Glad you’re doing this show. I’ve had this question for some time now–was hoping you could answer it on the air: When WBUR has fund drives, it is commonly said that it costs $450/hour to get news through NPR. I am not so concerned about the future of WBUR in an affluent city with lots of academics. However, I am concerned about the smaller, mid-western stations that may not be able to raise as much money (I grew up in Michigan). NPR is for everyone, so what happens if a station falls short? Are there sort of “NPR scholarships” for some of the stations without as much money?

I don’t understand why WBUR has to use the BBC. They are so obviously bias against Israel that I don’t trust them for any other news……………..

BBC gets it right for once

The BBC got it right here, but probably for the wrong reasons. Very funny !

See below for the usual BBC / Channel 4 / Sky News guidelines for Israel….

1. always accept the Palestinian version without question

2. interview at least 8 Palestinian supporters to every Israeli supporter

3. assume the UN is impartial, and a shining beacon of justice in a dark world

4. assume any video / photos provided by Palestinians are always reliable – never question their veracity. It’s probably not worth bothering viewers with the fact that much of the media is doctored or staged – this will only confuse them

5. gloss over the last 60 years of history (never mention how 6 Arab armies tried to destroy Israel in ‘48, ‘67, and ‘73)

6. don’t report how Hamas (etc) bully, torture and murder their own people, or misappropriate aid/finance (or if you do, play it down)

7. NEVER mention that Iran / Hamas / Fatah have vowed to destroy Israel and kill every Jew in the world (if you do mention it, assume they don’t really mean it)

8. Report only the words that Fatah say in English, never what they say in Arabic

9. if you interview an Israeli (or misguided supporter such as Colonel Kemp, Mark Regev), make sure you interrupt them frequently. If you’re coming off second best, tell them you’re running out of time

10. if interviewing a Palestinian (or Annie Lennox, Alexei Sayle), make sure you ask them lots of really open questions, allowing lots of time to air their views without interruption – nod frequently to show your support. Don’t interrupt them, as this is disrespectful

11. above all, the tone of your voice should exhibit disapproval towards Israel, and sympathy towards Palestinians

12. ensure you use the word “occupation” as much as you can (don’t get involved in meaningless discussions concerning how Israel either paid huge sums for swamps / wilderness in ‘48, or won it when arabs declared war on them)

13. never report anti-semitic attacks/incidents from the UK or elsewhere (we are unsure as to why these are increasing, but certain it has nothing to do with how we are portraying the situation)

14. don’t report Pro-Israel activity such as marches – nobody cares, and these people are misguided anyway. If the politicians from all parties turn a blind eye, why shouldn’t we ?

15. if you get the facts wrong (Israel murders 1000’s in Bethlehem), never issue an apology or retraction

16. It is probably more news-worthy if you paint Israel as the aggressor – so don’t mention that Hamas launched over 6,000 rockets into Israel after Israel had vacated the Gaza strip

17. On proportionality, probably not worth mentioning comparisons with civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, or WW2 Germany (this will only confuse people). The fact that Hamas deliberately booby-trapped civilian homes and made people go into them, we are sure, has nothing to do with civilian casualties….

15. probably not worth mentioning the Bible – Jesus, a Jew, born in Bethlehem, visiting the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (this is only 2000 years of history anyway….)

Note to Producers – make sure that when interviews are taking place that you loop some video showing ultra-left wing Norwegian doctors running after ambulances performing chest compression on live patients, and female Hamas supporters screaming uncontrollably about how their terrorist husbands were mercilessly martyred by the IDF. Remember, it really doesn’t matter what the interview says because people will remember the images

Neil Turner , Watford, UK (01.24.09)

I think big media in this country is making the same mistake the Big 3 automakers have. When consumers said they wanted small, fuel efficient cars the Big 3 told us we were wrong, they knew we wanted giant gas-guzzling SUVs. This lead them to the predicament they are currently in.

Likewise, every time I talk to anyone who works at a newspaper or TV station and bemoan the horrible quality of what passes for “journalism”, I’m told that people don’t want good news. They want shouting-heads and car crashes. As the mainstream media loses money hand over fist, they blame everything except their own horrible product.

NPR provides what a lot of people want – in depth, intelligent reporting and analysis instead of sensationalism and headline news. Although if you keep pushing Twitter on a public that doesn’t care about it, you may become just as irrelevant as Channel 12 or The Providence Journal.

Given the drying up of advertising funds, do you think that news gathering operations should be regarded a publicly sponsored utility? I.e., broaden the NPR model to print, broadcast and Web media?

Fifteen minutes in – this program is nothing more than an ” aren’t we great ” exercise and I am tuning out – with soo much going on in the world – interviewing the boss serves whose interests?

I wanted to comment on the why NPR is so popular. I cannot speak for anyone else but as far as I am concerned, I like the portability of majority of programs. I am a regular podcast listener for NPR shows such as this one, Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, Marketplace, and others. The quality of programming, the unbiased reporting and the coverage of topics that interest a diverse pool of audience are some of the reason why I and others I know listen to NPR. Furthermore, the fact that Radio as a medium is far more accessible than TV and it also allows people to multitask as they listen in are I think reasons why I listen to NPR as opposed to watching TV shows you mentioned earlier in the program. Keep up the great work guys! You all are doing an amazing job!

Question to Wonderful Vivian:

Can NPR adopt such a policy, in which ….
if a donor (corp/non-profit institution) makes a donation and “demands” editiorial control on any subject or makes an attempt to interject their political influence, that organization must be dropped from the Donor’s List.

Is it possible, in this current economic environment?

Listening now to the conversation with Ms. Schiller. I think NPR’s popularity is growing in part because the audio format is so flexible–people can bring the programs (via ipods, mp3 players) to the gym, to the grocery store, listen at work, while making dinner, while commuting etc. In short, busy families can multi-task while getting the news. I don’t have time go online and troll the NYT website. I definitely don’t have time to watch Anderson Cooper on TV. But I can listen to NPR while doing other things. Thank goodness, otherwise I’d never know what is going on!

I applaud NPR’s high ratings in news, but the high ratings for Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me are sad. Unlike its other Saturday competitors on NPR and American Public Media, Wait Wait uniquely goes for the cheap laugh — often the sophomoric. That’s not a sign of excellence. It’s the Two and a Half Men of public radio.

I think it’s great that NPR dropped Real Player for playing their content online and allows time-shifting listening. The next step would be allowing embedding players on other web sites to spread the word. TED, YouTube, Google and others do this and it’s a great way to point people to your rich content.

By the way, you’re now talking about blogs and I agree with you Vivian. I’m a blogger and I’d like to embed NPR feeds on my blog.

BBC interviewers challenge those they are interviewing much more than interviewers from All Things Considered, etc. I have heard them challenge Iranian government spokesmen as well as U.S. supporters. WBUR was threatened with withdrawal of financial support a few years ago for running an innocuous slice of life story about an Arab living in Israel. The folks at WBUR had to grovel at an open meeting of critics – instead of defending the need to present all sides.
I give money to WBUR because it carries the BBC.

Dear R.M.

We know that you have historic and/or religious and/or ethnic ties to the injustice in the Middle East; which is about to bankcrupt My Country, USA (may not be your #1 country, in the list of Loyalties)

If you really love that Country/Forced Establishment in the Middle East, please help us implement this:
http://www.humangenome.org/solutionToMiddleEast.htm
And put your money where your mouth is.

And then we will all live in Peace and Harmony.
And please stop attacking Facts and BBC and NPR, OK?

I think one main reason why NPR is flourishing while others are struggling is that unbiased commentaries are hard to find these days. Sometimes I feel that most major news organization nowadays has more influencing power than the President of the United States himself to shape and form people’s minds, as if they have their own agendas to fill. I personally listen to NPR exclusively because I feel you deliver the most unbiased stories and look at topics from all angles; both popular and unpopular. Please keep NPR unbiased!! And of course (on an off note), my favorite program is Car Talk, so Vivian? Please don’t cut that show!

How can NPR lead the charge to rebut the myth of the “liberal media” in a world where the center has shifted so far to the right? Right leaning, non-listener friends and family consistently tell me that NPR is so biased that they won’t listen. I reply that the facts are what they are, and the depth and detail is only available here and not on the cable or network news. The perception is that facts are liberal.

So why…if NPR is public ….is it so obvious that NPR is just NOT INTERESTED in the public having a say in what you do with your money….including the program lineup?

Thanks.

Please talk about the reporters. As papers go, the feet-on-the-ground vanish. How can we have a forth estate without the foot soldiers?

when i was at BU for my 7 years I used to listen alot then got away from it. I have to admit that now that I run my own company i came back to radio first with music but to often you hear just the same songs over and overm then I tired a local station but could not stand the same news over and over.

I came back to npr a few years agao an never went back. I love the shows and coverage especially onpoint!! and even on the weekends I am a huge Wait Wait fan.

I have also found amoungst my clients and freinds many others that listen to npr radio. I once descripbed it as PBS/ NOVA /BBC / Frontline all wrapped up but live more like CNN in the early days, but better than them all.

I get to hear relavent topics, experts, knowlagable an coverage that no paper or “live” TV can touch

I agree with the caller, NPR journalists and associates need to stay off FOX to keep themselves “pure.”

As these people mix in with the rest of the news media their “purity” which is part of their credibility suffers.

Please talk about the reporters. As papers go, the feet-on-the-ground vanish. How can we have a forth estate without them?

With very little hyperbole, I often say, “NPR is LIFE ITSELF to me”!!! It is like going to graduate school, but in multiple majors simultaneously!!!

Go into as many new media as you must, but PLEASE do NOT ever abandon transmission of the network over REGULAR radio airwaves. The poor cannot always afford the newest media (even computers!), BUT a TRANSISTOR RADIO carries radio signals BEAUTIFULLY!! The radio itself is a SMALL investment, and the batteries for transistors RARELY need replacing!! In West Africa, radios are transforming societies, building community, helping with education and health alerts. The same is already true with a medium many have abandoned in the U.S. So, PLEASE, never go exclusively to satellite radio or internet services.

I believe in PLEDGING, and I donate regularly to TWO NPR stations. I would NOT mind it if you made pod-casting available by pledging ONLY, with REGISTERED non-pledgers able to listen to a small number of podcasts per year without paying. Please be careful that your generosity does NOT result in you’re having insufficient income to keep up your fantastic NEWSROOMS: THE IMPORTANT PART IS KEEPING YOUR JOURNALISTS!!

One last thing, please never pander to just one age group. Seems obvious, but that tendency is wrecking lots of journalism (as well as major parts of the retail world, actually)!!

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

What about the cultural mission of NPR? Remembering that it all started from classical music/ cultural broadcasting, does the music still figure into the mission? There seem top be ever fewer connections to that past at the same time that “Higher” culture shrinks out of view in our civilization in general. For some of us in the community that is still an essential part of public radio.

I have listened to NPR for nearly 30 years and contribute financially to my local station. I like the free digital streaming and pod casts that make the programming more portable. I find NPR to be more objective than other news networks. I love how there are almost no commercials.

I HATE pledge week.

I also think Steve Inskeep and what’s her name from LA are a big step down from Bob Edwards on Morning Edition.

Did I say I HATE pledge week.

I have been listening to NPR for my entire life. I can remember listening to NPR as a child and it has had a large impact on my life as a whole. My fondest memory is Carl’s voice giving the headlines at the top of each hour.

Thank you for all that you have done in the last 30 years. I am an above average listener,I listen to NPR from the time that I get up in the morning to the time that I go to sleep at night,seven days a week 365 day a year.

I would like to see NPR offer more podcasts and blogs that would allow we, the listening public, a chance to assist NPR in reporting the news and events that affects all of our lives.

Again, thank you for all that you do. Keep up the good work.

Best,

Jeremiah Huson

As Vivian Schiller frames it, the challenges NPR is facing are similar to what the BBC has been facing for the past 10+ years in the UK: trying to maintain journalistic quality and expand into new media platforms while keeping costs down.

Obviously the BBC’s public funding through the license fee is something that NPR doesn’t benefit from in parallel in the US. Nonetheless, in addition to carrying BBC programming, is NPR working actively with counterparts in the BBC to learn from what has and hasn’t worked for them?

I listen to WBUR on the internet 5 days a week while at work, so I put in about 30+ hours a week listening to the station. I would have to say that the internet is the best and most convenient medium for me. The information that NPR puts out is so broad and deep that I feel that I’m gaining a personal insight into complex difficulties of our world. I would like it if Marketplace could be moved up to 4:00 or so, since then I could catch it before leaving work.

I disagree with the caller. When underwriting, WalMart supports NPR and not the other way round.

As others have noted, NPR is in the lead with multiple formats and accessibility. I live in Toronto, Canada and am listening to On Point right now streamed through my iPhone on the Public Radio application. The lack of this kind of flexible formatting combined with a continued commitment to quality newsgathering and objective presentation is, I think, one of the key elements in the demise of the newspaper.

And of course, NPR and PBS have had an alternate revenue model for decades. You have developed a dedicated audience happy to pay for the service. Canada’s CBC, which depends on taxpayer support as determined by the government of the day is in a less stable position that the individual donation and underwriter-based NPR.

Keep up the great journalism. More Shields and Brooks. Maybe have them pop in on Car Talk sometime — just a thought.

Stop the attempt at humor. Are the NPR reporters encouraged to be more humorous, accessible, cute? All Things Considered, Talk of the Nation, and especially Weekend Edition Saturday sound more and more like The Today Show. (Scott Simon appears particularly pleased with himself – “modestly” chuckling at his comments.) The host of comedy shows with full time comedy writers have a hard time being genuinely funny – not realistic to expect your reportes and hosts to be funny.
Not just NPR – the BBC commentators now engage in spontaneous banter – they apparently consider themselves quite witty.

Geographical news coverage: why so much US-centric ? why so little on Africa and the Far East or even Europe ?

Wish NPR would inspire itself more from BBC World News (not the pre-chewed one hour section aired on some NPR stations, but the actual news aired round the clock including on short wave.

BBC world still has many news gathering units worldwide, and I would think BBC would be happy to cooperate further with NPR ?

We’ve often heard about gov’t funding for NPR being cut or completely pulled, and everyone starts their email chains to raise the alert. Can Vivian talk about what she thinks is provoking these govt representatives to want to take this money away from NPR, which seems to be something other than general budget balancing?

USA is also my country , are you trying to mute my freedom of speech?

The Take Away is an embarrassment. Although not aired on BUR, it has replaced thoughtful broadcasts with happy talk and inane dribble. This program is a “dumbing down” of programming.

How does NPR balance growth into new forms of communication (blogs, podcasting, etc.) which can be an expensive endeavor, without spreading itself too thin where its quality would begin to suffer?

Keep up the great work!

I just want to say I listen to NPR in my car and when I get to my desk I listen to it on the web from 6:30 to 2:30. This is the first thing I access before I open my email. I love it. I found it to be intellectually stimulating. I love the way the news is given. It is very professional. I have learned so much from NPR. I used to listen to WBZ but too much commercials so I switched to NPR. I even got my 16 years son to listen to it because that’s what is on in my car’s radio. You guys are great! Keep up the great work you are doing.

I beg to differ Vivian: The New York Times was not always free, you had various failed pay schemes along the way and I have to say I’d be glad to pay for online content but the way NY Times did it was bad. A subscription like Salon would be a better model.

Hello there,

At 26, I am one of those younger listeners. My earliest memory of my love of NPR was at 11 when a friend asked what my favorite radio station was. When I responded with “NPR” it solidified the downturn in my popularity at middle school, but solidified a life-time love of learning and being informed.

I think that you can reach younger audiences with varying programing. One of my all time favorite shows is Fair Game, broadcast on North Country Public Radio and they do a brilliant job of combining solid news with a healthy dose of humor and sarcasm, which I think speaks to younger generations. . .

Keep up the good work!

To bring in younger listeners, how about you not cancel shows like “Day to Day.” That was the only real show that was not completely geared towards 45+, in my opinion.

Thanks

Jack Beatty is far from a left wingnut. I listen on Friday mostly to hear him.

I would like to hear Vivian Schiller talk about the change in underwriting spots from a ten second mention of a corporation’s name to twenty- to thirty-second underwriting spots that sound a lot like commercial advertisements. I understand that npr needs money to run, but at what point are these “underwriting spots” actually just more affordable advertisements for private commercial businesses who want to buy radio spots?

Why have call in shows? I seldom listen to Talk of the Nation anymore. I often turn off On Point after the interview section.
I have listened to On Point (and its predecessor The Connection) for years. I often turn off my radio when the callers are allowed “into the conversation”. I do not need to hear more uniformed opinions – I hear that all too often. Besides that, the callers are usually just dull. Life is too short. How about just reading emails fromm listeners?

Please, give us more Fresh Air type of shows

On reaching a younger audience:
I am a 27 year old woman who has many peers who listen to NPR, however there are times when the discussion being presented is far distance from the ideals and opinions of my generation. Would NPR ever consider having programs presented by the younger (20-30y) generation in order to bridge the gap between the older and younger generations?

One of the callers said that NPR has a slightly liberal bias and Vivian denied it vehemently. What’s wrong with being slightly liberal? When one won’t even consider that their products could be appealing to more liberals than conservatives, isn’t that a red flag to objectivity in itself?
The argument that NPR listeners claim to be moderates, that seems like that case where optimists always say that they’re optimists, while pessimists say that they’re realists. Conservatives seem to claim to be conservatives while liberals often say they are “realists”. I’m fairly conservative and I donate to NPR, I love it, but I also like to call a spade a spade.

On Vivian’s statement that people know their local stations and do not refer to NPR as the source of their listening experience, I strongly disagree. People listen to “NPR” first and “WBUR” (for example) second. I have never heard a friend say “I listen to WBUR.” But I have often and frequently heard them say “I listen to NPR.” If you listen to the people who called in to speak to Vivian or offer an opinion, they referred to “NPR” not their local stations.

This could easily be misread as a reference based on Vivian’s role. I don’t believe it is–I believe people listen to NPR first. I’ve been a listener to WBUR for over twenty years and whenever I discuss a program, I always refer to NPR.

Vivian said the right thing politically and commercially. But in fact, it is not correct in my experience.

strange ,I see Charley@xxx.com and calvanorth@…mail maybe I should call the police ?

Many Americans seem to lack the ability to make good decisions. It might be helpful to do a program on how sources affect what we think. Terms such as, conservative, liberal have little meaning other than to provoke such hidden meaning. Maybe the question that should be raised is what kinds of information do we need to make good well rounded decisions? How do we validate a source? How do we encourage good thinking or for that matter thinking? How is it possible for us to believe something when all or most of the information contradict what we believe. If the goal is independent thinking… then how do we get there?

You are obviously using mine …your comment is posted under R.M…….Why is your comment posted under that? …..WBUR what is going on ?

I heard alot of yak today about how “impartial” and “unbiased” NPR is. Oh that it were true. UNfortunately the war fevered coverage of iraq and Afghanistan on the major news shows tells quite a different story. “Hero” sstories and discussions of strategy and tactics have systematically displaced any critical inquiry into the stated rationales of the Bush administration for starting these wars or why President Obama keeps them going.
Also, NPR compromises its integrity by constantly promoting the ad industry in various programs . So much then for “indepence” on national ‘publican radio

I loved hearing about NPR;s success. We have it on most of the day–in Newton and on vacation in Maine. I believe it is as fair- minded and balanced as humanly possible.

In response to the complaint about the left-leaning of the Globe, I would like to remind people about how lucky this area is to have two newspapers. The Herald definitely leans to the right– we subscribe to both and can enjoy and argue with each of them.

Louise Lazare

Please talk about the reporters. …. How can we have a forth estate without them?

For that matter, how can we have a forth estate without U?
Or “you, our listeners?”

My only complaint is David Frum’s commentary on Marketplace. He coined the term “Axis of Evil” (stole it, actually) for Bush.

Why does NPR keep dipping into the AEI well for commentary? Are there no left side commentators?

I agree with the caller who attempted to make the (obvious)point that NPR generally presents a liberal viewpoint. Ms. Schiller of course denied this, and noted that listener surveys tend to show the audience “split down the middle.” (Fox News has made the same statement about their listeners). I belong to a large family of listeners, almost all of whom are very conservative. It is a standing joke of how biased NPR’s programming is, but we listen because in “talk” radio (music not playing constantly)there is not much else out there. NPR offers a variety unlike any other. But to say its programming isn’t heavily liberal is to be in denial. Simply take a survey of the staff and see who they supported in the last several elections. The “Bush bashing” was blatant. The Obama “love affair” is also obvious. Your listeners may be “split down the middle”, but I would bet my portion of the “stimulus” package they would agree the programming is certainly not in the middle. Yes, we listen, and at times it is painful. But you are all we have for now.

I hope Vivian Schiller is not a management school
product.

I had a couple of queasy moments listening to
the interview. The use of the term “branding” wrt NPR was not encouraging , nor the implied ramming of a common web-site look and feel down the throats of local stations . I hope that these comments are not symptomatic of her mind-set ? But I was not really enthused. (Walmart is neutral ?)

The strength of NPR is community and local bug in. The content is most important NOT the medium,,, not really, regardless of what Marshall Mc said.

I wonder how Ms Schiller is going to address the increasingly trenchant critiques that are aimed at NPR News, as its corporate and special interest influences contradict its public funding foundations. The watchdog blog NPR Check (http://www.nprcheck.blogspot.com/) is full of examples showing NPR’s very obvious biases, it’s poor choices in on-air talent, its disgraceful allowance of Anne Garrels’ unethical report on torture ‘victims’, the NPR smugness, NPR’s deception in posing as a supposedly ‘liberal’ news source, the problem of its contributors who moonlight at Fox News, NPR’s preference for subjects appealing to the upper middle class and affluent classes, the ‘genial condescension’ applied to listeners, and many, many other examples of poor quality radio, that is currently being praised because it is supposedly the only ‘alternative’ news source available for ‘thinking people’.

In my opinion, NPR News as it is now should be wholly revamped and replaced with a more neutral and unencumbered news approach, and let the commercial media outlets handle the clutter of ‘infotainment’ in their own ways.

This critique is not aimed at the many splendid offerings that NPR stations offer independently of the network. Indeed, it is only aimed at NPR News.

NPR should stop calling itself “public.” It isn’t “public”. It is simply “non-profit” or “non-commercial radio.” NPR = Non-Profit Radio. Simple enough. They don’t even have to change their “branding” or logo.

I wish Ms Schiller would address NPR’s position regarding Community Radio. NPR stations spend relatively little time on local news. Local news is VERY important. Community Radio spends MUCH of its time addressing local news and information.

How does Ms Schiller feel about Community Radio? Does she and NPR view CR as a competitor or a complement?

I understand that during that last few months of the Clinton Admin, local radio licenses were allowed to be applied for and that the window for these applications was shut down (still is) after only a few months, and that NPR was a major opponent of allowing local radio licenses.

I’m a long-time listener/addict & major financial supporter.

I identify with the intimate experience of NPR and other public media.
New twitter access and blogs are cool.

But…

I want to interact with other listeners
(imagine an NPR dating venue)

and I want to be a participant or have active role in the production or operations
(not just a volunteer for pledge drives)

My goal is to create an NPRme.

I guess people are conflating “liberal” with “Democrat” which is not entirely accurate. I’ll consider NPR liberal when it invites people like Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and George Farah on the show.

It’s well-known that Ralph Nader was blacklisted in 2008 by NPR, and I have to wonder how liberal as well as impartial/balanced NPR is when Bob Barr made an appearance on On Point, but not Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.

It’s all smoke and mirrors, people.

Back in the 90s, a movement started called “public journalism.” NPR played some lip service to it, but largely dismissed it at “advocacy” journalism — in short, NOT objective. Nonetheless, NPR’s experts and sources (often their own employees) have no trouble interpreting and otherwise filtering the news for its listeners. Whether critics call it bias or not really isn’t the point. Several academic studies have been done regarding media bias, and people will argue the merits of these studies, including sampling and methodology and indeed — bias of the individual or institution that performs the study. Regardless, NPR’s problems are largely that it behaves (and sounds) like much of the conventional, commercial media. Sure, it’s not shrill (like the left-wing bloggers it likes to scorn) or bombastic (like the right-wing networks it claims to be disparate from), but it is indeed mainstream, inoffensive, long-form nonsense much of the time. What good are 7-minute long interviews where hosts speak to other journalists, government and corporate officials most if not nearly ALL the time? To me, it sounds like conversations one would overhear at elite, DC-, NY, and LA-centered cocktail parties. Does that represent “the public”. Truly “public journalism” provides valuable information to the citizenry to enable them to make good, socially-beneficial decisions. It empowers citizens in a democracy. It seems to me that NPR is more about empowering itself — increasing market share, maximizing audience numbers, and growing it’s base of CONTRIBUTORS. Except for issues of “profit” how exactly is that different from commercial broadcasting?

I caught the end of the interview with Vivian Schiller. One of her replies compelled me to add a comment here.

First, NPR is the best news available in the US, bar none. But, I agree with David Jones above. It is liberal biased… just less so than other news organizations. Of course, I’m leaving out the Fox Network which I can’t watch. It is as conservative biased as MSNBC is liberal biased.

Ms. Schillers defense made no logical sense. To say that NPR is not liberal biased because the audience is balanced doesn’t make sense. The audience is mixed because NPR is the least biased of all the other choices. I watch PBS news every evening for the same reason… liberal biased but the best available

@BrianSanborn,

If Ms. Schiller said “…best news available in the US, bar none..” then she made a statement that cannot be supported by any facts. Simply put, it is entirely her opinion. To that I say, “who cares”? I hear marketing, advertising and public relations statements like that everyday.

What I find utterly ironic about her statement is that she’d not even be able to claim that in an underwriting spot for NPR. Statements like that, in the form of corporate underwriting, are expressly forbidden on NPR. But, who’s going to ask her for evidence, right? Perhaps next time, she can come with a Pew poll (at least) that proves her claim?

Cheers,

-jet

Bill Madagin,(sic?) you are spot on. Scott Simon does seem more than a little pleased with himself. And he’s a major propmoter of war “hero” stories at the expense of critical inquiry. He’s not alone. Did happen to catch Liane Hansen’s cloying tribute to Ronald Reagan the weekend, he died? NO discussion of his controversial legacy just alot of fluff about what a “nice man ” he was. THIS on “public” radio.Just what you would expect from someone who uttered such a profound utterance as ‘I’m a boomer”. Yup that’s our Liane.

Brian Sanborn pleas tell me how you can possibly make the case that NPR has a liberal bias. They’re always giving stock market reports, Their stories always reflect the interests of big business. Their filler commentaries when political are always from conservative voices ,they always shill for commercial telelvision and the ad industry, as wellas the military.
So I’m curious. Just where is the ‘liberal bias” on ‘public” radio?

To Dana,

How would you consider stock market reports as an example that proves NPR doesn’t have a “liberal bias?” Judging by your message it appears that you consider such reporting to be an example of a right-wing bias, but when has business reporting ever been considered indicative of any bias? It is important news, and although you may not follow the stock market, a lot of people do and their view points are hardly all right leaning (liberals invest too). Business does not mean right-wing, it can be (especially when it is perverted under administration like we saw with Bush), but it can also be centrist over even left-leaning.

That said, the fact that NPR is a bit left-leaning is not a bad thing. In general its reporting is pretty fair and most people who listen understand that the commentary is a bit left of center. Personaly I feel that its views can be a very valuable counterbalance to the often extremely right leaning reporting of outlets like Fox News.

Can someone come up with a way for reporters and/or commentators to talk to one another on the air without resorting to the fake rehearsed question?

I know it’s standard fare for delivering news that sounds conversational and non-threatening to those who are ignorant (non-pejorative use) of certain facts, but, it is one of those things that make NPR sound like the SNL skit.

I want NPR to talk over my head and sound stogy!!!

I want NPR to be challenging and not just sprinkled with an intellectual frosting.

I tune into NPR for 2 reasons. 1. I hate the % of commercials on KGO, the commercial station I otherwise largely enjoy. 2. I’m treated like a thinking adult.

Increasingly commercial radio and tv are driven by the shrillest, loudest voices that hammer home the same narrow minded view points. Like so many businesses, they are focused on winning today (newscycle) with no focus on the long term health (reputation)of the business. NPR has cultivated me as a dedicated listener as they provide a more worldly view of the issues that impact the planet. The recent incident with the captain held hostage is a great example. NPR provided basic reporting on what was a horrible situation for the family, but was of minor consequence to the country. NPR provided background on what drives the piracy problem and the possible options but didn’t fixate on the event. On the otherhand, commercial news sources like CNN provided 24 hour coverage of the event and felt it important for me to know his neighbors, food allergies and hobbies, schooling, etc.

Hi On Point,

Irish citizen in California. Listen to NPR ~5-6 hours per day (podcasts). It’s excellent and something that the US should be very proud of.

RE: todays show about the media and demise of the newspaper.

I’ve lived on mainland europe also and I notice that alot of people read the paper on public transport… during their commute…. as they listen to NPR in the US. Therefore, I wonder if the lack of public transport in the US (generally) is a big contributor to the newspaper industry.

fall of the newspaper industry…. sorry!

Thanks NPR…keep it up.

We have listened since we arrived from the Netherlands in 1981. Very informative.
but my question: since we are getting more and more global oriented, could we have besides BBC receive more international Programs such as German programs? It sure would make the American public more informed globally and not just american or onbe-sided informed.
Henriette Brecheisen.

Will Ms. Schiller be asked to address the lack of diversity? Will she be able to get away with saying NPR can’t be racist because “we just can’t be?”

Unfortunately Tell Me More really let her off the hook on this one. For sadly obvious reasons, since Ms. Schiller just canceled News & Notes. (Ms. Schiller: Commerical radio is way more diverse than NPR. It’s truly laughable.

Of course you all aren’t racist, you just don’t happen to know any (qualified) black folks!

:} Lydia (a white chick who misses the diversity of News & Notes) and listener (former contributor) to WNYC, or as I call it, WNwhiteC.

Full disclosure: Slightly right of center, very right on social issues. But have voted Obama, Kerry, Gore in last 3 elections.

I have been listening to WBUR/NPR for 20 years, and overall I enjoy it. I belive that the newscasts are generally unbiased. But lets not kid ourselves. Anyone who would claim that NPR programming is unbiased is more than fooling themselves. NPR/Fresh Air is a gay-rights/pro-abortion advocacy show. Tom Ashbrook generally holds himself in check, but what is it with “News Analyst” Jack Beatty from Hanover NH. unabashed left wing excuse-ologist. And there is rarely a counterbalance when he is on. Evne Tom, though this goes back some, couldn’t let Jim Wallis make his point without interrupting him to talk about his anti-abortion views, as if they were unknown.

Let’s be honest.

I’m left of centre and I think NPR’s coverage is slightly left of centre. It’s not an argument to say that listener surveys indicate that they are evenly shared – many people listen to right-wing talk radio without being right wing nuts. I do actually think the news coverage is a problem sometimes – there’s definitely a more critical tone and vocabulary in coverage of the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats – I think your editors should look at that. And I say that as a liberal! – because impartiality is so precious and so rare in the world it’s very important to maintain.

I agree with the caller Robert from Vermont. I love NPR but recently I think the voice of NPR has morphed into one big endorsement for all things center and left of center. I miss the questioning and critical analysis that characterized NPR during the Republican adminstration. Now that analysis, the hosts and the guests all seem one-sided in approach (and in my opinion, includes this program). The statistics provided on the show did not convince me otherwise. So I am with you Robert – I miss the dissenting voice and alternative point of view.

As a Brit living in the US I’d like to comment on Neil Turner’s post on the BBC. I’m clearly not going to convince him, but I simply don’t recognize his description of the BBC’s coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The BBC was actually subjected to a lengthy and detailed independent enquiry into this coverage which concluded that there was no overall bias. There was some criticism – that it could provide more historical and political context to some of its coverage – but to repeat, it did not conclude that the coverage was biased. Overall, I think the BBC is an extremely valuable outlet on Arab-Israeli issues – the orgnazation strives and succeeds in providing balanced, accurate and fair reporting of a complex situation. The issue with the Middle East is that partisans on both sides are furious that their side and their side alone isn’t being exclusively presented.

I agree with many other comments stating that the ability to multitask while listening and being able to listen to shows at your leisure are what make NPR a success. I listen to Onpoint several times a week but never at the time it is actually playing. Also as for being unbiased I do feel NPR tends to lean to the left but only moderately. However I do appreciate when they have reasonable republican voices on even though I tend to be a democrat.

Why do I listen to NPR?

Its informative, entertaining, intriguing, and never ceases to teach me something new. I love how it doesn’t waste my time with sensationalized stories about the “octomom”, for example.

I listen to NPR as I do my homework. As a high school senior, I spend a lot of time doing homework, so I spend a lot of time listening to NPR.

I plan on studying journalism at University of Missouri-Columbia (GO TIGERS!), and I feel that NPR does a wonderful job of being an unbiased, dependable source of information!

Wait. Did Ms. Schiller say there was no skew to the left?
I’m a social liberal and I think NPR is left leaning.
Granted, over the past 5 yrs or so they have been doing a better job of including the major opposing viewpoint, but there is a reason for the perception.

I think NPR has a responsibility for examining both sides of the coin and the edges too.

Please stop whining about whether there is bias one way or the other; instead, please stand in AWE of how much information NPR reporters and commentators and hosts have at their command. They are not just aware of present-day matters, but know subjects as they play out over time and from various perspectives, parties, and/or national agendas. Because this is On Point’s web page, and because I adore this show, I will especially point out Tom Ashbrook’s brilliant ability to discuss or be curious about any and all topics, and his remarkable ability to field the spontaneous stuff that comes up thru those interviewed and those calling in! The professional commitment and preparation that happens behind the scenes is a gift to us each and every day! And, the producers, the librarians, etc., etc.: how lucky we are to be the beneficiaries of their brilliance and hard work! THANK YOU ALL!!!

It’s interesting that most of the posts here and much of the commentary in the discussion are about CONTENT – - what programs or NPR personalities people like or don’t like or whether NPR has a political bias, etc.

Imagine we were doing that WRT to newspapers right now. Would it matter? “Oh I like this columnist” “I like this restaurant reviewer” “That newspaper has a better London bureau than this newspaper”, etc.

Just like newspapers, NPR is facing huge structural, economic and information-culture changes and they’re whistling past the graveyard. I can remember going to NAA (formerly ANPA) conventions where everyone was talking about the internet but they were all confident their industry could weather the change.

NPR is based on an archaic model of local station loyalties but in the age of the internet this is unsustainable. I live near Lowell MA, so my “local” NPR affiliates are WBUR and WGBH. I give them money out of charity but I have no basis for a relationship. I consume all my NPR programming via the web and I go to program-specific sites (e.g., cars.com for Car Talk) NOT wbur.org or wgbh.org. I never have to worry about pledge drives.

If NPR doesn’t address 21st century structural changes their funding will dry up no matter how much great programming they have.

To Paul,
Yes, you’re right Paul stock market news ,to a degree may be important. I’m not saying, NPR shouldn’t report it at all. But the contenet of these shows tends to favor Wall St. which of course is conservative.Why on ‘public’ radio do we not hear regular news from labor or undion organisers? And as someone else on this blog said. Such voices as Ralph Nader who is critical of compulsive consumerism and corporate America has been blacklisted by NPR.Where are the voices from say Public Citizen or Corporate Watch? Or P.R. Watch? They and their kin will not be heard on compromised National “public” Radio

When I drive across the great American doughnut hole and run the radio dial, I get Jesus, Texas, Jesus, Texas, Jesus, Texas. Christianity and country western music dominate. Where is NPR? At night in a motel, the Fox channels always come in brightest and strongest. Where is PBS? Oh, sorry, it’s there behind the snow somewhere, one station so poor it can’t run anything remotely interesting. So it’s no wonder that everywhere in the heartland, folks believe that PBS is boring.

Is this an accident?

I think there has been a conscious conservative push to weaken the strongest sources of stimulating and questioning reporting, in favor of making their programming the only points of view on the airwaves. Keep the public stupid and docile, and it will follow you like sheep.

So how about it? How about a quantitative study of the media available in the vast stretches of American mono-culture, where “thinking” has become a “liberal” word.

And how about considering that democracy demands well rounded citizens capable of considering radically different points of view in synthesizing their own? If it is the job of government to educate, why shouldn’t the government make the full programming of NPR and PBS available everywhere? It would be a banquet for inquiring minds that now have so little now to chew on, and it couldn’t help but make the nation a much more tolerant and creative place.

If it is the job of government to educate, why shouldn’t the government make the full programming of NPR and PBS available everywhere?

NPR _IS_ available everywhere via the internet.

I can’t comment about PBS because I stopped watching PBS (and other TV) years ago because it’s boring.

Anyway public broadcasting is not about education. The days of “educational broadcasting” were gone a generation ago.

Anyway NPR is too low-brow and mass-market to educate much. A far better alternative is ABC Radio National – http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ They have regular full-length programs on poetry (”Poetica”) philosophy (”The Philosopher’s Zone”), Design (”By Design”) as well as the arts, books, language, history and experimental and avante-garde stuff that NPR can’t touch with a 10′ pole! It’s excellent! And all this with a tiny fraction of NPR’s budget. And you can hear it all, for free, 24/7, at an internet near you.

But as I said above, talking about NPR’s programming is a bit like the newspapers talking about what comics they should have or whether team ownership should be discussed on the business page or sports page. It misses the central problems which are structural and paradigmatic.

I’ve been a member of WGBH and WBUR for years but the only time they’ve had any relevance to my life at all was recently when WBUR sent a producer out to my house for an interview that a competitor of NPR’s (American Public Media, which produces Marketplace) was doing with me.

[...] Onpoint with Vivian Schiller [...]

[...] Vivian Schiller, who helms National Public Radio, spoke with Tom Ashbrook yesterday. Check out the lively conversation the interview elicited on the website. Get any two radio listeners into a [...]

I’m not an NPR fan other than On Point and Science Friday. Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me is pretentious and over the top. Peter Sagal and the panel always yell and can never speak in a normal voice. They’re drama queens and I think the audience is coached to overreact to the lame jokes by laughing hysterically. Morning Edition, Day to Day and All Things Considered are broken records, ridiculously predictable with deadly dull hosts. You have too many dinosaurs like Robert Siegel, Linda Wertheimer, Scott Simon and Jackie Lyden. The hosts are terrible other than Tom Ashbrook and Ira Flatow. NPR needs a total makeover to give it much more of a sense of immediacy and a 24/7 feel. Put on talk shows at night and not that awful jazz music garbage.

It would be laughable if it weren’t a serious problem that the new leader of NPR continues to assert and believe that NPR’s presentation isn’t LEFT-leaning. The caller who said he would donate $ to NPR except for the too-liberal bias was sending a very clear message (not only in regard to fund-raising). It’s because the people who work at and run NPR have strong politically liberal BELIEFS that they cannot see the bias this causes. Sure, your polls suggest a straight down the middle political philosophy but the majority of the audience is left-leaning BUT would naturally describe themselves as completely fair-minded and neutral (right-leaning people say the same thing). It simply has to do with perspective. The fund-raising issue should really give Ms. Schiller a clue – That’s OBJECTIVE evidence. NPR has always been and continues to be politically left-biased. Please be objective enough to first recognize this problem and then fix it. Fact: 65-70% of the USA is center-right politically. NPR is ignoring (and many times insulting) this huge fund raising source.

Fred, The fund-raising issue doesn’t seem to be enough of a concern for NPR to “fix” the problem. You are right on the money (pun intended). Ms. Schiller doesn’t appear to be the one destined to make that change though, which is unfortunate.

TO Fred Estabrook;
Dear Fred, i wish you and others would offer some specific examples to buttress your claim that NPR is biased to the Left.As a “lefty’ myself, I have cited many instances on the major news shows that show a leaning to the right.I’ve named them above. For example did you hear Liane Hansen’s tribute to Ronald Reagan?Or any of the stoires about the current wars?Just where are those left wing anti-war voices? All their political filler commentary is right wing. I have heard the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute far more often on these shows than I’ve heard anybody from the left. It’s like calling a dog a cat. I just don’t understand where this charge of left wing bias is coming from.