National Public Radio Journalist Believes That NPR Listening Demographics Have Changed And...

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

NPR "has lost America's trust." Uri Berliner published this on Bari Weiss' newsletter "Free Press."

This interested me, because I think it relates to radio network broadcasting and the affiliate stations across the country that broadcast this news. For example, I listen to KQED in San Francisco, which broadcasts the news stories.

If this isn't posted in the right forum for this board, then I trust the moderators will move it.

Uri Berliner ( who broadcasts national commentary/ news on NPR) says that the demographic of listeners changed in the past 10 years. It used to be that about 37% of listeners described themselves as liberals, but now 67% of listeners describe themselves as liberals. He is also concerned that the company has splintered off into identity groups, where employees of different races or nationalities each have their own special group or club; and that many stories are about white racism, or transphobia, or describing the Hispanic community as "Latinx", etc., or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. In short, he is disgruntled, because the programming has become "too woke" ( for lack of a better term).
This is a long commentary, but it is very well written.

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

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

With an "all-news" format, it isn't easy to always look balanced. The two major news stations in California, KCBS 740 and KNX 1070 work hard to be very professional and factual. I have listened for years and like their work. They feature CBS national news on the half-hour. IMO, they try to keep in the spirit of Walter Cronkite, with an emphasis on reporting "just the facts" without being slanted.

Uri Berliner says that NPR used to try to report like this also, but since 2020 and the Covid pandemic, the George Floyd homicide, and the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, NPR has changed their focus. He attributes this change to former CEO John Lansing, who came to NPR from the federal agency who oversees Voice of America. ( Lansing is out now, and Katherine Maher is CEO).

 

[fordranger797]

I don’t really want to put myself into a bucket of being liberal or conservative, but I do find that NPR really isn’t for me. If I want to listen to newsradio, I’d rather listen to some of the big west coast stations that come to mind (KNX, KCBS, etc). I agree with the comment that these stations do a good job of presenting the news as it is, without injecting too much opinion into the commentary.

If I want to listen to news with a talk spin, I’d rather listen to a station like KIRO in my home market, which features news, and a fairly balanced lineup of talk. Some shows lean left, some lean right. I also feel like the station makes an effort to put left and right leaning hosts together for some shows, which makes for a good conversation.

Now, getting back to NPR… every time I tune in I feel like I’m being talked down to. I’m sure that the hosts are smart people, but they can come off as very sanctimonious. I get the impression that many of them are very left leaning, and have no interest in catering the programming to anyone who may have a different opinion. Aside from that, the content just isn’t presented in a way that’s engaging or interesting to me, so I just don’t feel compelled to listen.

I live in Canada at the moment, and have felt the same way about CBC radio. I’ve heard content on CBC radio that was almost shocking. I’d be more specific, but I don’t think it’s appropriate (even for this website), so I’ll keep it to myself. Overall, I just don’t understand who would find this appealing.

 

[KeithE4]

As my right-leaning Facebook friends would put it: NAILED IT!

NPR, since at least the early 1990s, has suffered from a terminal case of East Coast academic snobbery, and it's getting worse. I used to listen to listen to them regularly in the '80s, but they started to lean too far left by the time Bill Clinton was elected President, and the red state/blue state paradigm took over American politics. Three guesses as to which side NPR sided with.

I used to count on NPR to deliver the facts. That hasn't been the case since talk radio became a force in the 1990s. When I lived in Chicago, WBEZ used to be a good news source. Then along came WLS, and the management of WBEZ wanted to be the "anti-WLS," with left-leaning talk. Eventually they got their way. Same went with KJZZ Phoenix and it's attempt to be the "anti-KFYI" starting in the 2000s. Neither station is worth listening to anymore. They are no better than the right-wing babblers. They've been more successful than the late, unlamented Air America, but that ain't saying much.

 

[Andy Travis]

I found the article interesting, but I'm not entirely sure the "loss of trust" issue is caused by NPR itself, or that they could do much to change it. The "defund NPR" mantra dates back at least as far as Newt Gingrich's time in DC.

Politics (and commercial talk radio) has been increasing in heat and division for decades, and the rise of the internet and social media added fuel. So the fact NPR's audience has become so overwhelmingly metropolitan and left-leaning is probably inevitable, as it is that most major market commercial talk stations now are clearly in the (mostly) Trump friendly conservative demographic.

Tone is another factor - NPR doesn't have to cater to shorter attention spans or fit in 7 minute blocks of commercials multiple times an hour. Which means more length on stories that don't fit into what's efficient or popular on a commercial station. And that's going to lead to nuance and coverage of stories that many are simply going to paint as "liberal" because it doesn't interest them or fit into their idea of what's relevant. To your typical listener in rural America, a story about systemic racism isn't going to grab them or feel relevant. It's simpler to discount it as liberal academics.

I agree that the tone isn't appealing to a lot of people, but it isn't supposed to be. It's a product for an audience that trends higher in education level, and is interested in the sorts of depth and less clickbait styles of stories being covered. I don't know how you change that to something that suddenly an audience over-served by the opposite kind of media can respect, trust and want to consume.

One side of the political divide has been fed the narrative that NPR is "National Propaganda Radio" for years. I read a number of conservative sites and it's been said there for a long time. I don't know how you adjust it to something that appeals to people who literally believe it shouldn't exist.

Stations like KIRO do good work, but there's very few of them. If you drove coast to coast, relying on commercial radio for a balanced perspective, one where the other side was heard, you'd rarely find a KIRO. You'd find an abundance of views ranging from borderline Alex Jones right-wing to Trump right-wing, and a few milder Neo-con hosts. You'd hear certain stories covered certain ways. So apart from NPR, people living in those parts of the country don't hear the other side of stories either, which is the accusation levied against NPR. Your average person between the coasts, does not hear moderate or liberal voices on news and commentary radio outside of NPR. And I'd also point out the KIRO type stations, in addition to being very few in number, don't often have the airtime or resources to do longform journalism like NPR. It doesn't fit the commercial framework.

So NPR needs to attract more people who don't trust them and have been strongly influenced to not believe they should exist. How should they do it? So many times when media attempts this, it ends up being the "we travelled to the Midwest to talk with Trump supporters" thing that's been done since 2016. Did that help win them over or improve their trust in the media?

Some of the examples in the article aren't the best either. For instance, the alleged "pro looting" story was given a disclaimer on NPR's website that it was a controversial article, but provided as a perspective. NPR itself recognized the nature of the opinion, and didn't endorse it. The Mueller Report didn't exonerate Trump.

I'm certainly not saying NPR's decisions are perfect, that they couldn't make adjustments in story selection, or denying that their staff leans left. But I'm not sure what else they could do to appeal to people who actively dislike the very premise of their organization.

 

[fordranger797]

I will add another thought: I have observed that some NPR stations are better than others. In the Seattle market, KNKX 88.5 is a pretty good station. Jazz protesting with news sprinkled in. I don’t listen often, but I have observed that this station is much more palatable than KUOW 94.9, which is not appealing to me at all. Some stations just seem to understand their audience a bit better and make more of an effort not to go down the road of being extreme.

 

[tbolt909]

As my right-leaning Facebook friends would put it: NAILED IT!

NPR, since at least the early 1990s, has suffered from a terminal case of East Coast academic snobbery, and it's getting worse. I used to listen to listen to them regularly in the '80s, but they started to lean too far left by the time Bill Clinton was elected President, and the red state/blue state paradigm took over American politics. Three guesses as to which side NPR sided with.

I used to count on NPR to deliver the facts. That hasn't been the case since talk radio became a force in the 1990s. When I lived in Chicago, WBEZ used to be a good news source. Then along came WLS, and the management of WBEZ wanted to be the "anti-WLS," with left-leaning talk. Eventually they got their way. Same went with KJZZ Phoenix and it's attempt to be the "anti-KFYI" starting in the 2000s. Neither station is worth listening to anymore. They are no better than the right-wing babblers. They've been more successful than the late, unlamented Air America, but that ain't saying much.

Disagree with your assessment of NPR. You should be more concerned about what Commercial Talk Radio did in the last 30 years. Rush Limbaugh poisoned the well. Toxic lies and dangerous propaganda became the norm.

The stereotype that "Book Smart" people are somehow elite snobs is ridiculous. NPR provides thoughtful coverage in a dignified manner. You can actually hear discussions about various subjects that are fact based. It's not crazy "Birther" or "Election Fraud" garbage. If that's "snobbery", then I'll take that over rabid vitriol any day...

 

[Nathan Obral]

Disagree with your assessment of NPR. You should be more concerned about what Commercial Talk Radio did in the last 30 years. Rush Limbaugh poisoned the well. Toxic lies and dangerous propaganda became the norm.

The commercial talk radio format was fatally flawed decades before Rush: think the likes of Joe Pyne, Bob Grant, Gary Dee and Morton Downey, Jr., et al.

Rush's success in syndication made it where everyone was a (bad) Xerox of his persona, and after the Sandra Fluke fiasco, made the format wholly toxic to blue-chip advertising.

The stereotype that "Book Smart" people are somehow elite snobs is ridiculous. NPR provides thoughtful coverage in a dignified manner. You can actually hear discussions about various subjects that are fact based. It's not crazy "Birther" or "Election Fraud" garbage. If that's "snobbery", then I'll take that over rabid vitriol any day...

Here's the thing: public radio is more than just NPR. Marketplace, which long ago usurped NPR's business news coverage, is distributed by American Public Media. There's also Public Radio Exchange and WNYC's in-house syndication arm. APM also distributes BBC World Service which many news-intensive public radio stations carry in overnight.

Every public radio station is free to choose the shows they want to run and there's a patchwork quilt of schedules. So anyone pejoratively calling public radio "NPR" simply has no idea how it really works.

 

[awsherrill]

The stereotype that "Book Smart" people are somehow elite snobs is ridiculous. NPR provides thoughtful coverage in a dignified manner. You can actually hear discussions about various subjects that are fact based. It's not crazy "Birther" or "Election Fraud" garbage. If that's "snobbery", then I'll take that over rabid vitriol any day...

I have been a loyal listener of NPR, primarily Morning Edition/All Things Considered, for nearly 40 years. I would agree that they (mostly) do a better job of trying to cover all sides of a given issue.

However, they aren't helping themselves when they play into the stereotypes that those on the right believe about them. Does anyone else wince when they hear an NPR reporter refer to someone "experiencing homelessness"?

They could at least jazz that up a little bit with the George Thorogood "homeless" definition: "Look, man! I'm outdoors, y'know..."

 

[vchimpanzee]

All I ever hear is "Weekend Edition" after I turn it on for "Wait! Wait!" (and used to turn it on for "Car Talk"), and Giles Snyder or whoever does the top of the hour newscasts. Scott Simon is friendly and relatable and the stories I actually hear seem to be well done, and maybe would be perceived as liberal leaning.

And of course "Wait! Wait!" doesn't give a serious presentation of the news and most of thstories are just plain silly. It too could be perceived as liberal leaning though I'm sure they make fun of Democrats almost as much as Republicans.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I think demos have changed over the years, but i cant say to what extent and from what as ive only been involved in public radio since 2015. I've encountered a few younger public radio fans but that tends to be in larger places.

Is NPR a bit snobbish and talking down at times? I think maybe a bit.

But when it comes to straight up news reporting, theyre about as factual as it gets of broadcast media.. and the depth of indepthness they go to cant be found anywhere else.

On a local level here, on the reverse, i know my audience EXTREMELY well.. thats why KSKO continues to do so well, and gets people who even are mroe Fox then NPR, support us because of local content

 

[radiofan2023]

I've been at an NPR station (KQED) and I couldn't tell you anything about anyone's politics there. Everyone just worked on booking guests, coming up with show topics, etc. and we never talked politics, other than in the context of guests or show topics. I remember someone either mentioning or reading an article which said that Diane Rehm, who used to do a show on NPR, used to use a stopwatch to make sure that each guest got equal time on her shows, whether the topic was political or not.
In my opinion what NPR is missing is more national call in shows like Car Talk or Talk of the Nation. 1A does play voicemails from listeners, but that isn't really the same.

To piggyback on what Paul just said - there are also public radio stations that just play music shows, and don't run news shows at all. Iowa Public Radio has some, as well as Wisconsin Public Radio Music, which is coming up soon.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I've been at an NPR station (KQED) and I couldn't tell you anything about anyone's politics there. Everyone just worked on booking guests, coming up with show topics, etc. and we never talked politics, other than in the context of guests or show topics. I remember someone either mentioning or reading an article which said that Diane Rehm, who used to do a show on NPR, used to use a stopwatch to make sure that each guest got equal time on her shows, whether the topic was political or not.
In my opinion what NPR is missing is more national call in shows like Car Talk or Talk of the Nation. 1A does play voicemails from listeners, but that isn't really the same.

To piggyback on what Paul just said - there are also public radio stations that just play music shows, and don't run news shows at all. Iowa Public Radio has some, as well as Wisconsin Public Radio Music, which is coming up soon.

Locally, we also largely and entirely stay away from politics unless it directly and greatly impacts our listeners.. and then we just stick to basic pure facts.

If something comes up locally thats newsworthy beyond our region, all the reporters in the state at the various npr member stations contribute to AKPM's statrewide news effort.. and ill give them thge details so they can do a story, and i stay out of it.. so i can remain impartial and not appear to play any favorites. (the statewide akpm news director told me she likes to have managers stay out of news coverage so theres no way someone can ask a manager to play favorites in return for a donation, etc)

 

[michael hagerty]

Having recently retired from 53 years in broadcasting, 43 of that in journalism, with the final four at an NPR station:

It's nuanced.

Now that I've said the most NPR thing possible, let me explain.

My observation is that NPR has a firm commitment to democracy and equal rights, protection and treatment under law.

And if you ask me, personally, those are all things that I think as Americans, we should agree on. If any American has fewer protections or rights than I have, regardless of their race, gender, beliefs, choices or identity, something's wrong. Doesn't matter whether they look, worship, love or think like I do.

But (obviously) not all of us feel that way in this society. Which makes NPR's position seem "hostile" and "biased" to those who don't agree.

What Uri gets right is that as women's and trans rights came under fire, and as the George Floyd incident vividly raised the issue of social justice, NPR began devoting more airtime to those issues. It's not inconsistent with those core values of equal rights and protections, but as those issues developed, it took a lot of oxygen out of the room for other topics.

And, as politicians (certainly more from one party than another) began to see the usefulness in opposing women's and trans rights to appeal to their bases, it became very easy and politically expedient to paint NPR as "out of step with mainstream Americans" even as NPR believed it was very much in step with the values the country was founded on in the first place.

That leaves Uri's premise that by doing so, NPR has "lost America's trust". And that, to me, seems disingenuous. NPR stands for what it has always stood for. What's changed is the number, nature and intensity of attacks on those values and on American citizens who don't look like me. The only alternative to what NPR has done would have been to say "there's too much of it", stop talking about it and abandon its values.

That's the loss of trust NPR avoided, even if it has cost them.

 

[TheBigA]

I have a slightly different take on all this. Most will just read the headline, and either agree or disagree. I believe we have to look a little deeper.

This is one person with one opinion, who dislikes a policy, and then extrapolates their dislike of that policy to saying NPR has lost America's trust. At a time when NPR's popularity is perhaps at its highest point.

The entire article is about the person's view of the policy, not about whether or not the conclusion is statistically correct. There was no poll done about the conclusion. Nobody asked America what they thought. This is one person reaching that conclusion with no research or facts.

So that's my problem with the article. This is an internal policy discussion to be held by the company. The policy was instituted by the previous CEO, who is no longer there. So maybe it's time to review that policy. But that's about it. I have no problem with someone having an opinion, or stating it in a public way. It's the kind of conversation that probably only happens at a place like NPR. They're not talking about it at iHeart or Audacy. They're not talking about it within the news/talk radio world, other than to focus on the headline, rather than to ask whether or not the same problem exists within the news/talk world.

In the meantime, NPR has issued a response to the commentary.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243755769/npr-journalist-uri-berliner-trust-diversity

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Having recently retired from 53 years in broadcasting, 43 of that in journalism, with the final four at an NPR station:

It's nuanced.

Now that I've said the most NPR thing possible, let me explain.

My observation is that NPR has a firm commitment to democracy and equal rights, protection and treatment under law.

And if you ask me, personally, those are all things that I think as Americans, we should agree on. If any American has fewer protections or rights than I have, regardless of their race, gender, beliefs, choices or identity, something's wrong. Doesn't matter whether they look, worship, love or think like I do.

But (obviously) not all of us feel that way in this society. Which makes NPR's position seem "hostile" and "biased" to those who don't agree.

What Uri gets right is that as women's and trans rights came under fire, and as the George Floyd incident vividly raised the issue of social justice, NPR began devoting more airtime to those issues. It's not inconsistent with those core values of equal rights and protections, but as those issues developed, it took a lot of oxygen out of the room for other topics.

And, as politicians (certainly more from one party than another) began to see the usefulness in opposing women's and trans rights to appeal to their bases, it became very easy and politically expedient to paint NPR as "out of step with mainstream Americans" even as NPR believed it was very much in step with the values the country was founded on in the first place.

That leaves Uri's premise that by doing so, NPR has "lost America's trust". And that, to me, seems disingenuous. NPR stands for what it has always stood for. What's changed is the number, nature and intensity of attacks on those values and on American citizens who don't look like me. The only alternative to what NPR has done would have been to say "there's too much of it", stop talking about it and abandon its values.

That's the loss of trust NPR avoided, even if it has cost them.

How much of this that some NPR affiliates also air Democracy now or Pacifica Programming in some parts of the country. But then again in some parts of the country NPR News/Talk affiliates that air Pacifica programming does well for that demo in some parts of the country
Here is the schedule for KZYX Mendocino County, California.

Schedule

www.kzyx.org

 

[Nathan Obral]

Uri doubled down last night, which may be making a departure from NPR inevitable at this point.

NPR Whistleblower Defends Damning Column on Outlet’s Liberal Bias to Chris Cuomo: ‘People Are Just Sick of It’

NPR's Uri Berliner appeared on NewsNation's Cuomo on Tuesday where he defended his column in which he exposed his employer's liberal bias and asserted he is not terribly worried about his future at the public radio giant. Speaking to host Chris Cuomo, Berliner addressed the response he got from...

www.mediaite.com

 

[Will_H_69_9]

let's be honest, NPR is the liberal voice on the radio while all of the major News/Talk stations are conservative. in Dallas, one of the most liberal friendly cities in a very conservative majority state, most liberal people are listening to 90.1 KERA FM for NPR while most conservative people are listening to WBAP on 820 AM and most recently 93.3 FM, KLIF 570 AM as well as KSKY 660 AM The Answer.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Uri doubled down last night, which may be making a departure from NPR inevitable at this point.

NPR Whistleblower Defends Damning Column on Outlet’s Liberal Bias to Chris Cuomo: ‘People Are Just Sick of It’

NPR's Uri Berliner appeared on NewsNation's Cuomo on Tuesday where he defended his column in which he exposed his employer's liberal bias and asserted he is not terribly worried about his future at the public radio giant. Speaking to host Chris Cuomo, Berliner addressed the response he got from...

www.mediaite.com

Lets hope we don't get a repeat of the Ivory Hecker situation from a few years ago. Are there holes in journalism sure some of this gaps between the priorities between national news and local news sure. Also the priorities of the audience comes into play.

Also Public Media as in NPR and PBS on the TV side are more known for investigative stories and has to attract an audience that is not related to MAGA.

Wait, This Is Why a Local Fox Reporter Sabotaged Her Career?

Ivory Hecker told The Daily Beast on Tuesday that she’s been terminated after claiming on-air that the station has “muzzled” her.

www.thedailybeast.com

Ivory Hecker Says Fox Station Censored Bitcoin, Hydroxychloroquine Stories

Ivory Hecker, a reporter for Fox at a Houston TV station, says that secretly recorded audio shows she was muzzled by executives.

www.newsweek.com

Reporter Who Claimed Network 'Muzzling' Previously Called Out Social Media

The reporter who went rogue during a live broadcast has said social media platforms are guilty of censorship.

www.newsweek.com

 

[tbolt909]

However, they aren't helping themselves when they play into the stereotypes that those on the right believe about them. Does anyone else wince when they hear an NPR reporter refer to someone "experiencing homelessness"?

Homelessness is a big problem especially in large cities. It's a complex issue. The cost of living somewhere like San Francisco is beyond the means of many people. Mental illness, drug abuse, runaways from abusive homes are some of the reasons for folks "Experiencing Homelessness". These people aren't Box Car Willie just travelling through. I would think that most people would not prefer to be living in a tent in Skid Row squalor.

At least NPR acknowledges these people. Most would rather look away. It's an issue that the Far Right would rather ignore. Vagrant, Bum, Wino, Derelict may be their preferred descriptions than "Someone experiencing Homelessness".

The definition of "Liberal" has been perverted by the Far Right. To them it now means "Any factual statement I disagree with". That explains their contempt for NPR...