I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.

[durangodawood]

I don't listen as much as I used to because I don't have a commute anymore, but when I do listen, it feels like it's skewed younger and more simplistic. That could just be me getting older and expecting more, but I don't think so. I've read others commenting that the skew towards youth has brought with it more of the DEI-related content that the yutes care about. That strikes me as plausible.

But either way, lab leak and Hunter's laptop have nothing to do with wokeness. They were (and are) dodgy stories with little substance and a whole lot of nonsensical right-wing hysteria. There's basically no good way to report on them that won't make things worse.

As an "older" musician" Ive really been dismayed about how much young pop fluff sounding stuff gets NPR airtime. Its like the same interview with a young guy /gal /they making songs on their computer about their last breakup and how they had to re-find themself.

Now I love what a lot of the young people are doing in other music genres. In fact its the musicians my own age who tend to bore me most on average. I just wish NPR would pick up on some of this thrilling slightly more underground music.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Worse for Biden? There should be a way to report on things that is informative. Hiding stuff does seem to be what makes things worse.

No, worse for everybody, because the hysterical Right was using them to foment a bunch of lies and conspiracy theories.

What's to report on the lab leak? "Most people think it developed in nature. Some others think is leaked from a lab, but aren't very confident about that analysis."

What's to report on Hunter's laptop? "President's son did a bunch of drugs and got some gigs based on his family name. The provenance of the laptop was suspicious at first, but now that it's been authenticated, it still doesn't implicate the president in anything."

I just summed up both of those stories in four sentences. How much should they rehash that?

 

[iluvatar5150]

As an "older" musician" Ive really been dismayed about how much young pop fluff sounding stuff gets NPR airtime. Its like the same interview with a young guy /gal /they making songs on their computer about their last breakup and how they had to re-find themself.

Now I love what a lot of the young people are doing in other music genres. In fact its the musicians my own age who tend to bore me most on average. I just wish NPR would pick up on some of this thrilling slightly more underground music.

I haven't heard any of their music interviews in a while, but Tiny Desk Concert seems to do a pretty good job of promoting acts who are underground, or maybe slightly above ground. As they've gotten more popular, they've started attracting attention from big artists (e.g. Taylor Swift, Chris Stapleton), but they still have a lot of almost-nobodies.

 

[rambot]

As I recall, NPR news rated pretty near centre with their opinion pieces "leaning left". When comparing on a media chart, it seems that the Wall Street Journal is rated similarly in terms of the trustworthiness and skewing about the same amount as npr, but to the right.

 

[durangodawood]

As I recall, NPR news rated pretty near centre with their opinion pieces "leaning left". When comparing on a media chart, it seems that the Wall Street Journal is rated similarly in terms of the trustworthiness and skewing about the same amount as npr, but to the right.

NPR does interview quite a few WSJ reporters on this or that.

I would say NPR does lean left as a bias. But lets not forget how much the American right has become lost in a fog of lies. Its no exaggeration right now to say that truth generally does lean a bit left.

I would love some actual conservative angles on things. But the contemporary right doesn't do conservative anymore, except for a few political outcasts whove managed to not get primaried against all odds, as well as some old line proper conservative commenters whove lost traction with the increasingly radical rightwing voters.

 

[durangodawood]

I haven't heard any of their music interviews in a while, but Tiny Desk Concert seems to do a pretty good job of promoting acts who are underground, or maybe slightly above ground. As they've gotten more popular, they've started attracting attention from big artists (e.g. Taylor Swift, Chris Stapleton), but they still have a lot of almost-nobodies.

Yes Tiny Desk can be really great. But it doesnt seem to get airtime on the big NPR programs - at least not compared to the dull stuff.

 

[rambot]

NPR does interview quite a few WSJ reporters on this or that.

I would say NPR does lean left as a bias. But lets not forget how much the American right has become lost in a fog of lies. Its no exaggeration right now to say that truth generally does lean a bit left.

I would love some actual conservative angles on things. But the contemporary right doesn't do conservative anymore, except for a few political outcasts whove managed to not get primaried against all odds, as well as some old line proper conservative commenters whove lost traction with the increasingly radical rightwing voters.

NPR ACTUALLY has TWO obudsman: a lefty and a righty. Seems crazy but I do think they put MORE effort into trying to remain balanced than any other news outlet out there.

 

[jacks]

For anyone still reading this thread. If you would like to read a well thought out and documented article; follow the link in the OP. We can't make positive changes until we are willing to recognize our problems.

 

[iluvatar5150]

For anyone still reading this thread. If you would like to read a well thought out and documented article; follow the link in the OP. We can't make positive changes until we are willing to recognize our problems.

But it isn't a well-thought-out article. His calls out as examples of their bias their shying away from some of the biggest, most hysterical non-stories of the last few years. Covid lab leak and Hunter's laptop were only big stories because right-wing agitators and propagandists decided to make them into big stories, not because there was anything worth reporting. The author is another of those folks who think they're taking the red pill, when what they're really doing is taking the other side's blue pill.

 

[essentialsaltes]

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust​

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

 

[rambot]

For anyone still reading this thread. If you would like to read a well thought out and documented article; follow the link in the OP. We can't make positive changes until we are willing to recognize our problems.

But what do you mean when you say "problems"? Do you mean symptoms?

I have a feeling what is defined as the "problem" is going to be different for different people.

 

[rambot]

From the article:

Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.

I think it's interesting, given the amount of political and cultural change that has happenned since 2011, that this guy thinks that, despite ALL those changes outside of the organization, the issue is with NPR.

By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.

I'm pretty sure every single news outlet saw drops over those 12 years.

But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.

It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. Unfortunately, it happens. You follow the wrong leads, you get misled by sources you trusted, you’re emotionally invested in a narrative, and bits of circumstantial evidence never add up. It’s bad to blow a big story.

What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection.

I'm not sure I am on the same page with how this guy is characterizing things like "no credible evidence of collusion".
From a time article to that regard:

Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

Then, his characterization of a "swing and a miss on a major story", also seems a off.


Yeah, I'm just not convinced by this man. Sorry.

 

[rambot]

But it isn't a well-thought-out article. His calls out as examples of their bias their shying away from some of the biggest, most hysterical non-stories of the last few years. Covid lab leak and Hunter's laptop were only big stories because right-wing agitators and propagandists decided to make them into big stories, not because there was anything worth reporting. The author is another of those folks who think they're taking the red pill, when what they're really doing is taking the other side's blue pill.

This is a good summary of the article. I get confused when people say they enthusiastically "didn't vote for Trump" but aren't fully cognizant of the language of the Mueller report. Frankly, I find this article kinda confusing.

 

[tz620q]

Like many unfortunate things, the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump. As in many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair. (Just to note, I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.) But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency.

I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.

Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think.

www.thefp.com

The coverage of Trump is certainly out of control.

I can remember in November, 2016 the tone in the major media decision centers. They started the evening practically declaring a Clinton win. I remember one political analyst saying that the only way for Trump to win was for a long series of dominos to fall just the right way. As each domino fell, the tone got more and more somber and the decision calls in each state started getting delayed more and more. By 1 a.m., they could not deny the data anymore and they finally called it for Trump. The mood was funereal. One commentator made a comment that he couldn't understand how Trump won. This echoed a comment made in 1972 after Nixon was reelected in a landslide, when a newspaper journalist famously quipped, "I don't know how he was elected. I don't know anyone that voted for him."

To paraphrase Tom Brokaw, the venerable older head in the room, "I think it is time for more journalists to travel past the Hudson River." Berliner did a poll of the NPR newsroom and found that the party affiliation of Democrat to Republican was 87-0. So in the 8 years since Trump's election, things have only gotten worse in the slant of news organizations. They did not follow Brokaw's advice to their own shame and media has become more about opinion that open discussion.

 

[RDKirk]

I would LOVE to hear from the OP which news media outlets are trustworthy and what makes them so?

Also, generally curious from everyone, what makes a news outlet worthy of your consideration?

The reality of "disinterested journalism" was a post-WWII Western concept that only lasted about 30 years following the war.

Prior to WWII, it was well realized that understanding the truth of events required reading a number of competing newspapers.

 

[rambot]

The reality of "disinterested journalism" was a post-WWII Western concept that only lasted about 30 years following the war.

Prior to WWII, it was well realized that understanding the truth of events required reading a number of competing newspapers.

But would it only be read because it's called a "newspaper": What is the standard of competency or accountability?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I can remember in November, 2016 the tone in the major media decision centers. They started the evening practically declaring a Clinton win. I remember one political analyst saying that the only way for Trump to win was for a long series of dominos to fall just the right way. As each domino fell, the tone got more and more somber and the decision calls in each state started getting delayed more and more. By 1 a.m., they could not deny the data anymore and they finally called it for Trump. The mood was funereal. One commentator made a comment that he couldn't understand how Trump won. This echoed a comment made in 1972 after Nixon was reelected in a landslide, when a newspaper journalist famously quipped, "I don't know how he was elected. I don't know anyone that voted for him."

To paraphrase Tom Brokaw, the venerable older head in the room, "I think it is time for more journalists to travel past the Hudson River." Berliner did a poll of the NPR newsroom and found that the party affiliation of Democrat to Republican was 87-0. So in the 8 years since Trump's election, things have only gotten worse in the slant of news organizations. They did not follow Brokaw's advice to their own shame and media has become more about opinion that open discussion.

Let’s not discount Trump’s own hand in this. He has painted the media as his enemy. If you support Donald Trump, would you continue to work for his enemy? Doubtful. If you support Donald Trump, would you choose to go work for his enemy? Of course not. Trump has had a hand in making the media lean more left.

 

[durangodawood]

The reality of "disinterested journalism" was a post-WWII Western concept that only lasted about 30 years following the war.

Prior to WWII, it was well realized that understanding the truth of events required reading a number of competing newspapers.

I agree. But just because its a newfangled idea doesnt diminish its value.

 

[RDKirk]

But would it only be read because it's called a "newspaper": What is the standard of competency or accountability?

There is no standard. There are only competing viewpoints. Read several.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree. But just because its a newfangled idea doesnt diminish its value.

Ultimately, neither the public nor advertisers will pay the cost of disinterest.