Comparing NPR to entities like Fox News, MSNBC, and The New York Times is absurd. Those are dedicated news outlets. NPR is primarily an entertainment and general interest story provider, with some news programs and news updates - but providing news is not its primary function.
Also, NPR is not even primarily a producer of content, but a distributor of a great deal of independently produced content.
Also, all radio stations carrying NPR produced or distributed content are independently owned and managed, and can broadcast any programs they want, whether NPR produced or distributed or not. Many public radio stations only carry a small amount of NPR programming, much of it either music, entertainment, or general interest.
Also, in addition to providing radio broadcast content, NPR distributes lots of podcasts on all types of subjects that have nothing to do with news.
You really are comparing apples to oranges when comparing NPR to dedicated news providers (whether that news is fake or real, or biased or unbiased), as news is just a relatively small component of NPR’s vast array of programs.
And while many of the people working at NPR may have a slightly liberal stance, so did most of what are termed ‘The Founding Fathers” of America.
But, overall, NPR is relatively unbiased - as compared to the news outlets you have misguidedly compared it to- and provides fairly factual news in its actual ‘News’ broadcasting. Programs expressing opinions on events in the news is an entirely different thing, and NPR is pretty open to allowing guests to express their opinions, no matter what they area. Which is why you will hear many conservatives on NPR who would never go on CNN or MSNBC.
As far as government funding-which is less than 10% -I think NPR would actually be better to free itself from any government funding and oversight, and become totally independent with funding from listeners (via local NPR affiliated stations), and corporate sponsors (who can be vetted for suitability).
As far as it’s primary audience being white and educated - these are primarily the people (like myself) who support NPR stations with their donations. But, anybody is free to listen to NPR (for free), andif they choose not to listen to it, that is their own choice. No one is preventing non-white or non-educated people from listening. It’s not a segregated whites only country club. Also, many of the radio and podcast hosts are not white, and many of the programs and podcasts are not about ‘white’ subjects. Have a look at the shows and podcasts currently produced or distributed by NPR.
I closing, I would just like to say that I while I think you have a nice writing style, and I certainly agree with your principles in general, and admire the fact that you have obviously put a lot of effort into your work, still I have to say:
1) I don’t think you really understand what NPR actually is -which is definitely not primarily a news outlet.
2) considering you have a both a Facebook and Twitter account, and Facebook and Twitter are subsidiaries of two of the most monstrous, evil, greedy, malevolent, and overall nasty corporate entities to ever exist, you might want to consider the breakabiility of your own glass house before you start hurling stones at others.
Here’s hoping you Keep fighting the good fight, but at the same time realize who the real enemies are.
I think that longer version more fully addresses some of things that you bring up. It acknowledges that NPR is a distinct entity from public radio in general (although most public radio stations carry a good amount of NPR programming, particularly their flagship newscasts).
Secondly, I critique NPR's news coverage, and find it useful to compare and contrast it to other news outlets, because NPR's prominent news shows All Things Considered and Morning Edition are some of the most listened to radio programs in the nation and because their news coverage is demonstrable of an establishment bias. Many people in this country get their news from only one or two outlets at the most, and for millions of people, NPR is their primary source for finding out what is going on in the world. Those people will therefore receive an incredibly narrow worldview from their daily radio listening habits.
While it is true that NPR presents a lot of factual information in its news coverage, just as many news outlets do on a daily basis, many facts are indeed omitted and never allowed to air, and those facts conveniently serve both institutionalized power and a general neoliberal framework. While you can argue that NPR newscasters simply reading headlines every hour is "unbiased," (I disagree), NPR's longer form reporting is absolutely of a mainstream bias, as I think I demonstrate with various instances throughout the longer version of this article.
In regards to NPR's non-news content, I really don't find much of it terribly objectionable. I see it as either innocuous at worst and genuinely interesting and well-produced at best. Of course there are worthwhile cultural programs that NPR produces. Life is not all about "the news" and politics, nor should it be. But it is NPR's news programming, however, that I find to be the most consequential and the most troubling.
NPR's Jack Mitchell, the first producer of All Things Considered, agrees with you that NPR would be better off by divorcing itself from government funding. He says that government funding is really more of a hassle than it's worth and most of NPR's money comes from listeners and underwriters anyway. He said to just let NPR be NPR and forget about trying to get more tax dollars. It's true that a fully government-funded media outlet will come with its own set of problems, just as any funding model does, but I find NPR's current funding sources particularly objectionable when it presents itself as a "public" service that is actually in fact highly influenced by private, commercial pressures.
I also do not contend that NPR is "too white." I really don't think that is the heart of the issue. Rather, it is that the tone and presentation of NPR is generally an echo chamber for educated, well-off liberals (who just happen to mostly be white). And, increasingly, that demographic of people is becoming a representation of the worst of our unequal society, a demographic that remains relatively comfortable compared to millions of people who are suffering under our economic system and who therefore understandably regard our political and media institutions as shams and perpetuators of that inequality. If liberals don't want to be the enemy of the people, they should start actually living up to their purported values.
I agree with you that Facebook and Twitter, being two Big Tech leviathans, are incredibly problematic platforms. But I would argue that people using those platforms absolutely have the right to critique those companies and any other issue they care to comment on. Personally, I try to spend very little time on either platform, only engaging with it insofar as I find it necessary for getting the word out about my work. I am of the opinion that the Big Tech sector in general is far too monopolized and must be broken up with antitrust enforcement. Big Tech is also far too tied at the hip with our government surveillance systems, thus marrying both federal, state, and private institutions into one big surveillance state that is incredibly dangerous for any real dissent.
Some issues with social media platforms could be assuaged by turning certain platforms into public services, divorcing them from commercial pressures, ad-selling, and unreasonable censorship and moderation. But that obviously is not the whole solution. Monopolies need to be broken up, corporations must be barred from giving personal information over to government stooges, government must have no hand in determining what can and cannot be said on social media, and generally, people need to simply stop using these platforms as much as they do, and instead form in-person communities.
I consider the enemies of the people to primarily be those who hold unaccountable power, which at this point I would argue is pretty much every billionaire, CIA spook, federal law enforcement official, law makers, judges, and presidents. These oligarchs are America's unaccountable royalty and their attendant attack dogs. They have created a system where no real reform is possible, all power flows towards them, and democracy is a joke. And, as I argue in this piece on NPR, our mainstream media have been following eagerly along this downward path towards an authoritarian nightmare. That is why I critique the mainstream press so forcefully, whether it is NPR, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and critiques. I appreciate you reading my work, it means a lot.
Hello Kody,
Comparing NPR to entities like Fox News, MSNBC, and The New York Times is absurd. Those are dedicated news outlets. NPR is primarily an entertainment and general interest story provider, with some news programs and news updates - but providing news is not its primary function.
Also, NPR is not even primarily a producer of content, but a distributor of a great deal of independently produced content.
Also, all radio stations carrying NPR produced or distributed content are independently owned and managed, and can broadcast any programs they want, whether NPR produced or distributed or not. Many public radio stations only carry a small amount of NPR programming, much of it either music, entertainment, or general interest.
Also, in addition to providing radio broadcast content, NPR distributes lots of podcasts on all types of subjects that have nothing to do with news.
You really are comparing apples to oranges when comparing NPR to dedicated news providers (whether that news is fake or real, or biased or unbiased), as news is just a relatively small component of NPR’s vast array of programs.
And while many of the people working at NPR may have a slightly liberal stance, so did most of what are termed ‘The Founding Fathers” of America.
But, overall, NPR is relatively unbiased - as compared to the news outlets you have misguidedly compared it to- and provides fairly factual news in its actual ‘News’ broadcasting. Programs expressing opinions on events in the news is an entirely different thing, and NPR is pretty open to allowing guests to express their opinions, no matter what they area. Which is why you will hear many conservatives on NPR who would never go on CNN or MSNBC.
As far as government funding-which is less than 10% -I think NPR would actually be better to free itself from any government funding and oversight, and become totally independent with funding from listeners (via local NPR affiliated stations), and corporate sponsors (who can be vetted for suitability).
As far as it’s primary audience being white and educated - these are primarily the people (like myself) who support NPR stations with their donations. But, anybody is free to listen to NPR (for free), andif they choose not to listen to it, that is their own choice. No one is preventing non-white or non-educated people from listening. It’s not a segregated whites only country club. Also, many of the radio and podcast hosts are not white, and many of the programs and podcasts are not about ‘white’ subjects. Have a look at the shows and podcasts currently produced or distributed by NPR.
I closing, I would just like to say that I while I think you have a nice writing style, and I certainly agree with your principles in general, and admire the fact that you have obviously put a lot of effort into your work, still I have to say:
1) I don’t think you really understand what NPR actually is -which is definitely not primarily a news outlet.
2) considering you have a both a Facebook and Twitter account, and Facebook and Twitter are subsidiaries of two of the most monstrous, evil, greedy, malevolent, and overall nasty corporate entities to ever exist, you might want to consider the breakabiility of your own glass house before you start hurling stones at others.
Here’s hoping you Keep fighting the good fight, but at the same time realize who the real enemies are.
Guy Afferidge
Mystic, CT
Thank you for offering your thoughts.
Firstly, I'm wondering if you've read this version of the above article that is much expanded: https://weirdcatastrophe.substack.com/p/npr-is-not-your-friend-redux
I think that longer version more fully addresses some of things that you bring up. It acknowledges that NPR is a distinct entity from public radio in general (although most public radio stations carry a good amount of NPR programming, particularly their flagship newscasts).
Secondly, I critique NPR's news coverage, and find it useful to compare and contrast it to other news outlets, because NPR's prominent news shows All Things Considered and Morning Edition are some of the most listened to radio programs in the nation and because their news coverage is demonstrable of an establishment bias. Many people in this country get their news from only one or two outlets at the most, and for millions of people, NPR is their primary source for finding out what is going on in the world. Those people will therefore receive an incredibly narrow worldview from their daily radio listening habits.
While it is true that NPR presents a lot of factual information in its news coverage, just as many news outlets do on a daily basis, many facts are indeed omitted and never allowed to air, and those facts conveniently serve both institutionalized power and a general neoliberal framework. While you can argue that NPR newscasters simply reading headlines every hour is "unbiased," (I disagree), NPR's longer form reporting is absolutely of a mainstream bias, as I think I demonstrate with various instances throughout the longer version of this article.
In regards to NPR's non-news content, I really don't find much of it terribly objectionable. I see it as either innocuous at worst and genuinely interesting and well-produced at best. Of course there are worthwhile cultural programs that NPR produces. Life is not all about "the news" and politics, nor should it be. But it is NPR's news programming, however, that I find to be the most consequential and the most troubling.
NPR's Jack Mitchell, the first producer of All Things Considered, agrees with you that NPR would be better off by divorcing itself from government funding. He says that government funding is really more of a hassle than it's worth and most of NPR's money comes from listeners and underwriters anyway. He said to just let NPR be NPR and forget about trying to get more tax dollars. It's true that a fully government-funded media outlet will come with its own set of problems, just as any funding model does, but I find NPR's current funding sources particularly objectionable when it presents itself as a "public" service that is actually in fact highly influenced by private, commercial pressures.
I also do not contend that NPR is "too white." I really don't think that is the heart of the issue. Rather, it is that the tone and presentation of NPR is generally an echo chamber for educated, well-off liberals (who just happen to mostly be white). And, increasingly, that demographic of people is becoming a representation of the worst of our unequal society, a demographic that remains relatively comfortable compared to millions of people who are suffering under our economic system and who therefore understandably regard our political and media institutions as shams and perpetuators of that inequality. If liberals don't want to be the enemy of the people, they should start actually living up to their purported values.
I agree with you that Facebook and Twitter, being two Big Tech leviathans, are incredibly problematic platforms. But I would argue that people using those platforms absolutely have the right to critique those companies and any other issue they care to comment on. Personally, I try to spend very little time on either platform, only engaging with it insofar as I find it necessary for getting the word out about my work. I am of the opinion that the Big Tech sector in general is far too monopolized and must be broken up with antitrust enforcement. Big Tech is also far too tied at the hip with our government surveillance systems, thus marrying both federal, state, and private institutions into one big surveillance state that is incredibly dangerous for any real dissent.
Some issues with social media platforms could be assuaged by turning certain platforms into public services, divorcing them from commercial pressures, ad-selling, and unreasonable censorship and moderation. But that obviously is not the whole solution. Monopolies need to be broken up, corporations must be barred from giving personal information over to government stooges, government must have no hand in determining what can and cannot be said on social media, and generally, people need to simply stop using these platforms as much as they do, and instead form in-person communities.
I consider the enemies of the people to primarily be those who hold unaccountable power, which at this point I would argue is pretty much every billionaire, CIA spook, federal law enforcement official, law makers, judges, and presidents. These oligarchs are America's unaccountable royalty and their attendant attack dogs. They have created a system where no real reform is possible, all power flows towards them, and democracy is a joke. And, as I argue in this piece on NPR, our mainstream media have been following eagerly along this downward path towards an authoritarian nightmare. That is why I critique the mainstream press so forcefully, whether it is NPR, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and critiques. I appreciate you reading my work, it means a lot.
Great critique of NPR. Congratulations. You just got a Marxist on your subscription list.