3 ms·

I feel like NPR has gotten worse in the last 10 years. Completely ignoring the topic of bias, (because it's a fruitless minefield) it seems difficult to encount

I feel like NPR has gotten worse in the last 10 years. Completely ignoring the topic of bias, (because it's a fruitless minefield) it seems difficult to encounter a story on NPR that isn't primarily about emotions. NPR seems to believe that a story is only accessible if there's a single person (or small group of people) who can directly emote about the wrongness of a situation. A caricature of an NPR story might go something like this "As violent insurgency breaks out in [some country], we bring you no details about the local politics, tribes, or history, but instead 15 minutes of an individual mother telling you just how miserable her life is. And here she is along with some ambient sounds so you can really feel like you're there." I'm aware that there's a group of folks who believe that personal stories are relatable, while statistics are easily ignored. At best, I feel like this view is shortsighted: not everyone works this way, and sympathy shouldn't be limited to cases with emotional proximity. (ie, rational ethics are possible) At worst, NPR is deciding how you should feel about the story by inserting an emotion-based testimonial.

colordrops 7y ago
NPR is as much of a mouthpiece for the elite as any other mainstream media source. Their two top contributors are Lockhead Martin and Walmart, yet you don't hear many ads for them over the air, so how is NPR paying them back for their contributions? That would be maintaining the Overton window and publishing stories that support the military industrial complex and neo-liberal agendas.
- everdrive 7y ago
  My attempts to discuss NPR's shortcomings in an apolitical way are off to a terrible start.
  - colordrops 7y ago
    I don't really take my comment to be that political. More about corporate control of the power structures. Is there something incorrect about my comment? Shouldn't root cause be discussed when talking about shortcomings? I do believe their emotional story telling is an intentional weakening to avoid hard hitting true journalism that challenges power structures. Edit: ironic that the original comment was about NPR being too emotional and yet a discussion about factual details is emotionally down voted as "political".
SubiculumCode 7y ago
NPR is generally vacuous. Some Public Radio shows do/did have in depth coverage (e.g. Diane Rehm show, but she is now retired). The fact is many people like it at that level...they want the human story and the gist. They do not want a nuanced and detailed understanding of geopolitical and cultural events, etc. For that, I've moved on to other sources...but these tend to be specialized policy blogs.
Loughla 7y ago
Nailed it. I haven't been able to put it into words, but you absolutely nailed it. You get that people are suffering, and even a glimpse into how, but absolutely no reasons why, except 'the Houthi rebels have been fighting for ten years' or some other one line plug. There's less and less actual news on NPR and more, and more emotions.
asark 7y ago
Like everyone else they're devoting a lot of time, very early (it's NEXT F*CKING YEAR!) to the US Presidential election, and, as usual, 90% of their time is horse-race crap. How should so-and-so's campaign handle this jab? How're those poll numbers looking? Issues and fact-checking statements and positions are a rare afterthought. It's awful. Plus my local station spends so much time on ads anymore (sponsor messages, promos for other NPR programs, trying to convince me to give them my car) that it's nigh-intolerable even if the coverage were any good, which it's not.
mikeash 7y ago
It depends a lot on the topic. For example, their reporting of Supreme Court decisions is generally factual and straightforward with decent analysis. But there are definitely a lot of stories like you describe. I often get bored with it and switch to something else. My local station plays BBC News for an hour in the mornings and the contrast is strong. The BBC still does those kind of stories, but a lot less. The most remarkable contrast is interviews. NPR seems to believe that the purpose of interviewing someone is to give them access to an audience so they can say what’s on their mind. The BBC seems to believe that the purpose is to question them and extract information from them.
throwayEngineer 7y ago
Anyone remember when NPR had correspondence in Syria with rebels? I thought it was odd at the time. Now in retrospect, NPR was cheering on the now Terrorists.
dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
What irks me is that I either have to agree that they track me or I'm redirected to "text version" of the site, but in the latter case they redirect me to the list of articles, usually even without the one I came for, as if showing that without tracking I'm completely useless for NPR and I could as well go away. This attitude speaks louder than words.
- detaro 7y ago
  It's oddly enough not consistent. Often enough, it redirects me to the article, but not always. Maybe they don't do it for all parts/categories of the site?
ben509 7y ago
> Completely ignoring the topic of bias Colloquially, people say "bias" when they want to say "agenda" but scientific-sounding, and that is probably fruitless to discuss. I think bias is useful to consider in terms of cognition and process. A journalist has a perspective and there are simply parts of it that he's not consciously aware of, especially missing knowledge. But the process is also important. A news operation needs to attract readers and their readership's interest is what dictates what is "newsworthy." (They also need sponsors, and this can get bad enough that some trade publications essentially just reprint press releases. But that's less NPR's issue.) It sounds like NPR is playing to their readership, and this can be a vicious cycle: you can start out with a more diverse audience and more diverse reporting, but by playing to a majority and losing your minority audience over time, you wind up with a monoculture.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I agree with your analysis. This seems in line with the "feeling > facts" ditch our society seems to be slowly sliding into.
marricks 7y ago
So accurate, and perfectly describes the article I complained about in another comment[1]. The best part is, when NPR focuses on personal stories they really get to choose the narrative. Linked article happens to be two retirees who love gambling and working seasonally for Amazon, why them instead of some other family whose forced to work seasonally and can't get health insurance? No clue, but the framing sure makes Amazon look good. [1] https://www.marketplace.org/2017/12/21/business/holiday-season-fills-rv-campground-amazon-workers/ https://www.marketplace.org/2017/12/21/business/holiday-seas...

colordrops 7y ago

NPR is as much of a mouthpiece for the elite as any other mainstream media source. Their two top contributors are Lockhead Martin and Walmart, yet you don't hear many ads for them over the air, so how is NPR paying them back for their contributions? That would be maintaining the Overton window and publishing stories that support the military industrial complex and neo-liberal agendas.

everdrive 7y ago
My attempts to discuss NPR's shortcomings in an apolitical way are off to a terrible start.
- colordrops 7y ago
  I don't really take my comment to be that political. More about corporate control of the power structures. Is there something incorrect about my comment? Shouldn't root cause be discussed when talking about shortcomings? I do believe their emotional story telling is an intentional weakening to avoid hard hitting true journalism that challenges power structures. Edit: ironic that the original comment was about NPR being too emotional and yet a discussion about factual details is emotionally down voted as "political".

SubiculumCode 7y ago

NPR is generally vacuous. Some Public Radio shows do/did have in depth coverage (e.g. Diane Rehm show, but she is now retired). The fact is many people like it at that level...they want the human story and the gist. They do not want a nuanced and detailed understanding of geopolitical and cultural events, etc. For that, I've moved on to other sources...but these tend to be specialized policy blogs.

Loughla 7y ago

Nailed it. I haven't been able to put it into words, but you absolutely nailed it. You get that people are suffering, and even a glimpse into how, but absolutely no reasons why, except 'the Houthi rebels have been fighting for ten years' or some other one line plug. There's less and less actual news on NPR and more, and more emotions.

asark 7y ago

Like everyone else they're devoting a lot of time, very early (it's NEXT F*CKING YEAR!) to the US Presidential election, and, as usual, 90% of their time is horse-race crap. How should so-and-so's campaign handle this jab? How're those poll numbers looking? Issues and fact-checking statements and positions are a rare afterthought. It's awful. Plus my local station spends so much time on ads anymore (sponsor messages, promos for other NPR programs, trying to convince me to give them my car) that it's nigh-intolerable even if the coverage were any good, which it's not.

mikeash 7y ago

It depends a lot on the topic. For example, their reporting of Supreme Court decisions is generally factual and straightforward with decent analysis. But there are definitely a lot of stories like you describe. I often get bored with it and switch to something else. My local station plays BBC News for an hour in the mornings and the contrast is strong. The BBC still does those kind of stories, but a lot less. The most remarkable contrast is interviews. NPR seems to believe that the purpose of interviewing someone is to give them access to an audience so they can say what’s on their mind. The BBC seems to believe that the purpose is to question them and extract information from them.

throwayEngineer 7y ago

Anyone remember when NPR had correspondence in Syria with rebels? I thought it was odd at the time. Now in retrospect, NPR was cheering on the now Terrorists.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

What irks me is that I either have to agree that they track me or I'm redirected to "text version" of the site, but in the latter case they redirect me to the list of articles, usually even without the one I came for, as if showing that without tracking I'm completely useless for NPR and I could as well go away. This attitude speaks louder than words.

detaro 7y ago
It's oddly enough not consistent. Often enough, it redirects me to the article, but not always. Maybe they don't do it for all parts/categories of the site?

ben509 7y ago

> Completely ignoring the topic of bias Colloquially, people say "bias" when they want to say "agenda" but scientific-sounding, and that is probably fruitless to discuss. I think bias is useful to consider in terms of cognition and process. A journalist has a perspective and there are simply parts of it that he's not consciously aware of, especially missing knowledge. But the process is also important. A news operation needs to attract readers and their readership's interest is what dictates what is "newsworthy." (They also need sponsors, and this can get bad enough that some trade publications essentially just reprint press releases. But that's less NPR's issue.) It sounds like NPR is playing to their readership, and this can be a vicious cycle: you can start out with a more diverse audience and more diverse reporting, but by playing to a majority and losing your minority audience over time, you wind up with a monoculture.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I agree with your analysis. This seems in line with the "feeling > facts" ditch our society seems to be slowly sliding into.

marricks 7y ago

So accurate, and perfectly describes the article I complained about in another comment[1]. The best part is, when NPR focuses on personal stories they really get to choose the narrative. Linked article happens to be two retirees who love gambling and working seasonally for Amazon, why them instead of some other family whose forced to work seasonally and can't get health insurance? No clue, but the framing sure makes Amazon look good. [1] https://www.marketplace.org/2017/12/21/business/holiday-season-fills-rv-campground-amazon-workers/ https://www.marketplace.org/2017/12/21/business/holiday-seas...