Has NPR lost America’s trust?

[Anonymous]

They haven’t lost my trust, it’s just unlistenable. It sucks because I used to love it and i think it provided the rare center-left, balanced, America-wide set of viewpoints. That’s gone now, and to the point of all PPs, people have moved to podcasts which largely support their priors. It was a huge disservice to Americans for NPR to abandon its mission for the sake of its staffers’ fragile political egos. I hope they can go through some creative destruction to get back to value but I doubt it’s possible at this point.

[Anonymous]

I think with the rise in podcasts their programming was bound to change.

[Anonymous]

Like every other poster, I too was a long time listener who gave up. I did actually try to give it another chance recently, but couldn't manage to get through all the buzzwords and virtue signaling and overall hectoring tone. I don't understand how anyone willingly listens to NPR these days. It's annoying and aggravating .

But it doesn't really matter anymore. The audio world is much bigger than the old radio dial. The collapse of NPR simply creates opportunities for other content creators. The NY Times, for instance, is clearly gunning for this market. NPR will continue to whither into irrelevance and it won't be missed. No one's mourning this NPR.

[Anonymous]

Even I have moved on. Long time devotee of just about everything. It's way too twee and insular. People of like minds talking to other people of like minds to an audience of others of like minds. So boring and predictable. No grit or nuance or passion or interesting, unexpected angles. Imagine your nice, liberal auntees droning on and on at Thanksgiving. Hey, I am liberal too but it's still super boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all need to support the concept and implementation of a NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO.

It's true that I don't listen to them as much since they've traveled into DEI territory much of the time, with (ironically!), very little diversity of arguments.

But it's important we keep a free and nationally available radio news source! For the good of the public.

Me again. For me their nadir was a year ago when I heard an interviewee, introduced as a Black woman (director of something or other), saying that cryptocurrency was a way for Black people to surmount the inequities of the financial system.

How many Black people lost their savings with that comment? Not too many, I hope.

Is your belief that they should never interview a person with an opinion you disagree with? Even one that is wrong? That piece is probably this one: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1108413738. It included several different viewpoints on crypto, including skeptics. It includes an interesting (to me at least) discussion of why Black Americans might be more interested in crypto than white Americans, and talks to people who think that's good and people who think that's dangerous. If that's the "nadir" of a news organization they're doing stellar.

[Anonymous]

George Floyd ruined NPR.

[Anonymous]

Kind of scary that an editor at NPR is misrepresenting the facts.

"But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse."

On the contrary, the Mueller Report found numerous evidence of COLLUSION - but COLLUSION is not a chargeable crime. And it's very difficult to prove a conspiracy without one of the co-conspirators flipping and testifying, which Manafort and Stone refused to do because they knew that Trump would pardon them (which he did).

Or how he says Hunter Biden's laptop isn't Russian disinformation. Actually it looks like it may be.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/former-us-spies-warned-2020-hunter-biden-scandal-russian-fingerprints-rcna140240

And he's still pushing the "lab leak" theory of Covid which is not the same thing as "Covid was created in the lab." But he doesn't seem to know that.

He needs to stop watching Fox News.

[Anonymous]

I find it hilarious that WAMU (NPR station in DC) basically ignores baseball while celebrating women's soccer when discussing sports. It's like you can envision the meeting where a bunch of young angry lesbians got all gleeful thinking they were sticking it to 'the man' and righting years of 'wrongs' by shunning baseball.

[Anonymous]

It lost the public trust a decade ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of scary that an editor at NPR is misrepresenting the facts.

"But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse."

On the contrary, the Mueller Report found numerous evidence of COLLUSION - but COLLUSION is not a chargeable crime. And it's very difficult to prove a conspiracy without one of the co-conspirators flipping and testifying, which Manafort and Stone refused to do because they knew that Trump would pardon them (which he did).

Or how he says Hunter Biden's laptop isn't Russian disinformation. Actually it looks like it may be.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/former-us-spies-warned-2020-hunter-biden-scandal-russian-fingerprints-rcna140240

And he's still pushing the "lab leak" theory of Covid which is not the same thing as "Covid was created in the lab." But he doesn't seem to know that.

He needs to stop watching Fox News.

Did you even read the article? The laptop was real and the article acknowledges that. It’s just that the (authentic) info on it “confirmed a narrative”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Npr went from being a thoughtful, intelligent platform that was great for learning about nuanced topics to a whiny woke mouthpiece for obscure grievance politics. I'm totally sick of it and have moved on to podcasts.

Yep. Grew up with NPR and still listen but mostly just to see how much of a FOX News caricature of a liberal media outlet they can turn themselves into each night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:George Floyd ruined NPR.

I think he just allowed the faction that wanted to go crazy to do so. They were always there but somewhat restrained. He was their Jiang Ching and now they are still trying to burn the place down.

[Anonymous]

I generally agree with him. They report accurately, but that what they choose to report is limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all need to support the concept and implementation of a NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO.

It's true that I don't listen to them as much since they've traveled into DEI territory much of the time, with (ironically!), very little diversity of arguments.

But it's important we keep a free and nationally available radio news source! For the good of the public.

Me again. For me their nadir was a year ago when I heard an interviewee, introduced as a Black woman (director of something or other), saying that cryptocurrency was a way for Black people to surmount the inequities of the financial system.

How many Black people lost their savings with that comment? Not too many, I hope.

Is your belief that they should never interview a person with an opinion you disagree with? Even one that is wrong? That piece is probably this one: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1108413738. It included several different viewpoints on crypto, including skeptics. It includes an interesting (to me at least) discussion of why Black Americans might be more interested in crypto than white Americans, and talks to people who think that's good and people who think that's dangerous. If that's the "nadir" of a news organization they're doing stellar.

I'm the PP you replied to. I disagree. It wasn't a substantive segment, and crypto has no benefits for the private American consumer. It was certainly interesting to make the point that minorities were historically, and are still currently shut out of traditional financial opportunities! But it should have been said differently. Not "hey look at this great crypto opportunity!", but "crypto is dangerous, and it's sad that some minority investors are turning to this highly volatile and inherently worthless speculation because there has been so much discrimination against them". NIG DIFFERENCE, which was not driven home at any point.

You can "both sides" a lot of concepts. But you cannot let people believe crypto is a great investment vehicle. That's like letting an anti-vaxxer opinion air out without accompanying it with all the scientific and medical reasons why this point of view is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the quarterly bash NPR thread with the same tired and false talking points! I'm still learning from and enjoying it as much as ever.

I agree. This is such brazen propaganda from someone with a very consistent agenda and talking points.