An NPR reporter speaks out against NPR

aircooled said:

Marjorie Suddard said:

......Here's some light reading on the subject.

Margie

I will just take a moment here to complain about another, sadly common, journalistic practice:

When was this article written?!?  It's kind of important, and it's not anywhere on the page!  The most recent date reference within the article, seems to point to 2019?

I mean, if I posted an article about the new rotary engine Mazda is developing, don't you think it would be useful to know it was written in 2002!?!

(I should probably check to see if GRM puts dates on their online articles, but heck, in the magazine, all I have to do is look at the cover.)If 

If I click on an article and don't see a proper byline, which includes date. I just close it without reading it.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

TRoglodyte said:

A properly trained Journalist  should ALWAYS separate commentary from reporting. Most "news" today is actually commentary

But is is marketed as news.

Cable NEWS Network

Fox NEWS

And so on.

As for properly trained journalists? I remember taking journalism in college where the hard and fast rule for stories was that anything printed in the school paper had to be verified by three different sources, and it was the editor's job to make sure these stories were verified. How many news sources today are Facebook Pages run by somebody who has never taken a journalism class even in high school and has no idea what an editor does, yet they crank out stories that are picked up and repeated by other 'more legitimate' news sources until they reach the mainstream media. And what kind of journalistic training does a "Tic Toc Influencer have?" It isn't about the truth anymore. It's about grabbing eyeballs, getting attention and selling ads. The FCC used to have rules like the Fairness Doctrine that at least attempted to differentiate between news and opinion. Our Supreme Court killed that in 1969. Now there are no rules other than he who sells the most advertising makes the rules.

 

Yep. I have a Bachelor's in Journalism with a minor in philosophy, so I'm very much against the modern state of journalism. And with the way things have changed since I graduated at the end of 2005, I'm glad I didn't follow up going into that field. Even though I now have a career where I write, but not journalistically. 

It was at a 2 decade record low 15 years ago! I still like NPR but think the entire field is being pulled down by bad actors who get more money and higher ratings, then buy out other lesser groups who can't afford to keep going. Even if you put out just the facts, no body cares, watches, or is willing to pay for it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/09/13/press-accuracy-rating-hits-two-decade-low/

My dream is to see some zillionaire or  such do something like buy the bones of UPI and create a media source where unbiased information is seen as sacred. Where instead of being told what to think, or steered down a prescribed path, journalists give us the information and tools to make up our own minds. A gold standard of "bringing the tech" (as a formerly favorite forum would have put it). But no, the most significant recent media buy was a E36 M3show of a social media site.

It's ironic that Al Jazeera and the Christian Science monitor are two of the best news sources.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Would not work as they'd be accused of having their own agenda by those who disagree. Though throughout history, about the most "happy" general populations are that self repored and successful in higher arts and such are those under what basically amounts to a benevolent dictatorships. 

In reply to johndej :

An omniscient being could come into the world and tell the perfect, unvarnished truth only to be shouted down by those who can't handle it. That's a given. But I think that most of us appreciate what clarity and insight that we receive.  

Bias sells better than reality. "News" became problematic when it turned into profitable entertainment. 

I can remember when TV news shows had an editorial segment, at both the local and national level.

They would go through the news with relatively neutral reporting, then they would pop up a big background card that said EDITORIAL, and spend a couple minutes telling you what they thought about the important story of the day.  It was clearly demarcated from the reporting (of course, choosing what to report is a form of editorial, I get that).

Nowadays TV news doesn't bother with that, they just mix it in.  And while newspapers do still have an editorial section, they pretty much just use it to publish stuff they might get protested or sued for if they included it in the news sections.

johndej said:

It was at a 2 decade record low 15 years ago! I still like NPR but think the entire field is being pulled down by bad actors who get more money and higher ratings, then buy out other lesser groups who can't afford to keep going. Even if you put out just the facts, no body cares, watches, or is willing to pay for it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/09/13/press-accuracy-rating-hits-two-decade-low/

Strangely coinciding with the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Duke said:

I can remember when TV news shows had an editorial segment, at both the local and national level.

They would go through the news with relatively neutral reporting, then they would pop up a big background card that said EDITORIAL, and spend a couple minutes telling you what they thought about the important story of the day.  It was clearly demarcated from the reporting (of course, choosing what to report is a form of editorial, I get that).

Nowadays TV news doesn't bother with that, they just mix it in.  And while newspapers do still have an editorial section, they pretty much just use it to publish stuff they might get protested or sued for if they included it in the news sections.

 

Agreed.  I'm not that old (50) but McNeil-Lehrer, Kronkite, Walters, Jennings, and their ilk seemed to report facts and then had a brief segment with two sides dig into it.  Now it feels like "I'm [insert reporter] and our top story is about [insert polarizing topic] and here to support [insert politcal agenda] are [6 people] who will spout absolute idiotic falsehoods for 30 minutes."

I worked in a hotel in the (edited) late 80's and I remember the bar always had "headline news" playing (around the world in thirty minutes was the slogan). It was repetitive like ESPN sportscenter. Evidently that was too boring for our short attention spans and thus "news" has morphed into Jerry Springer more or less because news was just too boring. 

And today we have people on the radio decrying "mainstream media". Kinda ironic isn't it?

The irony is that most of the people decrying mainstream media provide even more biased sources as alternatives. 

How many people are paying for news?  I see that this as a key part of the issue.  If revenue is generated by clicks, then clicks become king.  What drives clicks? Commentary, controversy etc. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

...It's ironic that Al Jazeera and the Christian Science monitor are two of the best news sources.

I see what you are saying and would agree that Al Jazeera can provide a somewhat detached view on some topics... BUT, is entirety unreliable in regards to most anything involving a particular country in the Middle East, and by extension a certain group of people...  I just don't want anyone to get the idea that they should be considered generally trustworthy.

I am sure it is also reasonable to be a bit suspicious with the CSM on certain topics but I suspect it is no where as bad as AJ.

I just don't want to make sure no one interprets your statement too strongly (or incorrectly, depending on what you meant)

NPR leadership has reassured us that nothing will change. 

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.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

I listen to NPR a lot and on occasion I find myself thinking, wow, that was kinda deceptive. Not that they are outright lying or being deceitful like Fox entertainment news-ish, but its still there. They will often present a statistic that is shocking and supports their view, but its taken out of context or doesn't represent the full picture. I cant recall an example at the moment, its never anything that outrages me, but its a reminder that all news has a bias. 

It reminds me of the argument about documentary film making, just being out in the rain forest with your strange smells and sounds affects the wildlife in some way. Its never 100% documentary. 

This is an interesting and disheartening discussion. In high school (mid-late 80s) I had visions of becoming a journalist. That dream peaked at being the editor of my high school newspaper. The more I looked into the whole idea of journalistic integrity, the less I liked. 

It all started to fall apart when I read George Orwell's 1984 at about 14 years old. That got me thinking. Not long after, I read a random car-related article in which the author had made several factual errors that made it to print. It occurred to me that if I wasn't a "car guy" I would have assumed it to be fact. The light bulb went off about how much I accepted as fact because I simply didn't know any better. 

aircooled said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

...It's ironic that Al Jazeera and the Christian Science monitor are two of the best news sources.

I see what you are saying and would agree that Al Jazeera can provide a somewhat detached view on some topics... BUT, is entirety unreliable in regards to most anything involving a particular country in the Middle East, and by extension a certain group of people...  I just don't want anyone to get the idea that they should be considered generally trustworthy.

I am sure it is also reasonable to be a bit suspicious with the CSM on certain topics but I suspect it is no where as bad as AJ.

I just don't want to make sure no one interprets your statement too strongly (or incorrectly, depending on what you meant)

I was mainly pointing out the irony that two religion-affiliated media outlets would have a better batting average than say, Fox or MSNBC. The fact is that everything and anything that is told to one needs to be taken with a grain of salt. We live in an age where more data than ever is at our fingertips, but quality often takes a backseat to quantity.

It's easy to say that news should be "unbiased" and that it should "just report facts." But it is impossible to avoid bias, even if all you report are factual stories with minimal commentary.

There are simply too many facts to possibly report, so you have to select what stories or topics are worth the time coming. Bias will drive what stories get reported.

I think what people call "unbiased" reporting of the past was actually more centrist reporting designed to be as broadly palatable as possible. There were limited outlets for news. The game used to be that a broadcast station or regional paper would get the most viewership/readership by alienating the fewest people possible.

But the audience has changed and there is now more news information than you can possibly absorb. So news sources now have to ATTRACT the largest piece of the pie they can get. You can't attract everyone. You can't even attract a majority. So you don't care about alienating the people who are just going to watch a competitor anyway. You need to select stories and commentary that will be of active interest to the small portion of the market that you are interested in attracting.

Metaphor from my life: Every sports bar has the same 4 beers on tap. They are boring and unoffensive to drive away the fewest customers who are there to watch sports. But I need to serve flavorful and challenging beers at my craft brewery taproom to entice people to come in.

NPR used to select its content to appeal to generally more educated or intellectual people interested in spending more time listening to deeper analysis of issues. They want to draw in the people that will donate the most money to provide more content. There are probably fewer people listening and thus donating to NPR, so they have to select topics that will be most efficient for them to produce. That means largely being created by journalists in major urban centers that appeals to listeners in those same urban centers. That will logically have pushed things even more liberal. They also have to be catchier too, because they're now competing with podcasts for attention.

All that is to say... I think it's a problem that there is no longer a shared source of information that people across the political spectrum can use as a common reference point to discuss important social issues today. I don't blame any single news source for causing this. I give NPR, the Wall Street Journal, and New York Times a lot of credit for holding out longer than other sources. I don't know what they hell we do to solve this issue.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

All true. But 87-0 in the newsroom is pretty weak. 

Toyman! said:

NPR leadership has reassured us that nothing will change. 

 

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.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

That makes me sad. 

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

I've been using a website called Allsides. They do a pretty fair job because they pull in news from a minimum of 3 sources. One left-leaning, one right-leaning, and one from the center. I don't think it's perfect but it's decent if you want a couple of different angles on a story. 

Interestingly enough they covered the NPR op-ed. The left-leaning source was NPR. The right-leaning source was The Daily Wire, and the center source was Uri Berliner's original article from The Free Press. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to johndej :

An omniscient being could come into the world and tell the perfect, unvarnished truth only to be shouted down by those who can't handle it. That's a given. But I think that most of us appreciate what clarity and insight that we receive.  

I've never heard my ex-wife's narrow-mindedness described so perfectly. 

I used to appreciate the semi-objective reporting from NPR, pre-social media days. My ex-gf would listen to it religiously and I couldn't believe some of the vitriol they would spout on some of the shows she would listen to. 

I mean the Brits have long hated "journos" for the exact reasons many of you have listed. They can't be trusted, they twist the truth, they sensationalize things, etc. 

It's truly a sad state of affairs. 

The measured, rational discussion in this thread is impressive. As others have said, it's the inevitable result of personalized information overload tailored for maximum engagement through focused agitation. Gotta get those clicks, gotta have those comments. It's a shame.

I am an NPR listener mostly because I can't stand commercial radio and the commercials that come with it. The bias of most commercial news outlets has become their brand. The same has happened at NPR, but I default to them because they shout less. Still, their current agenda is clear, and when coverage turns to those topics or becomes blatantly biased, I switch off and drive in silence.

Allsides is worth a look. There's another aggregator called Ground News that I've seen promoted but have not tried. It's a paid service (at least at some level) so maybe they actually offer something other than their own agenda.

This is an incredibly frustrating situation for me and it's reassuring to hear that I'm not alone. 

The press has been used to push agenda since printing was invented.   Either a despot published the current "truth" to follow or the practice of a free press allowed multiple people to publish their version of "the truth" .    I have been reading old newspapers on line that my GG Grandfather published in the 1840's for the Whig Party in Yazoo City,Mississippi.

Articles about politics were slanted towards the Whig Party and made fun of Democrats.  His rival newspaper in Yazoo City was published by Democrats.  Their political articles were slanted towards Democrats and made fun of Whigs.   Balance was not important.  If  you wanted another opinion you read a different newspaper.     

Multiple editors and citizens in Mississippi at the time challenged each other to duels, with pistols, over editorial disagreements or articles they thought slanderous.   The Headmaster of an elite college in Claiborne County,  Mississippi (1840's) was murdered with a Bowie knife because he self published a leaflet condemning slavery.  

My GG grandpa avoided the fights.  Probably because he was a drunk who everyone liked because of his good nature (not making this up).