Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think.
By Uri Berliner April 9, 2024
“What’s happening there? Why is NPR telling me what to think?”
In recent years I’ve struggled to answer that question. Concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at voter registration for our newsroom. In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.
So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference. I got a few messages from surprised, curious colleagues. But the messages were of the “oh wow, that’s weird” variety, as if the lopsided tally was a random anomaly rather than a critical failure of our diversity North Star.
+++++++++++++++
Great courage, honesty and integrity for speaking out!!!
I love to listen to NPR on the radio, M-F thru 8pm local time, then they switch to music. On most political issues and climate change(which is actually almost all politics and very little authentic science) they are extremely far left. Their credibility is extremely low for me.
Why in tarnation would a person listen to that?
1. I don't listen to get objective news on anything political from them. I listen to understand what the far left thinks and why people listening to sources like this think the way that they do. Same reason that I listen to Fox in the evening to understand the far right. Both those sources, however can hit some home runs in between all the strike outs. Even a grand slam every once in a while. I don't want to miss the home runs. In fact, the only reason I know about this story is because I saw it on Jesse Watters earlier this evening, in between a bunch of his usual divisive, inflammatory hogwash.
2. They have extremely gifted reporters/talent that are sadly afflicted with extreme left activism that blinds their objectivity. However, it's impressive as a previous professional tv meteorologist that appreciates the talent.
3. They have wonderful human interest stories that don't have a political angle which are covered professionally by that talent that are the best in the business.
4. They have non political type science and nature topics that are very enlightening.
I do not recall a single word from either you or the author about the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars that subsidize NPR in its quest to push progressive thinking on single viewer. Progressive or liberal thinking and indoctrination is the goal either by overt action or innocent means because every story, every word is tampered with liberal upbringing, liberal thinking and liberal editing. So what's the problem they will respond? Our goal is socialism pure and simple and if we can get middle America to pay our way to that end all the better. What fools these silly conservatives are to think we would share in this venture to educate. 87 to nothing you say? Hell in DC our current capitol of big government its more like 97% to nothing.
Thanks a ton, mcfarm.
Although I'm not sure that stat is entirely accurate, it doesn't matter because it makes a rock solid point.
I feel that I'm unusually qualified to comment objectively on NPR.
We basically have 2 opposite opinions on NPR.
Group 1: The ones that bash it, rarely listen. They find out about the offensive stuff on NPR because their sources on the right(that monitor the opposition) tell them about it, not from listening themselves. Jesse Watters tipping me off last night because I was watching Fox, was a perfect example.
Group 2: The actual people that listen. They listen because, like the rest of the world they go to places that tell them what they want to hear. Nothing new here as this defines viewing/listening habits of everyone, everywhere. But it means the experts on NPR programming are the most biased/least objective.
Group 3: metmike that listens more than the average person in group 2 but NOT for the reason they listen. So I'm extremely familiar with everything they broadcast but can see the flaws like a person in group 1 that never listens(and as I noted on the previous post, I greatly appreciate their NON flawed broadcasting)
As mcfarm pointed out, and I can verify as a regular listen for years and what the original post is all about........NPR has turned into a very powerful, far left agenda, brainwashing tool.
Compare their audience of an average of over 14 million people listening on their radios to top rated "The Five", Jesse Watters and Shaun Hannity on Fox that have just under 3 million viewers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
National Public Radio (NPR, stylized as npr) is an American non-profit media organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with its NPR West headquarters in Culver City, California.[2] It serves as a national syndicator to a network of over 1,000 public radio stations in the United States.[3] It differs from other non-profit membership media organizations, such as the Associated Press, in that it was established by an act of Congress.[4]
https://deadline.com/2023/12/cable-news-ratings-2023-1235682966/
Fox News swept the top five daily show rankings this year. The Five was the most watched show, averaging 2.89 million viewers, followed by Jesse Watters Primetime with 2.49 million, Hannity with 2.36 million, Special Report with Bret Baier at 2.07 million and The Ingraham Angle with 1.96 million.
I've mentioned stories or discussions that I heard on NPR here dozens of times. Some good, some bad:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99761/#99770
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99603/#99647
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1189939229/covid-deaths-democrats-republicans-gap-study
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99293/
By metmike - Sept. 19, 2023, 8:46 a.m.
Thanks joj,
I agree with you on Tucker, except I use a different methodology that takes politics out of it.
I never rule out a source because they are full of doo doo most of the time and I don't affiliate with either party. Both parties are full of doo doo, at least a good part of the time.
I try to open mindedly consider the possibility that they might be right every time, then fact check it.
You would be surprised to know that Tucker and even Trump have hit several home runs and had grand slams, while still having one of the lowest batting averages in the league!
I watch CNN AND FOX.(My wife, who prefers non confrontational television, used to hate me watching CNN when Trump was president and really hates me watching FOX with Biden as president). This is the biggest disagreement we have in the evenings, so I totally capitulate and let her have complete control of the clicker even though she is sometimes unhappy to have been temporarily subjected to the intense anger being projected by FOX in the evening hosts. She's not a D, just a person that hates politics, debates, anger and negativity.
NPR is what I listen to on the radio in the car even though they are completely full of doo on the climate crisis almost all the time................but not ALL the time. Even in that realm, they make some valid points every once in awhile.
Much of their non climate programming is awesome.
Shutting down a source that has positions that we disagree with(especially strongly held views) eliminates our access to information that we can't get from sources that we agree with.
This means getting all our information, only from sources that share our opinion........which will ALWAYS reinforce what we think that we know because we don't fact check information that we agree with. Our brains automatically receive it as authentic.
We usually only fact check information that we disagree with, while limiting access to those sources with it because of the assumption that those source are:
1. Striking out almost every time
2. Most importantly. It's very unpleasant for human beings to listen to people spouting crapola that we strongly disagree with. We go to sources that tell us what we want to hear/read because we agree with it and because it's against the natural instinct of the human psyche to apply the scientific method. The scientific method, compels us to FIRST try to prove ourselves wrong before having any confidence that we are right. Only after genuinely being unable to prove ourselves or our opinion wrong with a robust effort to do so, should we have the confidence to know that we are right.
+++++++++
Here's a few other NPR stories I posted here in the last year(of dozens).
Read Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech in its entirety
https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dream-speech-in-its-entirety
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/18/1194593562/chess-transgender-fide-pushback
Poisoning the minds of young people
14 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Aug. 14, 2023, 8:45 p.m. https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98263/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-kids-win-climate-trial/index.html
Hawaii wildfire at Lahaina (on Maui): CC blamed as a factor 0 likes By metmike - Aug. 10, 2023, 8:43 p.m.
I listened to NPR for over an hour today and they mentioned climate change as the reason.
extreme drought and highs winds from climate change. They interviewed a meteorology professor from the University out there and he explained that it was almost entirely from natural variation NOT climate change. At the end though, he gave NPR what they wanted and stated, "However, Global climate models predict more of this sort of thing happening in the future"
Considering the increase in drought in HI the past several decades and for sure with faster growing vegetation, I would agree with that.
++++++++++++
Profoundly disrespectful to.......tell the objective truth.
wow....if she should ever need a new job she would fit right in with today's top tier 7th floor at the FBI