Comments on: NPR’s Vivian Schiller

By: Dana Franchitto

Dana Franchitto — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:56:11 +0000

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.

By: David Jones

David Jones — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:57:57 +0000

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.

By: Fred Estabrook

Fred Estabrook — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:42:34 +0000

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.

By: Peter Seligson

Peter Seligson — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:23:59 +0000

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.

By: NPR, Relationships and…Oh Yeah Tweet-Up « The ConverStation

NPR, Relationships and…Oh Yeah Tweet-Up « The ConverStation — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:25:39 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: crholt’s blog : NPR: a news & journalism powerhouse?

crholt’s blog : NPR: a news & journalism powerhouse? — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:20:33 +0000

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

By: Peter Nelson

Peter Nelson — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:47:07 +0000

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.

By: Douglas Brown

Douglas Brown — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:06:59 +0000

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.

By: Dana Franchitto

Dana Franchitto — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:35:40 +0000

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

By: Peter Nelson

Peter Nelson — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:49:58 +0000

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.

By: Ann Willis

Ann Willis — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:14:29 +0000

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!!!

By: Frederic C.

Frederic C. — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:42:15 +0000

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.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:22:34 +0000

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!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:29:33 +0000

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.

By: Francis Mead

Francis Mead — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:13:22 +0000

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.

By: carol

carol — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:02:08 +0000

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.

By: Francis Mead

Francis Mead — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:58:53 +0000

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.

By: Mark Shamon

Mark Shamon — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:58:25 +0000

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.

By: Lydia

Lydia — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:15:38 +0000

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.

By: henriette brecheisen

henriette brecheisen — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:50:04 +0000

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.