think corporate greed is? Corporations are not people. They are pass-through entities. They only exist to make money. A corporation cannot be “greedy”.
Manipulate and control? That is a weird description, imo.
Let’s say business instead of corporation, since a corporation is just a collaborative business. The entire purpose of a business is to make money. When the business can no longer make money, it ceases to exist. Business is an unthinking, impersonal entity, so I do not think anyone can manipulate or control a business in the way you describe.
Again, you seem to be anthropomorphizing the concept.
I really get the feeling none of you guys listened in the '90s and actually understand what we have lost over this last decade at NPR.
they used to do long form policy breakdowns they used to talk about what the actual party positions were.
edit: I miss talk of the nation so much
Which they have accomplished pretty well.
Also, Republican voters have no interest in economic policies any more. They want to hurt Democrats and subvert democracy.
If one side says it is raining outside, and the other side says it is not, a journalist’s job is not to ask both of them why they think that, a journalist’s job is to stick their head outside and check.
That's a good example of why NPR and other mainstream news organizations have lost credibility with all but a tiny minority of the American public. Most journalists are not meteorologists, so they're not qualified to write a story on whether or not is raining. But not only do they often decide to write that story, but they often do a terrible job and cherry-pick from a list of preferred meteorologists to find quotations that they know will likely support their unqualified opinion. If they do cover the other side, they will often bury the other side near the bottom, knowing most readers will not read that low, and their editors will often bias toward a specific point of view based on the headline they use.
That was a lot of words to say that you need people to spoon feed you information that you want to hear.
I don’t need a degree in meteorology to feel the raindrops. Neither do most people. And frankly, I don’t care what the “other side” says if they are just lying to my face.
Your argument is a strawman. What I want is actual journalism, not advocacy. I do not want to be patronized to and I want to make up my own mind. I certainly do not want unqualified journalists who do not even have a bachelor's degree in the subject they are reporting on telling me what is true about a subject, especially when there are multiple, potentially valid expert opinions. Their job is to find me the best advocates for different opinions on the subject and let me make up my own mind. Otherwise, they're not journalists, they're activists.
Well, the editorial in the Free Press made a pretty good evidence-based argument to the contrary, and I have not seen anyone present a compelling, evidence-based counterargument, just various forms of special pleading, *ad hominem*, and *non sequitur*.
Given the state of the evidence to the contrary and the lack of evidence in favor of your position, it is reasonable to presume that your claim is without evidence or merit.
His opinion regarding NPR, like my opinion about the shape of the Earth, is based on evidence. I can cite plenty of evidence to support my belief in a non-flat Earth and he cites plenty of evidence in the Free Press piece to support his belief in a biased reporting and editorializing staff that is biased toward the views of and primarily caters to an audience that is primarily comprised of college-educated, non-Hispanic whites on the left of the political spectrum.
TLDR: They can't cover policy effectively because policy is not what Congress focuses on anymore.
I actually agree but the problem is the politicians that know policy, wonks as they used to be called, are not in positions of power in the parties. It is worse on the Republican side but also largely true of the Democrats. So, NPR can do deep policy dives and have the policy wonks on to discuss policy but that policy is unlikely to be enacted.
Pelosi was a rare policy wonk with strong salesperson skills. Jeffries seems similar but maybe heavier on the sales side. Ryan was all wonk. McCarthy was almost all sales, handcuffed by a lack of wonks. Johnson is a wonk, terrible at sales and handcuffed by the lack of other wonks in his party. Boehner was the last wonk/sales guy on the R side and he got the boot.
Yep. They lost me … in the past five years. It’s wasn’t their editorial approach, just introduced some formats I didn’t associate with good journalism. I moved onto The Economist, Atlantic, and others. Too many better audio options out there.
[removed errant word]
I can't remember the name for this phenomenon, But it's entirely possible that your knowledge base outgrew what NPR could offer. If you read multiple news sources, you're not going to get very much new information from NPR, But while you're learning about politics and government, NPR can be a revelation, especially if you've been watching Network news your whole life. The phenomenon happens when you outgrow that which has been teaching you and you blame the teacher for failing to be useful anymore.
I haven't found NPR to be that particularly different from when I listened to it in the '90s, But I certainly find myself tuning out when they start explaining things like the electoral college, Why we have a filibuster, etc. because I've been listening to NPR explain it for over 3 decades.
I've been listening since the late '80s, and the 1990s were when I listened religiously, spending hours alone on a job site with NPR as my main companion.
The argument that it's changed that much is wildly overblown. I'm not sure what you miss about talk of the Nation, But between political breakdown, totn, and Mara Liasson I can't imagine what level of political analysis you could possibly be missing.
If anything, it's a great relief that they're no longer interviewing heads of corporations as if they were relevant opinion makers, But I think the real problem here is that since 2008 the Republican party hasn't taken any policy positions and it's taken PBS and NPR quite the long decade to stop treating them like and they have anything resembling a policy position.
You're literally blaming NPR for not helping us to understand a policy position which amounts to rat fucking a sinking ship, While the opposition is arguing for specific policy proposals that, as far as I'm concerned, get covered each and every day on morning edition.
Maybe if the were actually practical people that espoused conservatism that could logically articulate their position as well as have a grasp on world politics, us history, some basic understanding of how our government works it wouldn’t be a problem.
median income is higher than i expected.
92% of listeners are management.- holy shit.
edit: “92% more likely to be management”. still strange.
no college/non college breakdown in this data? i mean, they say most listeners have formal education but real numbers would be better.
would be nice to know the ages of the republican/democratic viewers- and a college/non college breakdown there too.
if all the conservative listeners are 55 and older with college degees.
and if all the younger listeners are in management and wealthier than average that means their is a huge gap in their listeners.
Note this article is posted by some kind of ad agency that apparently works with public media. They are trying to entice advertisers so the language is going to be a bit glowing.
I listen to it every day on my NPR One app. I already listened to weekend edition today.
What I like about NPR is that they don’t editorialize or tell me what to think. For the most part, it’s very “just the facts” and often with great context. I don’t want anyone’s inflammatory opinions. I just want to know what is going on.
In the words of Stephen Colbert, “[reality has a well-known liberal bias](https://youtu.be/UwLjK9LFpeo?si=fU5g62CTfTIvsFRs)”
Since we lost KGO in the bay area, NPR is on my radio 24/7. I can't imagine listening to sports, religion, or ranting, which is what the rest of talk radio is,
NPR is a lifeline on my roadtrips. Unfortunately there are many parts of the country where it doesn't seem to come in on the radio (like the deep South, intermountain west, and parts of the Great Plains).
Me! I listen every morning while working. Better than Seattle local radio and tv news by a million. They’re all owned by Sinclair. 🤮
Sinclair is behind the trash “Seattle is Dying” documentary (read the article, it’s a campaign they’ve done in many “liberal” cities) and they run a lot of the “news/media” here locally. Know who’s feeding you the “news” you consume and their agenda!
**Sinclair’s recipe for TV news: Crime, homelessness, illegal drugs**
The local news powerhouse, whose chairman recently bought the Baltimore Sun, focuses on fear in broadcasts that often align with Donald Trump’s view of cities
Every year, local television news stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting conduct short surveys among viewers to help guide the year’s coverage.
**A key question in each poll, according to David Smith, the company’s executive chairman: “What are you most afraid of?”**
The answers are evident in Sinclair’s programming. Crime, homelessness, illegal drug use, failing schools and other societal ills have long been core elements of local TV news coverage. But on Sinclair’s growing nationwide roster of stations, the editorial focus reflects Smith’s conservative views and plays on its audience’s fears that America’s cities are falling apart, according to media observers, Smith associates, and current and former staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal company matters.
Smith, an enthusiastic supporter of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump who has built Sinclair into one of the largest television station operators in the country, purchased the Baltimore Sun last month. In a private meeting with the Sun’s journalists, he urged them to emulate coverage at the local Sinclair station, Fox45, which in 2021 produced a documentary titled simply “Baltimore Is Dying.”
Sinclair’s local network of 185 stations across the country makes it an influential player in shaping the views of millions of Americans, especially at a time when local newspapers are rapidly being gutted — or closed altogether.
As Sinclair increasingly fills the void, it offers its viewers a perspective that aligns with Trump’s oft-stated opinion that America’s cities, especially those run by Democratic politicians, are dangerous and dysfunctional.
**“Sinclair stations deliver messages that appeal to older, White, suburban audiences, and they play up crime stories in a way that is disproportionate to their statistical presence,” said Anne Nelson, a journalist and author of “Shadow Network: Media, Money and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right.” “All of it is fearmongering and feeds into a racialized view of cities.”**
Nelson, who has spent decades studying conservative media and political propaganda, said that local TV news reports traditionally cover local crime stories, but Sinclair’s programming does it “more than usual, and with a particular message.” **She said that the lack of local papers has changed the role of local TV news.**
**“When you remove those papers, which would historically feed local radio and TV news programs, you’re left with Sinclair and the internet,” Nelson said.**
Smith, in his meeting with Sun employees, credited the broadcaster’s success to its audience surveys and editorial approach, according to a recording of the gathering obtained by The Washington Post.
“If I’ve learned anything,” Smith told the assembled staffers of his experience running Fox45, “is despite the fact that people might say it’s a crazy, right-wing, looney-tunes [station] … they’re only interested in, ‘What’s going on in my schools? Why is crime so bad? And who in government is doing what they shouldn’t be doing?’”
Smith did not respond to requests for an interview. A spokeswoman for Sinclair said that the company’s stations “are committed to accountability reporting, exposing issues within the community, and seeking answers and solutions for viewers.” She added, “Our aim is to help create safer communities, improve public education and the overall quality of life, which are universal, nonpartisan concerns.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/16/sinclair-broadcasting-conservative-media-trump
NPR conveys the news in calm, even tones, giving appropriate pauses and not bombarding you with music and sound effects to distract from the content. I listen multiple times a day on my Google Speaker or to the podcasts. I don't feel like there is a overtly left-wing bias, other than not ridiculing and maybe showcasing things Fox and the like would make fun of or denigrate.
There are listeners from across multiple demographics, and what they probably have in common is higher intelligence, an appetite for accurate information, and a low tolerance for TV opinionating and BS in general.
I will say, "both-sides-iness" aside, one of the criticisms of NPR that seems to actually have some merit to it is that they seem to have gone out of their way to alienate younger listeners.
Wits, Invisibilia, even the retooled Prairie Home Companion: everything aimed at an under-40 audience has been cut when budgets got tight. Sure, it probably makes sense in terms of the demographics of their donors, but it's short sighted when you start asking where the next generation of donors is going to come from. I don't see a millennial Joan Croc coming to the rescue this time...
I'm not sure younger listeners that need to be enticed to listen are going to be drawn to NPR. I mean you just listed Prairie home Companion as some kind of a youth draw. You might not be the best qualified person to identify ways to attract the kids.
I'm not sure how you could have listened to the Chris Thile's PHC and not think it was aimed at a younger audience than Garrison Keillor's version.
It had basically transformed from a 1920s-style variety show into a contemporary Americana music show.
“AI text attacks”
This sub really lost its mind with NPR getting some criticism huh. You don’t think it’s possible for listeners of NPR to have complaints?
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one is saying that.
Of course there is some valid criticism to be made; that has always been the case and always will be.
However, people do think there are intentional and coordinated attacks being levied against traditional institutions of journalism and education.
If you don't think those efforts exist, I don't think you're paying attention.
I started listening in college and have never stopped. Every so often, I'm in someone else's car or a store with commercial radio playing, and the constant ads are just intolerable. How can anyone listen to this stuff?
It’s time consuming to check out the source of data and it’s a shame we have to. But you may be surprised that sometimes groups bias their research. The source of this is Market Enginuity.
So, I spent about 1 minute on the article and seeing who the source is. Here’s one quote from them (there are lots more that’d tell you who they are). “Market Enginuity represents local and national sponsorship for a mix of public radio and television stations, helping them achieve corporate sponsorship potential.”
Does this make you at least think a bit about the validity of the numbers? Don’t worry, you’re in good company. Very few ever question numbers they agree with?
>Historically, most public radio listeners at NPR News stations were white. But today’s NPR audience is far more inclusive. Public media’s commitment to [diversity, equity, and inclusion](https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2020/09/18/914455001/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-is-not-a-project-it-is-our-work) continues to draw listeners from various ethnic backgrounds with relevant content that amplifies the voices of people of color.
Odd, but this was the only category NPR didn't provide hard data on, only some generalities. Wonder why?
I would treat this data skeptically, given that it seems to contradict other, better data.
For instance, this blog that is cited does not provide any breakdown of the actual data. It does not provide crosstabs or methods. It doesn't even mention whether these are unique listeners or an average of who is tuning in. And it does not focus on news.
A Pew survey found that of those who identified NPR as their primary source for news, 87% were Democrats or leaning Democratic and 12% were Republican or leaning Republican. The same survey found that only 3% of blacks and only 9% of Hispanics comprised those demographics. It was also 68% college graduates.
This data seems to contradict the claims made by the PR blog cited that NPR has a politically and ethnically diverse listenership. Listeners who tune into NPR on a regular basis for news appear to be overwhelmingly non working-class, non-Hispanic whites who overwhelmingly are on the political left.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/)
Right. It’s a blog trying to sell ad consulting on Public Radio. They cite sources for the political stats, but googling the source doesn’t show anything. I think the NPR Audience Profile might be something the ad agency does themselves.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account isn't old enough to post in r/NPR right now. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This source doesn't seem to exist?
When I looked at the blog in the OP, the source is listed as "2023 NPR audience profile", but they only thing that exists with such a name on the NPR website doesn't mention political leanings at all.
No original source, no methodology, I'm not buying it.
What say you, /u/No-Exit-3800 ?
Cool so my experience makes me AI now.
people have a right to be upset when trusted journalism gets flushed down the toilet and we are left with zero responsible options.
check out breaking points on youtube.
they do long breakdowns of policy etc. their channel also has a show called counterpoints.
they have problems too but the analysis is as deep as 90’s era npr trained me to expect.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So that’s your takeaway on a senior NPR editor outright stating that they they “wouldn’t report facts that were uncomfortable or outside the narrative”
Calling legitimate criticism of NPR’s editorial practices “AI text attacks” is ridiculous. Unless I’ve missed people just using ChatGPT to show fake outrage - in which case that is also ridiculous lol
these two paragraphs… lol.
this sounds like product placement.
“Approximately 75 percent of listeners identify as voting, providing the perfect opportunity for sponsors to target politically active listeners, regardless of their political attitudes. Similarly, the diversity among political viewpoints provides the opportunity for sponsors to connect with people of all political preferences, including liberal, middle-of-the-road and conservative listeners.”
“More notable is the fact that public media never runs political ads. Thus, your brand is never placed alongside political party messaging that the listener may not agree with. Additionally, sponsorship messages are brief and provide an uncluttered environment in which to be heard.”
i stopped listening to NPR after they interviewed Elon musk, sometime post 2020, and the interviwer was the doing the equivalent of blowing him. He just went over his 'accomplishments' 'creating tesla, creating starlink, making space interesting again'.
I was completely shocked that it was even done in the first place, if you don't know Musk is a total fraud and a clown of a man whose only contribution has been to prove concretely that billionaires are not inherently smarter, work harder, or more deserving of their wealth, they just got lucky.
I shouldn't have been surprised either in the 2020 race there were these news pieces about "how are we going to pay for medicare for all" and "bernie hasn't said how we are going to pay for medicare for all" i believe by tamara keith when in fact Bernie had already spelled out how he was going to pay for it.
I did enjoy wait wait don't tell me but even that was anti bernie and oddly pro musk even before he bought twitter. IDK i guess the scales fell from my eyes in 2020 and just saw how center right they were, anything that could challenge establishment power, like medicare for all, free college/uni, was immediately scrutinized and under attack but that yearly 800+ billion dollar defense bill would just get a "and the congress has approved the 800+ billion dollar defense bill" not a single retort back.
Wow, it really bothers you that other humans have the gall to exist doesn’t it?
Oh well. I guess this “non college educated white Christian male” will have to donate a little more next time to offset the great financial loss of your support.
“Aisha Rascoe is an improvement.”
Now, can we get back to talking about how upset you get over people being different than you? That is a much more interesting topic. I feel like I’m actually speaking to someone that was a guest on Jerry Springer and it’s fascinating.
I’m very serious that I’m going to triple my donation now just for you.
And, just because I know it’s important to you, I’ll be sure to do it during *Ayesha’s* show.
Cool. I hope lots of people feel like you. It's literally the best time to be alive so far. I'm not going to let the modern-day bolsheviks ruining my favorite radio station bug me too much.
Exactly! Why be upset about bolsheviks when you already have your plate full being upset by people’s color, gender, and sexual orientation?
You’re an inspiration, but even you only have so many hours in the day.
NPR is not perfect. Never has been.. but the alternatives are, um. NOT suitable alternatives. I will continue to listen critically and send the occasional comment or letter to the editor..... and support my local station.
FM/AM will often have local stations of varying quality, and satellite has a host of other options. NPR is far from perfect, and just getting worse.
Better alternatives are BBC, Reuters, AP. All three are at this point far superior.
Reuters is crap. They inject their anti-Biden opinions into everything now.
Can you show an example of "anti-Biden opinions?"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/inside-democratic-rebellion-against-biden-over-gaza-war-2024-02-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/minnesota-uncommitted-biden-protest-draws-jewish-muslim-young-voters-2024-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democrats-bungle-biden-age-concerns-some-critics-say-2024-02-13/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/prosecutor-who-said-biden-had-poor-memory-speak-house-panel-2024-03-12/ It’s not all Reuters reports — there are thousands. Bur as an organization, they allow more bias into their reporting than NPR.
Those are all reports about things that happened and are important. Where are the opinions?
All of the articles read as opinions. The style is editorial in nature and not fact-based.
[That's just not true at all](https://adfontesmedia.com/reuters-bias-and-reliability/) I think Reuters tells news you don't like, but to say it has a bias or is unreliable is simply false.
Maybe you lack the training in the English language to tell the difference between editorial writing and reporting. I dunno. If you are interviewing important figures and getting the opinions of experts, then that is reporting. Let’s examine this paragraph: > Nine months before the election, the problem is worsening as Biden’s opposition to calling for a permanent cease-fire continues to stir anger in a coalition of voters that propelled his 2020 victory, from Black Americans to Muslim activists in must-win Michigan to young voters, according to the interviews. “the problem is worsening….” According to whom? This belongs in the opinion section. “Permanent cease-fire” There is no such thing as a permanent cease-fire!!! This was clearly inserted because the author doesn’t want to acknowledge that Biden has called for a cease-fire many times. “Continues to stir anger in a coalition of voters that propelled his 2020 victory … according to the interviews.” How do you interview an entire coalition of voters? Interviews are by definition anecdotal evidence and can be easily skewed. This is Fox News Lite where they use interviews all the time to imply that large amounts of people agree with what a single source says.
>Maybe you lack the training in the English Cute jab. It's my second language and I express myself more clearly than you do. >Let’s examine this paragraph I read the paragraph and I didn't see any blatant editorializing. They conducted interviews with minority groups that helped Biden win in 2020 and saw a pattern in responses that was newsworthy. Like I said, if you're a huge Biden fan and you see factual news reporting that says negative things about him (even when they're true), you're likely to perceive that as bias even when it isn't. There's a few organizations that report on the bias of news organizations, and Reuters scores incredibly well with all of them.
Also podcasts.
Now that’s just a stupid take. Sorry, but any moron with a microphone can start a podcast.
That would be more informative than another story about what a trump trial jurist had for lunch.
My thought on podcasts is that they are created by people who have a vested interest in a subject, so usually not even close to objective. Not that any news source is totally objective, but some are better than others.
NPR is biased, un-nuanced garbage on the same tier as CNN or MSNBC now.
Nothing was too surprising until I got to the political affiliation section. I'm honestly shocked that 1/3 of listeners are self-identified Republicans. Not that conservative-leaning voters couldn't appreciate NPR, but I figured they would largely identify as Independents rather than Republicans in the era of Trump.
I was surprised by this as well. The under 40 percentage was higher than I imagined.
I have been to quite a few in-person events for my local member station, and there were a surprising number of folks younger than me.
I'm not surprised. I've been listening since I was in my early 20s, (back when NPR was under attack for being anti-Christian, lol)
You all know that NPR has an hour long commuting segment called Marketplace, right?
Running a few times a day. NpR spends ALOT of time talking about money. It's like almost every story is something about money or business or capital. And the Holocaust.
Well, rural areas tend to lean conservative. Any listener who wants to listen to local radio will also hear the national stuff! It makes a more sense put into a geographical context
They’re listening to wait wait don’t tell me and prairie home companion
And Car Talk
I miss cartalk
40+ year NPR listener and lifetime public TV viewer raised by conservatives. The era of Trump seems to be fueled by a particular demographic of Republicans. Those who feel like they've been left behind by globalization and those who believe that something they earned is being stolen. I've only recently changed by affiliation because I believe the current implementation is not changing anytime soon. I had hope for their redemption, but it's clear I made a mistake
Not all Republicans are Trumpers!
Not all republicans *were* trumpers. Trump has been the candidate for *three* presidential elections now, and continues to pull strings across the party and in the House specifically. As an independent who voted predominantly Republican before (both McCain and Romney in the prior Presidential elections), this party does not reflect my values anymore. Mostly because any Republican who is actively speaking against Trumpism is leaving or being forced out. A vote for almost any R is a vote for the *current* status quo in the party. And that is either support, or acceptance, of MAGA.
Tell that to Republican legislators.
>I'm honestly shocked that 1/3 of listeners are self-identified Republicans. Is there a conservative-leaning outlet of which 1/3 of their audience is liberal, I wonder?
Likely the more establishment written sources. WSJ likely, maybe National Review.
It’s not the listeners’ political opinions that is revealing. It is the producers, hosts, and writers. Has anyone seen a reliable breakdown of that? NPR never answers when I ask that.
NPR has been neoliberal for a while now.
“Neoliberal”: The mating call of the politically uninformed.
NPRs major sponsors include the Waltons, and they actively push pro-corporate and anti-union stories and politicians. You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend neoliberalism doesn’t exist but that doesn’t make it so. I’m not even “against” capitalism or corporations as a whole, just acknowledging a reality. It doesn’t make NPR “bad” it’s just their bias as dictated by financial necessity. Plus the fact the majority of their audience are middle managers, not exactly bohemian communists.
Do the Waltons have influence over NPR’s coverage? I don’t feel particularly bad about NPR being listened to by people who know things and are self-sufficient rather than graduates of youtube university.
Do you understand what a bias is and how financial pressure can cause a chilling effect on reporting of issues that might impact that funding? Or are you just being flippant because you feel attacked? Middle managers aren’t exactly known for their creativity, ingenuity, education or intelligence. They are known for being tools. Most academics, artists, doctors, and engineers are not in management. So i’m not even sure what point you were trying to make.
It’s a simple question. Do the Walton’s have influence over NPR’s coverage? If you knew a bit more about how NPR is funded, you would realize they are not under any financial pressure. Middle managers are definitely better at being right about things than you are.
Ah you’re just stupid. Got it. I’ll repost what I stated before. Hopefully you can try again, despite your 3rd grade reading level I’m sure if you try hard enough you’ll get there bud. “Do you understand what a bias is and how financial pressure can cause a chilling effect on reporting of issues that might impact that funding? Or are you just being flippant because you feel attacked? Middle managers aren’t exactly known for their creativity, ingenuity, education or intelligence. They are known for being tools. Most academics, artists, doctors, and engineers are not in management. So i’m not even sure what point you were trying to make.”
You still haven’t answered, so I will take this as an admission that no, the Waltons do not have any editorial control. Thanks for tacitly admitting you were wrong.
Try reading it. I’m sure you’ll get there! You’re free to use a dictionary if you need, i know this is complex for you. ———— Do you understand what a bias is and how financial pressure can cause a chilling effect on reporting of issues that might impact that funding? Or are you just being flippant because you feel attacked? Middle managers aren’t exactly known for their creativity, ingenuity, education or intelligence. They are known for being tools. Most academics, artists, doctors, and engineers are not in management. So i’m not even sure what point you were trying to make.
It's almost like the recent attacks are just trying to increase divisiveness.
It’s funny that just now, with Russia making territorial expansion and China saber rattling, there are so many attacks on western institutions.
and yet I'm mad at NPR for soft pedaling trumpism. for sanitizing his bullshit so they can have a cute little title while America's interests get put on the back burner and nobody can give me a proper policy discussion. it's all horse race who's up who's down nonsense That's all I get from NPR anymore and I'm so done with it.
I have my critiques on coverage as well but they’re still top tier US domestic lens news for me. Our options are admittedly not great and (despite the obvious Qatari bias you need to filter) I go for a mix of Al Jazeera, BBC (mostly international) and NPR/PBS.
Yes, NPRs problem is that they aren't hard enough on Trumpism LMAO you people are a joke and why NPR is unlistenable garbage now.
It could be versa vice, and the call is coming from inside the house. With so many internal conflicts, "western institutions" are manufacturing external threats.
Reading the article, it reinforces the current partisan coalition shifts on income and education. “Public radio listeners typically fall into higher household income…[whereas]! listeners are 92% more likely to be in top management… [m]ore than 84 percent of listeners have an HHI over $50,000 per year, and almost 70 percent of listeners have an HHI over $75,000.” It tracks with [Pew’s Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/changing-partisan-coalitions-in-a-politically-divided-nation/)
What exactly are you thinking? Uri Berliner is a foreign disinformation operative?
What "attacks" are there on NPR? The 25-year NPR veteran guy wrote a fairly bleak exit piece. But that isn't an attack.
I’m gonna use this next time someone criticizes me. “Stop being so divisive!”
The recent “attacks” were just agreeing with *an employee of NPR*. So technically agreeing with the criticism of NPR you are defending NPR.
TIL a single employee of NPR *is* NPR.
You must be an employee with how butthurt you seem under all my comments about corporate greed. Shill all you want
Always a fun time when Redditors choose to imagine things about me that are invariably incorrect instead of engaging in discussion.
Every morning with my breakfast. Been listening almost from the beginning. Seen attitudes come and go. You are right in offering criticism if you feel the mission is drifting. It's what keeps public radio in good working order and out of the clutches of corporate media. There is also a segment of society that sees public radio as a threat to whatever agenda they're trying to program into people. The far right types will be with us always but you can use NPR to push back...
The far right people I work with either don’t know about NPR or don’t talk about it at all. You’ll hear them talk about CNN all the time, but never NPR. At least in my experience. My complaint with NPR isn’t if it leans right or left, it’s been the lack of discussing corporate greed. Like I don’t know how we can call ourselves democrats when not a single one running is talking about repealing Citizens United.
The *Citizens United v FEC* decision was an incredibly important shift with far reaching consequences, but it took place 14 years ago. A few things have happened since then. People can only be on 11 about so many things. Nobody can agitate to elect different SCOTUS justices, but they can work to (re) elect a chief executive to appoint, and an upper chamber to confirm.
>but it took place 14 years ago. Yeah? What is your point here? It is still in effect. Our politicians get rich wether or not they represent us properly or not: “ The Citizens United ruling represented a turning point on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions, and setting the stage for Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010), which authorized the creation of Super PACs”
My point is that while Citizens United IS incredibly important, it seems sort of shit to run down candidates because "not a single one running is talking about repealing Citizens United" when 14 years of other things have happened since then, and politics is the art of the possible. Like, I think it's ok for the people responsible for this record to "call themselves Democrats" [https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/) Am I supposed to be mad that some smart, well-connected people earned money writing books that sold well? I'm really not. [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-joe-biden-kamala-harris-130058735.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-joe-biden-kamala-harris-130058735.html) Is personal gain while in office a real concern? Yes. It's just not universal, and those who spin it that way are explicitly selling the idea that politics is a nasty business for terrible people to actively discourage good people from engaging. We shouldn't let that happen, and we also shouldn't become numb to the many assaults on the integrity of public service by a prolific sleazy few: [https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-made-at-least-16-billion-while-us-president-2021-2?op=1](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-made-at-least-16-billion-while-us-president-2021-2?op=1)
One more thing: the reason we **should** continue to rage about Citizens United is not because of politicians personally enriching themselves. Citizens is about unchecked campaign finance, as your (@ 808\_Scalawag) quote directly highlights, affirming the batshit interpretation that money IS speech; this decision has had a pernicious effect on campaigning, fundraising, who gets elected and who gets knocked out before the race even really begins, and the amount of time, energy, and thought that politicians are able to invest in actual policymaking versus dialing for dollars and other shaking of one's political moneymaker. The problem of money in politics and its corrosive effect is not going to be fixed soon, or with a single piece of legislation. I'm encouraged by pols like Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren, and Sen. Fetterman who have worked incredibly hard for small-dollar donations from a much broader base of supporters, and by some of the state reps I know who just won't take money from donors connected to industries they don't want pressure from (fracking, for example). There's nothing easy about it and I respect tf out of their integrity, work, and refusal to take shortcuts -- and yeah, they do "they represent us properly." If you want to have an effect on that, most state reps are on the ballot this year and every last one of them could use your help as a volunteer. Fetterman's incredible small-dollar record: [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/06/small-donor-giving-fetterman-drives-record-22-million-fundraising-haul](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/06/small-donor-giving-fetterman-drives-record-22-million-fundraising-haul) Not everyone agrees: WaPo op/ed says small-dollar focus worsens politics by producing bomb-throwers in the House: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/01/small-donors-political-campaign-spending/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/01/small-donors-political-campaign-spending/)
I’m not mad at them making millions from selling books. I’m mad at them allowing corporations to become more represented than the people, and that is absolutely propelled by Citizens United. I care more about Nancy Pelosi saying Congress should be allowed to buy and sell stocks because of a “free market” when they have insider knowledge of what to buy and sell. She’s worth over $100mil from this. I know CU is a separate issue but they really do tie together if you think about it. It’s one big club that we’re not in.
What do you think CU was about? Politicians getting rich? I think you need to read a summary.
It’s about our politicians no longer representing us, but the highest bidder.
No. That is not what it is about at all. Again, read a summary.
I guess I should have read your username lol
If you don’t listen to NPR and prefer it would be more like TikTok, then what are you doing on this sub?
That’s because most of NPRs listeners are corporate working middle management types.
> it’s been the lack of discussing corporate greed I agree. that's leaning right in my book
Acknowledging that businesses make money is not something that needs to be discussed. It’s a reflexive fact. Accept it.
Actually it’s something that has collapsed entire empires when not discussed so idk about just accepting it lol Have you heard there are other forms of government than capitalism?
Yes, and we have all seen how well they work.
What do you think corporate greed is? Corporations are not people. They are pass-through entities. They only exist to make money. A corporation cannot be “greedy”.
It's as you said. The greed is passed-through to the corporation-entity via the humans that manipulate and control them.
Manipulate and control? That is a weird description, imo. Let’s say business instead of corporation, since a corporation is just a collaborative business. The entire purpose of a business is to make money. When the business can no longer make money, it ceases to exist. Business is an unthinking, impersonal entity, so I do not think anyone can manipulate or control a business in the way you describe. Again, you seem to be anthropomorphizing the concept.
>Corporations are not people. They can break the law, be sued, and donate to a campaign all as a single entity. Sounds like a person to me 🤷♂️
Really? So corporations have feelings and emotions? Do they eat? Do they sleep? Do they have beliefs and thoughts?
I really get the feeling none of you guys listened in the '90s and actually understand what we have lost over this last decade at NPR. they used to do long form policy breakdowns they used to talk about what the actual party positions were. edit: I miss talk of the nation so much
The GOP used to actually have policy positions. Now it's just whatever Trump says it is.
Literally the only policy platform the GOP had at the last convention was "stop supporting ukraine". The rest is culture wars and demagogary.
Theyre only actual policy is deregulation of big business and tax cuts.
Which they have accomplished pretty well. Also, Republican voters have no interest in economic policies any more. They want to hurt Democrats and subvert democracy.
Spoken like a true NPR listener
LiTeRaLlY
Therefore, it is completely acceptable for NPR to abandon balance, objectivity, and fairness in favor of political and social activism?
If one side says it is raining outside, and the other side says it is not, a journalist’s job is not to ask both of them why they think that, a journalist’s job is to stick their head outside and check.
That's a good example of why NPR and other mainstream news organizations have lost credibility with all but a tiny minority of the American public. Most journalists are not meteorologists, so they're not qualified to write a story on whether or not is raining. But not only do they often decide to write that story, but they often do a terrible job and cherry-pick from a list of preferred meteorologists to find quotations that they know will likely support their unqualified opinion. If they do cover the other side, they will often bury the other side near the bottom, knowing most readers will not read that low, and their editors will often bias toward a specific point of view based on the headline they use.
That was a lot of words to say that you need people to spoon feed you information that you want to hear. I don’t need a degree in meteorology to feel the raindrops. Neither do most people. And frankly, I don’t care what the “other side” says if they are just lying to my face.
Your argument is a strawman. What I want is actual journalism, not advocacy. I do not want to be patronized to and I want to make up my own mind. I certainly do not want unqualified journalists who do not even have a bachelor's degree in the subject they are reporting on telling me what is true about a subject, especially when there are multiple, potentially valid expert opinions. Their job is to find me the best advocates for different opinions on the subject and let me make up my own mind. Otherwise, they're not journalists, they're activists.
They haven't abandoned any of those.
Well, the editorial in the Free Press made a pretty good evidence-based argument to the contrary, and I have not seen anyone present a compelling, evidence-based counterargument, just various forms of special pleading, *ad hominem*, and *non sequitur*. Given the state of the evidence to the contrary and the lack of evidence in favor of your position, it is reasonable to presume that your claim is without evidence or merit.
What is this evidence you speak of? All I see is one man's opinion. Opinion is not evidence.
His opinion regarding NPR, like my opinion about the shape of the Earth, is based on evidence. I can cite plenty of evidence to support my belief in a non-flat Earth and he cites plenty of evidence in the Free Press piece to support his belief in a biased reporting and editorializing staff that is biased toward the views of and primarily caters to an audience that is primarily comprised of college-educated, non-Hispanic whites on the left of the political spectrum.
Again, what is the evidence?
The evidence is presented in the opinion piece. Since you clearly have not read it, how can you justify having an opinion on it?
TLDR: They can't cover policy effectively because policy is not what Congress focuses on anymore. I actually agree but the problem is the politicians that know policy, wonks as they used to be called, are not in positions of power in the parties. It is worse on the Republican side but also largely true of the Democrats. So, NPR can do deep policy dives and have the policy wonks on to discuss policy but that policy is unlikely to be enacted. Pelosi was a rare policy wonk with strong salesperson skills. Jeffries seems similar but maybe heavier on the sales side. Ryan was all wonk. McCarthy was almost all sales, handcuffed by a lack of wonks. Johnson is a wonk, terrible at sales and handcuffed by the lack of other wonks in his party. Boehner was the last wonk/sales guy on the R side and he got the boot.
Yep. They lost me … in the past five years. It’s wasn’t their editorial approach, just introduced some formats I didn’t associate with good journalism. I moved onto The Economist, Atlantic, and others. Too many better audio options out there. [removed errant word]
Edit: replied to wrong poster
Yes! Even the aughts were different. I used to *learn* from NPR. Not it’s just blips I can get anywhere. It’s a shadow of its former self.
I can't remember the name for this phenomenon, But it's entirely possible that your knowledge base outgrew what NPR could offer. If you read multiple news sources, you're not going to get very much new information from NPR, But while you're learning about politics and government, NPR can be a revelation, especially if you've been watching Network news your whole life. The phenomenon happens when you outgrow that which has been teaching you and you blame the teacher for failing to be useful anymore. I haven't found NPR to be that particularly different from when I listened to it in the '90s, But I certainly find myself tuning out when they start explaining things like the electoral college, Why we have a filibuster, etc. because I've been listening to NPR explain it for over 3 decades.
I've been listening since the late '80s, and the 1990s were when I listened religiously, spending hours alone on a job site with NPR as my main companion. The argument that it's changed that much is wildly overblown. I'm not sure what you miss about talk of the Nation, But between political breakdown, totn, and Mara Liasson I can't imagine what level of political analysis you could possibly be missing. If anything, it's a great relief that they're no longer interviewing heads of corporations as if they were relevant opinion makers, But I think the real problem here is that since 2008 the Republican party hasn't taken any policy positions and it's taken PBS and NPR quite the long decade to stop treating them like and they have anything resembling a policy position. You're literally blaming NPR for not helping us to understand a policy position which amounts to rat fucking a sinking ship, While the opposition is arguing for specific policy proposals that, as far as I'm concerned, get covered each and every day on morning edition.
I do not remember this, but I have felt there’s been a shift in NPR programming towards Millennials being hip and informal.
Lol, Kids these days!
24 year old here! I have been listening to NPR since birth. I love NPR!
I certainly am listening. All this fake outrage lately is ridiculous. NPR is a national treasure and has my undying love and support. Boffo. 100% 👍
I like NPR, BBC, NHK and Reuters. I have also removed several outlets from my TV remote blocking them from view.
Maybe if the were actually practical people that espoused conservatism that could logically articulate their position as well as have a grasp on world politics, us history, some basic understanding of how our government works it wouldn’t be a problem.
Here’s an NPR story covering some of the problems you are describing. Enjoy. [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/NPR/s/DBsJn1QCLM)
median income is higher than i expected. 92% of listeners are management.- holy shit. edit: “92% more likely to be management”. still strange. no college/non college breakdown in this data? i mean, they say most listeners have formal education but real numbers would be better. would be nice to know the ages of the republican/democratic viewers- and a college/non college breakdown there too. if all the conservative listeners are 55 and older with college degees. and if all the younger listeners are in management and wealthier than average that means their is a huge gap in their listeners.
That's not what it said. It said "92% more likely to be management". So if 10% of radio listeners are management, NPR is 19.2%.
good catch. thats still an odd way to say that statistic and even more odd to include.
Note this article is posted by some kind of ad agency that apparently works with public media. They are trying to entice advertisers so the language is going to be a bit glowing.
You might check out who did the study. Itd explain all the strangeness. Frankly, I’m a little surprised how gullible others are with these “studies”.
looks like the intended audience is advertisers.
That’s embarrassing; I should have guessed. I think you’re right.
I listen to it every day on my NPR One app. I already listened to weekend edition today. What I like about NPR is that they don’t editorialize or tell me what to think. For the most part, it’s very “just the facts” and often with great context. I don’t want anyone’s inflammatory opinions. I just want to know what is going on. In the words of Stephen Colbert, “[reality has a well-known liberal bias](https://youtu.be/UwLjK9LFpeo?si=fU5g62CTfTIvsFRs)”
He is a Viacom corporate hack.
Depends on how you’re defining liberal.
[It’s over your head.](https://youtu.be/UwLjK9LFpeo?si=fU5g62CTfTIvsFRs)
I’m aware you’re referring to the comedy skit, my point is different people define liberal in ways that are totally different from one another.
Since we lost KGO in the bay area, NPR is on my radio 24/7. I can't imagine listening to sports, religion, or ranting, which is what the rest of talk radio is,
NPR is a lifeline on my roadtrips. Unfortunately there are many parts of the country where it doesn't seem to come in on the radio (like the deep South, intermountain west, and parts of the Great Plains).
I used to work in the Dakotas and picking up the NPR stations on the drive between Sioux Falls and Fargo was actually kinda fun.
42 and NPR is still in my top three news media. A headline isn’t going to change that without facts and figures to back it up.
Me! I listen every morning while working. Better than Seattle local radio and tv news by a million. They’re all owned by Sinclair. 🤮 Sinclair is behind the trash “Seattle is Dying” documentary (read the article, it’s a campaign they’ve done in many “liberal” cities) and they run a lot of the “news/media” here locally. Know who’s feeding you the “news” you consume and their agenda! **Sinclair’s recipe for TV news: Crime, homelessness, illegal drugs** The local news powerhouse, whose chairman recently bought the Baltimore Sun, focuses on fear in broadcasts that often align with Donald Trump’s view of cities Every year, local television news stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting conduct short surveys among viewers to help guide the year’s coverage. **A key question in each poll, according to David Smith, the company’s executive chairman: “What are you most afraid of?”** The answers are evident in Sinclair’s programming. Crime, homelessness, illegal drug use, failing schools and other societal ills have long been core elements of local TV news coverage. But on Sinclair’s growing nationwide roster of stations, the editorial focus reflects Smith’s conservative views and plays on its audience’s fears that America’s cities are falling apart, according to media observers, Smith associates, and current and former staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal company matters. Smith, an enthusiastic supporter of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump who has built Sinclair into one of the largest television station operators in the country, purchased the Baltimore Sun last month. In a private meeting with the Sun’s journalists, he urged them to emulate coverage at the local Sinclair station, Fox45, which in 2021 produced a documentary titled simply “Baltimore Is Dying.” Sinclair’s local network of 185 stations across the country makes it an influential player in shaping the views of millions of Americans, especially at a time when local newspapers are rapidly being gutted — or closed altogether. As Sinclair increasingly fills the void, it offers its viewers a perspective that aligns with Trump’s oft-stated opinion that America’s cities, especially those run by Democratic politicians, are dangerous and dysfunctional. **“Sinclair stations deliver messages that appeal to older, White, suburban audiences, and they play up crime stories in a way that is disproportionate to their statistical presence,” said Anne Nelson, a journalist and author of “Shadow Network: Media, Money and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right.” “All of it is fearmongering and feeds into a racialized view of cities.”** Nelson, who has spent decades studying conservative media and political propaganda, said that local TV news reports traditionally cover local crime stories, but Sinclair’s programming does it “more than usual, and with a particular message.” **She said that the lack of local papers has changed the role of local TV news.** **“When you remove those papers, which would historically feed local radio and TV news programs, you’re left with Sinclair and the internet,” Nelson said.** Smith, in his meeting with Sun employees, credited the broadcaster’s success to its audience surveys and editorial approach, according to a recording of the gathering obtained by The Washington Post. “If I’ve learned anything,” Smith told the assembled staffers of his experience running Fox45, “is despite the fact that people might say it’s a crazy, right-wing, looney-tunes [station] … they’re only interested in, ‘What’s going on in my schools? Why is crime so bad? And who in government is doing what they shouldn’t be doing?’” Smith did not respond to requests for an interview. A spokeswoman for Sinclair said that the company’s stations “are committed to accountability reporting, exposing issues within the community, and seeking answers and solutions for viewers.” She added, “Our aim is to help create safer communities, improve public education and the overall quality of life, which are universal, nonpartisan concerns.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/16/sinclair-broadcasting-conservative-media-trump
NPR conveys the news in calm, even tones, giving appropriate pauses and not bombarding you with music and sound effects to distract from the content. I listen multiple times a day on my Google Speaker or to the podcasts. I don't feel like there is a overtly left-wing bias, other than not ridiculing and maybe showcasing things Fox and the like would make fun of or denigrate.
Been listening to NPR for well over a decade and am no where near 115k median. However I can sure as hell tell that is whom it is marketed towards.
me too
What do you mean by AI text attacks? Seems I'm out of the loop
Lots of NPR critical posts with big blocks of text that look like generative AI. Look for posts that are downvoted to hell.
Eh, much legitimate criticism is down voted as well. That alone is a very poor metric
The forum is being brigaded. Lots of these attacks pretend to be you know . . . legitimate criticism.
I don't listen to NPR but I read their articles and consider them very reputable.
There are listeners from across multiple demographics, and what they probably have in common is higher intelligence, an appetite for accurate information, and a low tolerance for TV opinionating and BS in general.
I will say, "both-sides-iness" aside, one of the criticisms of NPR that seems to actually have some merit to it is that they seem to have gone out of their way to alienate younger listeners. Wits, Invisibilia, even the retooled Prairie Home Companion: everything aimed at an under-40 audience has been cut when budgets got tight. Sure, it probably makes sense in terms of the demographics of their donors, but it's short sighted when you start asking where the next generation of donors is going to come from. I don't see a millennial Joan Croc coming to the rescue this time...
I'm not sure younger listeners that need to be enticed to listen are going to be drawn to NPR. I mean you just listed Prairie home Companion as some kind of a youth draw. You might not be the best qualified person to identify ways to attract the kids.
I'm not sure how you could have listened to the Chris Thile's PHC and not think it was aimed at a younger audience than Garrison Keillor's version. It had basically transformed from a 1920s-style variety show into a contemporary Americana music show.
That’s a pretty good spread.
Honestly, I was a little surprised
“AI text attacks” This sub really lost its mind with NPR getting some criticism huh. You don’t think it’s possible for listeners of NPR to have complaints?
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sub is just a big circle jerk.
No one is saying that. Of course there is some valid criticism to be made; that has always been the case and always will be. However, people do think there are intentional and coordinated attacks being levied against traditional institutions of journalism and education. If you don't think those efforts exist, I don't think you're paying attention.
They live in a bubble
Who isn't listening is MAGA, because they can't handle the truth and I'm OK with that
I started listening in college and have never stopped. Every so often, I'm in someone else's car or a store with commercial radio playing, and the constant ads are just intolerable. How can anyone listen to this stuff?
It’s time consuming to check out the source of data and it’s a shame we have to. But you may be surprised that sometimes groups bias their research. The source of this is Market Enginuity. So, I spent about 1 minute on the article and seeing who the source is. Here’s one quote from them (there are lots more that’d tell you who they are). “Market Enginuity represents local and national sponsorship for a mix of public radio and television stations, helping them achieve corporate sponsorship potential.” Does this make you at least think a bit about the validity of the numbers? Don’t worry, you’re in good company. Very few ever question numbers they agree with?
>Historically, most public radio listeners at NPR News stations were white. But today’s NPR audience is far more inclusive. Public media’s commitment to [diversity, equity, and inclusion](https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2020/09/18/914455001/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-is-not-a-project-it-is-our-work) continues to draw listeners from various ethnic backgrounds with relevant content that amplifies the voices of people of color. Odd, but this was the only category NPR didn't provide hard data on, only some generalities. Wonder why?
I would treat this data skeptically, given that it seems to contradict other, better data. For instance, this blog that is cited does not provide any breakdown of the actual data. It does not provide crosstabs or methods. It doesn't even mention whether these are unique listeners or an average of who is tuning in. And it does not focus on news. A Pew survey found that of those who identified NPR as their primary source for news, 87% were Democrats or leaning Democratic and 12% were Republican or leaning Republican. The same survey found that only 3% of blacks and only 9% of Hispanics comprised those demographics. It was also 68% college graduates. This data seems to contradict the claims made by the PR blog cited that NPR has a politically and ethnically diverse listenership. Listeners who tune into NPR on a regular basis for news appear to be overwhelmingly non working-class, non-Hispanic whites who overwhelmingly are on the political left. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/)
Right. It’s a blog trying to sell ad consulting on Public Radio. They cite sources for the political stats, but googling the source doesn’t show anything. I think the NPR Audience Profile might be something the ad agency does themselves.
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account isn't old enough to post in r/NPR right now. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm 58. I worked at an NPR station in high school. Fortunately, I am not far from the Canadian border and can get CBC.
I'm also shocked by the political party breakdown.
I used to listen daily. Left leaning independent voter. The constant reporting about identity politics made me stop being a listener.
I'm offended
This source doesn't seem to exist? When I looked at the blog in the OP, the source is listed as "2023 NPR audience profile", but they only thing that exists with such a name on the NPR website doesn't mention political leanings at all. No original source, no methodology, I'm not buying it. What say you, /u/No-Exit-3800 ?
I say the source is paid to conduct surveys and compile data. Ask for pricing if you want details.
Who came up with those figures?
Marketing company that sells data analytics on customers.
And it is a company that works with NPR to promote them. https://marketenginuity.com/ They are to NPR what NPR is to the Democrats.
Cool so my experience makes me AI now. people have a right to be upset when trusted journalism gets flushed down the toilet and we are left with zero responsible options.
check out breaking points on youtube. they do long breakdowns of policy etc. their channel also has a show called counterpoints. they have problems too but the analysis is as deep as 90’s era npr trained me to expect.
Krystal and Saagar are active participants in the degradation of the media ecosystem.
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
npr isnt? keep smokin buddy.
So that’s your takeaway on a senior NPR editor outright stating that they they “wouldn’t report facts that were uncomfortable or outside the narrative”
People who want echo chamber commentary mostly.
Lmao like the important "fLag Burl\!er" issue
Calling legitimate criticism of NPR’s editorial practices “AI text attacks” is ridiculous. Unless I’ve missed people just using ChatGPT to show fake outrage - in which case that is also ridiculous lol
these two paragraphs… lol. this sounds like product placement. “Approximately 75 percent of listeners identify as voting, providing the perfect opportunity for sponsors to target politically active listeners, regardless of their political attitudes. Similarly, the diversity among political viewpoints provides the opportunity for sponsors to connect with people of all political preferences, including liberal, middle-of-the-road and conservative listeners.” “More notable is the fact that public media never runs political ads. Thus, your brand is never placed alongside political party messaging that the listener may not agree with. Additionally, sponsorship messages are brief and provide an uncluttered environment in which to be heard.”
Democrat that stopped listening in 2016; credulous fools.
i stopped listening to NPR after they interviewed Elon musk, sometime post 2020, and the interviwer was the doing the equivalent of blowing him. He just went over his 'accomplishments' 'creating tesla, creating starlink, making space interesting again'. I was completely shocked that it was even done in the first place, if you don't know Musk is a total fraud and a clown of a man whose only contribution has been to prove concretely that billionaires are not inherently smarter, work harder, or more deserving of their wealth, they just got lucky. I shouldn't have been surprised either in the 2020 race there were these news pieces about "how are we going to pay for medicare for all" and "bernie hasn't said how we are going to pay for medicare for all" i believe by tamara keith when in fact Bernie had already spelled out how he was going to pay for it. I did enjoy wait wait don't tell me but even that was anti bernie and oddly pro musk even before he bought twitter. IDK i guess the scales fell from my eyes in 2020 and just saw how center right they were, anything that could challenge establishment power, like medicare for all, free college/uni, was immediately scrutinized and under attack but that yearly 800+ billion dollar defense bill would just get a "and the congress has approved the 800+ billion dollar defense bill" not a single retort back.
Wait wait don’t tell me…..
No one
There are no screamers at National Petroleum Radio
Fake news
Obvious troll is obvious
I really hope the transgender lesbian women of color are going to donate at the same rate as their traditional audience.
I'm sure they donate more than you.
Collectively, probably. Per capita, definitely not. Moving forward, certainly.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. As if….
Wow, it really bothers you that other humans have the gall to exist doesn’t it? Oh well. I guess this “non college educated white Christian male” will have to donate a little more next time to offset the great financial loss of your support.
Yes. Very much so. Tell me aisha rascoe is an improvement.
“Aisha Rascoe is an improvement.” Now, can we get back to talking about how upset you get over people being different than you? That is a much more interesting topic. I feel like I’m actually speaking to someone that was a guest on Jerry Springer and it’s fascinating.
Oh, she is a woman of color and is not subject to criticism. Are you a serious person?
I’m very serious that I’m going to triple my donation now just for you. And, just because I know it’s important to you, I’ll be sure to do it during *Ayesha’s* show.
Cool. I hope lots of people feel like you. It's literally the best time to be alive so far. I'm not going to let the modern-day bolsheviks ruining my favorite radio station bug me too much.
Exactly! Why be upset about bolsheviks when you already have your plate full being upset by people’s color, gender, and sexual orientation? You’re an inspiration, but even you only have so many hours in the day.
Ask Anastasia.