"Washington crap" today is different from what the equivalent was in the 60's and 70's. Today it's the Trump Trump Trump Trump media circus 24/7, with a few impeachments thrown in every now and then, and sometimes President Biden gets a word in. It's a bit different from the news that came out of DC in 1969.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
National Public Radio Journalist Believes That NPR Listening Demographics Have Changed And...
- Thread starter Daryl Lynn L.A.
- Start date
- Status
Well, the present day news media is losing the younger demos, at least 30% of whom get their "news" from TikTok, and the rest of Americans have a rather dim view of the news media according to polls linked upthread, so obviously there is a lot of work that needs to be done, be it improvement in the process somewhere, or maybe better PR.
And, of course, as everything 'radio' continues to migrate online, it will only make it more difficult for networks to stay afloat, because the internet is the definition of media saturation.
It would be fascinating to ask you whether you believe people's biggest problem with Rupert Murdoch are his political beliefs and not his actions, but let's just cut to the chase:
But it goes back further than that:
And heck, a lot of people point to the fact that Murdoch flouted the FCC's rules against foreign ownership of U.S. broadcast properties, and built an empire over the nine years it took for the legal challenge to get through the sytem, at which point the FCC essentially said he was too big to take apart:
FCC rules: Fox can break them
FCC bureaucrats who went toe to toe with Rupert Murdoch over the foreign ownership of Fox TV stations officially blinked on July 28, ruling that Fox’s service to the public is reason enough to forego a continued technical violation of FCC ownership rules. The anticlimactic decision wraps up a...
variety.com
To be fair, they got a handful of CNN employees on video and audio recordings, unaware that they were being recorded, saying derogatory things about Trump.
Which, out of 4,000 employees proves----carry the three---exactly zero.
You could get the same result at FOX News, as the subpoenaed e-mails and texts in the Dominion suit proved:
Tucker Carlson firestorm over Trump texts threatens to engulf Fox News
The network is facing a $1.6bn false-claims lawsuit – and its top star’s private texts about the ex-president are causing anguish
www.theguardian.com
The difference between what Project Veritas did in each of its supposed bombshells and anyone conducting legitimate investigations was that Veritas started with a conclusion and then went out to get people to say things supporting it under false pretenses.
I should have jumped in on Y2K's guess (can we please stop doing that?) that Uri might land at Project Veritas with this yesterday, but got distracted with other responses in the thread:
Right-wing group Project Veritas suspends all operations indefinitely, report says
Project Veritas is known for its use of hidden cameras to discredit mainstream media organisations and progressive groups
www.independent.co.uk
There's no there there.
OK, but what does that have to do with news coverage at his media outlets?It would be fascinating to ask you whether you believe people's biggest problem with Rupert Murdoch are his political beliefs and not his actions, but let's just cut to the chase:
But it goes back further than that:
And heck, a lot of people point to the fact that Murdoch flouted the FCC's rules against foreign ownership of U.S. broadcast properties, and built an empire over the nine years it took for the legal challenge to get through the sytem, at which point the FCC essentially said he was too big to take apart:
FCC rules: Fox can break them
FCC bureaucrats who went toe to toe with Rupert Murdoch over the foreign ownership of Fox TV stations officially blinked on July 28, ruling that Fox’s service to the public is reason enough to forego a continued technical violation of FCC ownership rules. The anticlimactic decision wraps up a...
When people mention "Murdoch" and "news" I would think their biggest issue is perceived biases that they believe his ownership may place on those news outlets -- after all, he apparently has a significant ownership of Fox News. Most people probably aren't aware of the news stories you linked.
Tell me you didn't read the first two stories I linked to (which are entirely about news coverage at his media outlets) without telling me you didn't read the first two stories I linked to.
And their perception of bias comes from---what? Thin air?
Well, you certainly wouldn't see it on FOX News or read about it in the New York Post or the Wall Street Journal, but---beyond that, there's been decades of coverage of Murdoch, his news outlets and their behavior throughout media, from Rolling Stone to PBS Frontline and everything in between.
That would be assuming a staggering level of ignorance.
Fox News has millions of viewers. Even if they want people to believe otherwise, they literally are mainstream media simply on their relative audience numbers alone.
Well, I think we need a definition of "mainstream media". If numbers alone allow a company that knowingly broadcasts falsehoods that defame a business and cast doubt on an election it knows was legitimate to call itself "mainstream", then there's a problem.
Also, none of the cable news channels get anywhere near the viewing audiences of the broadcast newscasts. David Muir on ABC gets about 8 million viewers, Lester Holt at NBC a shade under 7 million and Norah O'Donnell on CBS just under 5 million.
FOX News' highest rated show gets about 3 million. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC (their highest rated) is usually around 2.5.
Can I order a facepalm emoji? Seriously.
I remember concern about Murdoch in the 1970s - based on what he had been doing in Australia and based on his then-ownership of the San Antonio newspaper. I'll admit that most in journalism at the time thought he was a joke. Sure, I was in journalism school at the time, with faculty who were paying a lot of attention to him, but there were general-interest articles about Murdoch as well, particularly noting his politics.
And if you think we're rough on Murdoch here, check out Australia sometime and, in particular, take a look at the ABC's Media Watch - here's one example: Ep 08 - Rudd Trumped - Media Watch
There are pieces of NPR that I really like. There have been times when tuning across the band that I have had to stop and listen because of interesting content. But when it comes down to it, they always present from a liberal point of view. There really isn't a diversity of ideas or opinions coming from NPR. It is not the overt in-your-face slant that some traditional talk radio has, but the subtle holier-than-thou higher-ed snark that really turns me off.
People just want their news given to them straight, without the agenda. Just like Dragnet, "All we want are the facts, ma'am." And do you really trust someone like this to guide an organization that is supposed to do that? NPR CEO aims to erase "bad information" & replace it with "good information", RESURFACED video shows
How about give me all the information in a truthful manner, and let the people decide for themselves? The world is crazy enough as it is without havinh media orgs hype it up or spin it.
People just want their news given to them straight, without the agenda. Just like Dragnet, "All we want are the facts, ma'am." And do you really trust someone like this to guide an organization that is supposed to do that? NPR CEO aims to erase "bad information" & replace it with "good information", RESURFACED video shows
How about give me all the information in a truthful manner, and let the people decide for themselves? The world is crazy enough as it is without havinh media orgs hype it up or spin it.
The subjects of the stories have nothing to do with any biases projected in the news reporting at the news outlets Murdoch owns. They have to do with his apparent crooked business operations and shirking FCC rules. How does that affect what influence he may have on Fox's biases in their news reporting? Some phone hacking that took place 13 years ago? How does that prove that Murdoch sends some sort of edict to the Fox News Channel to go Trump Trump Trump MAGA MAGA MAGA? The crooked dealings are a separate issue, aside from the reporting at Fox.
I would almost guarantee that Joe and Jane Q TV Watcher don't know the percentage of Murdoch's ownership of the Fox corporation, nor have they tried to figure if his ownership affects the day-to-day operations of the Fox News Channel.
Most cable TV news consumers switch the channel to the one that gives them the headlines and backs up their confirmation bias. Then they see the other side as "biased". And that's where it generally stops.
But back to BigA's point: "the CEO of NPR has no actual role in reporting news. Should Ruppert Murdoch's political views make him ineligible to be a CEO of a company that calls itself News Corp?" I would think the answer to his question would be "No".
You're forgetting that you are a news guy. Most people aren't. You really think the average American remembers what Murdoch did in 2011? That was 13 years ago.
According to one of the Pew studies that are associated with the ones we discussed upthread, only around 16% of Americans are concerned all that much about the news, and that level has been dropping since 2016 (they're probably sick of Trump Trump Trump 24/7).
Most people don't consume the news the same way you, or I, or the others here on RD do. They're not news or political junkies for the most part. What percentage of the US population do you think actually knew about the two articles you linked above? I doubt even 1% of the US population is aware of those articles, or the issues behind them. Many may have heard the headlines back in 2011 and yawned, and promptly forgot about them.
But if they are into politics, they know Fox = good / MSNBC = bad, or the reverse. And that's probably where it stops.
Many people DON'T want the facts given to them. The whole premise of this thread was the false idea that "NPR is telling people how to think". You use circular logic. You say you want FACTS, but say they aren't providing "Diversity of opinions & ideas". Reality has been warped because too many folks have gone into the murky "Alternative Fact Zone". They only want information that aligns with their views.
Opinion and Facts are not the same. I don't like Taylor Swift's music, but I don't dispute the fact that many do.
The content on NPR comes from multiple sources, so once again your argument about "Liberal Bias" is baseless...
Last edited:
Responsible news organizations give you all of the factually supported information in a truthful manner. They don't "both-sides it" alongside conspiracy theories and misinformation. It's not "fair and balanced" to portray the truth as equal in validity to lies and "let the viewer/listener decide" which one to believe.
Imagine this was back in 1964 and the Surgeon General just released their report saying that smoking causes cancer. Would you have insisted that Walter Cronkite bring on a doctor hired by Philip Morris who claimed that smoking is actually good for you, in order to "give you all the information" and "let the people decide for themselves"?
Let's go back. Your original question was:
(screen goes all wavy, harp music plays)
The point is that the vast majority of Rupert Murdoch's bad reputation comes from his willingness to tap telephones and hack into people's voicemail for exclusives and to print and broadcast falsehoods to keep his reader/viewer base happy (see, Dominion, January 6, etc.). It made what's happened at FOX News less than shocking.
Nobody's that worked up that the CEO of a media organization is conservative, Republican or even has a cable opinion channel mirroring that.
Lie about an election, and keep lying about it, and that changes.
I think your statement would be a lot more credible if you'd said 50% instead of 1% and left out the yawning. I wonder if you realize what a picture that paints of what you think about your fellow Americans.
And you've just crystallized what was going on in the pandemic:
"Hydroxochlorquine does not treat COVID-19. This is based on findings from six trials with more than 6,000 participants, according to the World Health Organization."
"Okay, now bring on the lady doctor who believes in demon sperm to tell me it's okay."
...And the logical answer to my question is "not many", except a few political wonks on the left side of the spectrum who love to talk about such things (to be fair, political wonks on the right side of the spectrum are the ones complaining about NPR, saying it should get its [small] government-funded percentage yanked, etc.). The average TV watcher of a NewsCorp / Fox Corp station probably doesn't even know who Murdoch is, much less remember any news article about what he did in 2011. Most news consumers aren't concerned about how the news companies are run, or who runs them.
An example: only 26% (on a good year) of Americans are Democrats (Gallup), and a smaller percentage of them are vocal leftists, maybe 30% of D's, if that. That's maybe 7% of the country. The other 93% have better things to do then obsess over how news companies like Fox are run.
OK, so it seems that you disagree with BigA's assertion that a CEO shouldn't be barred from heading of a news media organization because of their politics. Point taken. And it may be a good point at that. And maybe it should apply across the board, to all news organizations. After all, if they're lying, it's poisoning the public discourse, and can give us actions like J6.
As for your statement that "nobody's worked up" about the politics of a news CEO, I know a few far-left people who are very worked up about any conservative owning a news media company, Sinclair being an obvious example. Any time the local, Sinclair owned TV station has anything that derides the way Seattle is run (the famed local documentary Seattle Is Dying being an example), the lefties on social media go "It's Sinclair!"
But, once again, the viewers in general don't care who owns the company. They watch the content, and then determine for themselves whether it's lies or not. The politically inclined make a big deal out of it. But they're in the minority when compared to the entire population.
Actually, 1% is a lot closer than 50%, and I even quoted statistics to back it up. Americans in general aren't all that gung-ho about news, aside from headline stories. That's one reason newspapers (even big, reputable online ones, like the LA Times) are losing money, with others folding by the hundreds across the country. The average amount of time spent reading an online newspaper in the US is about one minute, and 35 seconds (Pew). Ten years ago it was more like two minutes (Pew). Does that make it sound like Americans are really into digging out the details of news stories?
And you cited a news story that was 13 years old, as if the average American is as enthused about the details as you seem to be. They aren't. Sure, what was in the story is important. But that doesn't mean that the average TV viewer knows, or even cares.
Pew found that only 16% of Americans are interested in news, and that number has dropped since 2016. If one looks at the podcast consumption in the US (something Pew also looked into, as it is a rising form of audio consumption), the statistics are similar. "True Crime" podcasts are nearly twice as popular as anything political or news-based. So no, your suggested 50% figure is way, way off. And when it comes to the stories you linked, it's more like 1%. People in general don't care about the details as much as you do. And then you have information overload, which is probably a pertinent factor. It's a 24/7 news cycle. There's only so much that the average viewer or listener is going to tolerate before they switch it off.
You're a news guy. Digging into details of news stories is natural to you, and you're into that, probably because you're an inquisitive guy and you worked in the field for years. The majority of Joe and Jane Q TV Watchers aren't.
As for what I may think about my fellow Americans, I personally think they're overloaded with way too much information and partisan rhetoric thrown at them, and they're sick of the overtly partisan BS.
However, Pew did the research behind much of what we're discussing here. Ultimately, you can blame them.
And, now, for something completely different....
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Media Watch has a web-only complement, Media Bites, which did a segment a week ago on coverage of the total eclipse in the United States. That episode showed examples of Fox News' concern that the darkness during eclipse totality would allow more migrants to enter the U.S. illegally. This is what is technically known as "trying too hard". The two-minute episode of Media Bites is also notable for (1) Fox's Jesse Watters admitting that he looked directly at the sun and (2) an absolutely hilarious ending (which the automatic following of the link also results in a spoiler, sorry, but that's just the last 5 seconds).
www.abc.net.au
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Media Watch has a web-only complement, Media Bites, which did a segment a week ago on coverage of the total eclipse in the United States. That episode showed examples of Fox News' concern that the darkness during eclipse totality would allow more migrants to enter the U.S. illegally. This is what is technically known as "trying too hard". The two-minute episode of Media Bites is also notable for (1) Fox's Jesse Watters admitting that he looked directly at the sun and (2) an absolutely hilarious ending (which the automatic following of the link also results in a spoiler, sorry, but that's just the last 5 seconds).
Solar nuts - Media Watch
Mexican TV accidentally broadcast a pair of testicles as a total solar eclipse sends the media nuts.
www.abc.net.au
We now have the first legislative reaction to the Uri Berliner piece. Rep. Claudia Tenney has introduced an Act to defund NPR:
tenney.house.gov
The problem with her law is it's based on a false premise.
In point of fact, there is no line item in the federal budget for NPR. There's a long funding process that involves the states and member stations. She apparently doesn't know this. There is the Corporation For Public Broadcasting that was designed to act as a buffer between congress and the media. NPR does a lot more than produce news programming. Defunding the entire company over the perceived bias of one department seems inherently unfair. She is basing her legislation on the opinion of one person. The company has the right to defend itself. She brought up the social media comments made by the CEO as the basis for her legislation. The CEO has the right to defend herself as well.
So there are a lot of constitutional rights involved here.
Congresswoman Tenney Moves to Defund NPR
Washington, DC—Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Defund NPR Act of 2024 to prohibit federal funding to the National Public Radio (NPR) due to the platform's overwhelming partisan bias.
tenney.house.gov
The problem with her law is it's based on a false premise.
In point of fact, there is no line item in the federal budget for NPR. There's a long funding process that involves the states and member stations. She apparently doesn't know this. There is the Corporation For Public Broadcasting that was designed to act as a buffer between congress and the media. NPR does a lot more than produce news programming. Defunding the entire company over the perceived bias of one department seems inherently unfair. She is basing her legislation on the opinion of one person. The company has the right to defend itself. She brought up the social media comments made by the CEO as the basis for her legislation. The CEO has the right to defend herself as well.
So there are a lot of constitutional rights involved here.
Hotseat heats up for NPR CEO Katherine Maher — and her life is the ultimate woke-elite bingo card
The controversial new CEO of NPR has only been on the job since March 25, but is already at the center of a firestorm.
nypost.com
50 NPR employees demand CEO Katherine Maher, editor-in-chief publicly rebuke 'factual inaccuracies'
A group of NPR employees signed a letter addressed to NPR leadership, calling on leaders to publicly address Uri Berliner's essay, specifically its "factual inaccuracies and elisions."
www.foxnews.com
Wikipedia co-founder blasts successor Katherine Maher, says NPR should 'let her go right away'
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is urging NPR to purge its CEO, former Wikimedia chief Katherine Maher, for her past comments being critical of a "free and open" internet.
www.foxnews.com
The Right wing continues to go after Katherine Maher the CEO of NPR.
Agreed, but the real purpose of this might be to provide the basis for congressional hearings, and all the
- Status