NY Times Article on Challenges Facing NPR

[fybush]

WABE is a top 10 station (and not at all a red market), by the way.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

It's actually a pretty good rule of journalism when you come across something like the Berliner screed - ask yourself "am I believing this thing from someone I've never heard of before because it confirms everything I already believe?"

A good journalist approaches it skeptically and applies the kind of fact checking that Inskeep (a VERY good journalist) applied.

That goes double when it's coming from somewhere like Bari Weiss and the Free Press, which was founded in bad faith to run stuff like the Berliner piece, to get clicks and confirm the prior prejudices of a lot of people who were never going to be public radio supporters anyway. The fact that Berliner went there with his piece said a lot.

People are not hired based on their political party. That question doesn't appear on a job application. In fact, it's illegal to hire someone based on their political party. She was hired based on her qualifications. That's how people are hired in this country. Maybe China hires people based on political party. Not the US. As I said earlier in this thread, she is not a journalist, and she was not hired to be a journalist.

The constitution guarantees everyone in this country a right to their opinions. You don't give up that right by becoming CEO of NPR.

All true and also if you hire based on political party then we run on two issues like the company comes off as fringe and only wants a certain faction to that outlet. Yes the civil rights issues are violated from there when that is done.

 

[gr8oldies]

But the fundraising problem was not caused by her being hired. If there was a direct relationship between her hiring and fundraising, you might have a point. The policies Berliner was complaining about were not made by her. He says that in his article. They were made by her predecessor, who previously worked in the Trump administration.

You really haven't addressed any of the points I've brought up at all: Companies don't use political party as a hiring qualification. Maher is not a journalist, nor is she involved in journalism. NPR's news reporting is not the reason for fundraising shortfalls.

"But.....but.....but if they were only telling their listeners that Donald Trump has thousands of fans greeting him at his trials, and that is proof positive Trump, who is universally worshipped and adored, will win New York, is that going to bring conservative donors to NPR? It's not like there aren't several networks and talk stations praising Trump's holy name 24/7. Can you actually call "Marketplace" which reports on the stock market and capitalism "Marxist/Socialist/Communist"

 

[boombox4]

The whole point of The New York Times article was about the difficulties NPR's facing with fund raising.you do not enhance your chances of fund raising by hiring somebody who is overtly political. You could raise more money by drawing from both sides of the political spectrum. Instead, they hired a person who bragged on social media that she is proud of being called "woke". And embraces DEI by saying there are "too many white men in power".That is not going to get you donations from people on the right of the spectrum.That is what i'm trying to say.
Hiring someone who is overtly political reduces the pool of potential donors.

I disagree. You get more donations by catering to your base, and according to one of the studies that Berliner mentioned in his article, a majority of NPR listeners are left leaning or progressive. NPR probably caters to their base -- if Berliner's accusations have any merit. And it would stand to reason. People will support a radio station or network that feeds their political bias.

Although in the greater world of public radio, it's not that cut and dried. When i worked at a public radio station (one that was under the purview of an NPR station but not officially a part of the network (we ran no NPR programming, had no NPR personnel), people would donate often because of one or two programs that they loved to hear. People donate for a lot of reasons.

And either way, their revenues have increased gradually since 2016 (acc. to Pew), so NPR's budget problems aren't necessarily revenue based. Their costs have probably gone up.

 

[boombox4]

[citation needed]

NPR local station listenership is down since 2017 nationwide, at least for the top rated NPR stations.

See the first chart in this Pew Research article. Source: NPR and Nielsen.

Public Broadcasting Fact Sheet

Hundreds of local and regional radio and television stations comprise the U.S. public media system. See more public broadcasting industry statistics.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[fybush]

NPR local station listenership is down since 2017 nationwide, at least for the top rated NPR stations.

See the first chart in this Pew Research article. Source: NPR and Nielsen.

Public Broadcasting Fact Sheet

Hundreds of local and regional radio and television stations comprise the U.S. public media system. See more public broadcasting industry statistics.

www.pewresearch.org

But that's not what Bruce was asserting.

He made a "factual" statement about Atlanta and Dallas specifically. One that was simply untrue.

 

[TheBigA]

People will support a radio station or network that feeds their political bias.

What's missing from this discussion is that NPR is MORE than politics. It's a lifestyle. It's wine & cheese, not beer & wings. It's a higher level of education. There are a lot of things that factor into the typical listener and doner. All Things Considered isn't a political talk show. Politics is a very small part of it. That's why I say so few conservatives listen. They don't fit the lifestyle. They don't read books in their spare time, do crossword puzzles on the weekends, they have no use for tote bags.

At one time, Fox News promoted itself as Fair & Balanced. They had a nightly show called Hannity & Colmes that debated both sides of an issue. Then about 7 years ago, they discovered there was more of an audience if they dropped the fairness image, and just went full steam in one direction. Same with MSNBC. This idea that the public wants unbiased news is mythology. They want FACTUAL news. That's different from being unbiased. What we have now is a situation where some in politics are disputing facts. They're conflating facts with bias. They're not the same thing. NPR seeks to get the facts right, and in the process, that's interpreted as being biased because they don't also report the lies.

 

[CentralFL]

WLRN in Miami has a 5.6 share.

WMFE in Orlando, on the other had, has a pitiful 1.7 share. A quick listen to their morning drive kind of explains it.

 

[Plate Blocker]

The whole point of The New York Times article was about the difficulties NPR's facing with fund raising.you do not enhance your chances of fund raising by hiring somebody who is overtly political. You could raise more money by drawing from both sides of the political spectrum. Instead, they hired a person who bragged on social media that she is proud of being called "woke". And embraces DEI by saying there are "too many white men in power".That is not going to get you donations from people on the right of the spectrum.That is what i'm trying to say.
Hiring someone who is overtly political reduces the pool of potential donors.

Best post on the thread. Bruce says it all.

You don't hire someone to run your ice cream stand that essentially guarantees that only strawberry ice cream will be sold, then later whine that sales are down.

 

[fybush]

Best post on the thread. Bruce says it all.

You don't hire someone to run your ice cream stand that essentially guarantees that only strawberry ice cream will be sold, then later whine that sales are down.

Still sitting here listening to all the crickets after BruceB was challenged on his questionable "facts."

We welcome all sorts of opinions here. But the basic rule for discourse in this space is that you bring facts to back up your assertions - and expect to be held to account if you don't.

 

[BruceB]

Still sitting here listening to all the crickets after BruceB was challenged on his questionable "facts."

We welcome all sorts of opinions here. But the basic rule for discourse in this space is that you bring facts to back up your assertions - and expect to be held to account if you don't.

I may in fact have been wrong about the ratings, but I am not wrong that it is stupid for a National Public Radio network to spurn conservative listeners by not allowing their viewpoint to be heard.to use the analogy of this other person. The ice cream shop that only sells strawberry ice cream.

 

[fybush]

I may in fact have been wrong about the ratings, but I am not wrong that it is stupid for a National Public Radio network to spurn conservative listeners by not allowing their viewpoint to be heard.to use the analogy of this other person. The ice cream shop that only sells strawberry ice cream.

What "conservative viewpoints" aren't being heard, within the context of what NPR is? It's not "talk radio" in the commercial sense of the format. That flavor of ice cream is already very well represented in the marketplace, and no listener who's already locked in to Clay and Buck or Hannity is going to switch over just because Steve Bannon gets interviewed during Morning Edition (where, if he were, he would be challenged on facts just the same way you are being challenged here.)

What's your vision for what NPR should sound like, and what's the unserved pool of listeners who'd suddenly start listening and giving if it happened?

 

[BruceB]

The bottom line on this as far as I'm concerned. Yes,, conservatives have the option of not listening to NPR but they do not have the option of stopping their tax dollars from going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which then sends it to NPR member stations and they send it to NPR.one way or another conservative tax dollars are supporting a left-wing network. as Mr. Berliner said. They have diversity in hiring but not in point of view.

 

[BruceB]

What "conservative viewpoints" aren't being heard, within the context of what NPR is? It's not "talk radio" in the commercial sense of the format. That flavor of ice cream is already very well represented in the marketplace, and no listener who's already locked in to Clay and Buck or Hannity is going to switch over just because Steve Bannon gets interviewed during Morning Edition (where, if he were, he would be challenged on facts just the same way you are being challenged here.)

What's your vision for what NPR should sound like, and what's the unserved pool of listeners who'd suddenly start listening and giving if it happened?

The difference is that my tax dollars were not going to support Sean hannity through the back door of the corporation for public broadcasting.

 

[fybush]

The difference is that my tax dollars were not going to support Sean hannity through the back door of the corporation for public broadcasting.

Then as a citizen, you're free to lobby your elected representative to vote against CPB funding.

At least you're being somewhat honest about your biases now, anyway.

 

[BruceB]

What "conservative viewpoints" aren't being heard, within the context of what NPR is? It's not "talk radio" in the commercial sense of the format. That flavor of ice cream is already very well represented in the marketplace, and no listener who's already locked in to Clay and Buck or Hannity is going to switch over just because Steve Bannon gets interviewed during Morning Edition (where, if he were, he would be challenged on facts just the same way you are being challenged here.)

What's your vision for what NPR should sound like, and what's the unserved pool of listeners who'd suddenly start listening and giving if it happened?

And by the way, if Steve Bannon did come on Morning Edition.Those leftist would decide what is true and what is not true based on their worldview.

 

[fybush]

And by the way, if Steve Bannon did come on Morning Edition.Those leftist would decide what is true and what is not true based on their worldview.

You're welcome to find a different message board if this is what you're going to contribute. There are tons of political boards out there.

 

[TheBigA]

You don't hire someone to run your ice cream stand that essentially guarantees that only strawberry ice cream will be sold, then later whine that sales are down.

Nobody is whining. That's a made-up issue.

The difference is that my tax dollars were not going to support Sean hannity through the back door of the corporation for public broadcasting.

My tax dollars are paying the salaries of the MTGs and the MGs. My tax dollars pay for a lot of things I don't like. That's the system we have.

We live in a representative democracy. The reps allocate money. That's how it works.

 

[Mark Roberts]

What's your vision for what NPR should sound like, and what's the unserved pool of listeners who'd suddenly start listening and giving if it happened?

There is no vision, of course, just the desire to choke off any other point of view than the far-right one and to force everyone else to conform to that view of the world.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Still sitting here listening to all the crickets after BruceB was challenged on his questionable "facts."

Why, Scott, what's the need for facts when you can lean instead on supposition, innuendo, and projection?

It's kind of amazing to see people who accuse NPR of political behavior engage in injecting their own political behavior into what had been a reasonably serious conversation about perceptions of bias, the organizational behaviors of NPR, and the relationships between NPR and its member stations. This tells me that it's not about bias; it's about stomping out points of view that diverge from the so-called "conservative" view.