Tracy Chapman (who I have loved since I was a child) has performed the song with Combs (who I have never otherwise listened to), and has said publicly that she's happy and excited for the song to reach a wider modern audience. She's credited on the album and is receiving big royalties, and gave her permission for the song to be covered. Did these people not reach out to the author herself for comment?
I have found, when there’s a left-right divide, NPR will reach out to the left to find out what they think - and then reach out to the left to find out what the right thinks. Usually with a biased framing: “Group Left, what do you think about Group Right’s ideas, knowing they come from racists who want to turn women into handmaids?”
I don't support defunding public radio, because I lived in rural Indiana for a while and the local NPR station was the only place I could follow tornado warnings. I'm too much of a Masterpiece Theater fan to want PBS to go away and I do value the children's programming. Also do not support tearing down so many institutions as this Congress and Administration seems eager to do.
That being said, now that I live in the Seattle area, I can't bear to listen to the local NPR station. The bias during the Summer of 2020 was unreal, and when I do happen to catch a story that bias is often evident. (Katie Herzog has nailed KUOW often).
I'm doing research on the summer of 2020 for some writing I'm doing. Coincidentally this morning, I was looking at the the burning of Minneapolis' Third Precinct, May 28 that year. I compared the MPR version of the story --"Police deserted the station; did not defend the neighborhood, the use of tear gas by the police was primarily the reason the burning happened, etc. (www.apmreports.org/story/2020/06/30/what-happened-at-minneapolis-3rd-precinct") to the local Fox News story (https://www.fox9.com/news/the-fall-of-the-third-precinct-a-timeline-of-events.) Pretty much told the facts, interviewed Mayor Frey, interviewed a representative of the Police Guild. The latter reporting was much more accurate. The whole event was terrifying. And my interpretation reflects my bias; I am writing as the mother of a Seattle cop. But I'm not stupid either, and am self-aware enough to make accurate interpretations of the facts.
One example proves little, and I'm not going to ask ChatGPT what it thinks. I supported NPR most of my adult life and am disturbed on the way it has gone.
you make a good point about the rural support NPR provided to underserved markets. Problem is the leadership never cared. i listened for years back in th e90's and the bias was an amusing quirk because they were desperately trying top act like they werent. But the quality was there. We all could have lived with that.
Interesting you brought up Mayor Frey. you would think if he were in charge of a brutal and racist police force he would be among the first to go but here he continues to sit as well as the guy who was governor.
The local station you hear is not NPR. Yes, they will air NPR programs along with other radio programs from orgs like PRI, and APM, but they pay those organizations for that content. Many public radio stations have their own programing too.
So you are hearing lots of stories and shows on your local public radio station (KUOW) that aren't necesscarily NPR.
I listened to NPR for 30 years but I had to stop. The place I diverge from you is at this point I don’t feel bad.
To me the decline to crazy started a long time ago, in the mid 2000s I started to notice the racial obsession.
I don’t tend to think organizations can be reformed and I don’t think it is on balance a positive institution. I hope the cuts really hurt, as I expect they will.
Like you I was an avid listener of NPR for many years and stopped for many of the reasons stated in the post, but I'm not wishing for their destruction.
The issue on bias in public media is both simple and complex. I think we still need public media because the market has done such a poor job of providing quality media for people. The market is not providing good local news and public radio and TV were able to do that. The market tried to start cable channels like TLC, Discovery, and Bravo that were supposed to be educational, but drifted to more popular programming. That's not all bad, but the market isn't going to give us a Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street or Ken Burns. For good or bad, market-based media is going to go for what sells, not what can uplift or teach.
So, yes public media went overboard and became overly biased. But I'm more for reforming than in letting them hang. I want NPR to go back to what it used to be. I'm not cheering its demise. Because without public media, we just become less informed, less uplifted and more dumb.
Substack and (believe it or not) X provide excellent news coverage, covering the full spectrum of opinions, from the tiniest hamlet to the nation-state. And it's all available free on the web ... broadband reached 81% of America's population way back in 2012.
The Market does give us Sesame Street—it’s on HBO. You have to pay for it now.
Also, is there a difference between Blippi or Ms. Rachel and Mr. Rogers? To be succinct, I don’t think there is a market anymore—TV is the old world and it’s dead.
And to put a point on it, this is particularly true for lower class users who are far more likely to use web based entertainment as babysitting apps than a television. This is no longer the 1970’s and PBS cannot compete with.
(Another elephant in the room is how the CBC is 100x worse and many networks are buying up their tripe and rebroadcasting)
I feel your pain, and share your experiences, however…
I live in Central Texas and make frequent trips to the areas that suffered the worst flooding recently. The nearby NPR affiliate that covers the effected area issued no warnings or reports on the flooding for several hours after the catastrophe occurred. I’m not buying NPR’s claim.
I too miss the days when ‘All Things Considered’ lived up to its promise.
Agree wholeheartedly with this. As someone who has worked in public radio my entire career I’ve watched with dismay as the collective gave increasing signals, including the unfortunate hiring of Maher as CEO, that they gave no fucks about the appearance of bias despite forever having the sword of Republican Damocles over them. Like Pesca I think the vast majority of the work done by public radio is good, serious journalism, often of a kind that might be hard to incentivize in the market. But there have definitely been choices about which projects they put money money into, which subjects are covered, and how they frame those subjects that belie a certitude and moral righteousness that is incompatible with true curiosity about the complexities of the world and those we don’t understand. I think one under discussed cause is not just the ideological homogeneity but elite homogeneity as top tier journalism has become increasingly populated by only the most elite of society, selected only from the most elite universities. I have no idea what do about that. I hope I don’t lose my job and that public radio can persist - because I too believe it does more good than harm. But I also hope public radio can find its way to something healthier. Though whether there are actually market incentives for that - I doubt.
NPR smugly declaring that they wouldn’t cover the Hunter Biden laptop because it “wasn’t a real story” aged extremely poorly, and that kind of reflexive dismissal of a story that voters said would have impacted their choice to vote for Biden is a big reason it’s difficult to feel sympathy for NPR.
In retrospect, I have come to believe that NPR has adopted the Ibram Kendi notion that a news story is either racist or anti-racist. So they had to somehow make every story anti-racist or at least try, and it has degraded the journalism, and invented a new drinking game.
Luke Combs' "shockingly derivative" cover of Tracy Chapman's Fast Car was seen as racist by everyone -- except the people who listened to it, such as Tracy Chapman. https://youtu.be/pLfH9HSUyf4?si=APHRLC_UAcwrUkMG
I am sympathetic to the argument that NPR was getting better--it seems plausible to me because the pendulum is swinging back.
But elementary public relations should have entailed forcing the CEO, Maher, to resign. Her past statements were toxic, and she was far too combative. A new leader who promised moderation and who perhaps engaged in some tactical flattery may have been able to stave off GOP efforts at defunding.
It has been exasperating to watch NPR do itself in, but this is just another case of self anointed social justice warriors coming out of alleged elite institutions, moving into positions of influence, and being counter productive in their over reach. I stopped listening to news some time ago.
And I agree with all his criticisms of specific bias.....I think a lot of liberals would, and that's what's really sad.
As you note, PBS is an unfortunate casualty in all this. Whenever people reference the good things that public media has provided, first among them are Mister Rogers and Sesame Street. Ken Burns - another PBS darling - was out and about extolling the virtue of public media. It is somewhat ironic that the medium that allows for more expression and exposition has been decidedly less biased than the radio.
What happens to the "P" in all these acronyms now? Can NPR and PBS continue to be branded as "public" even if they receive no taxpayer funds?
Do note that the three icons of quality in public broadcasting you name, all made their careers decades ago. Now please identify some present-day winners at NPR or PBS. Even one will do.
Ken Burns is contemporary last I checked. If you have a kid, you know PBS Kids remains full of great content. Daniel Tiger is as ubiquitous as Bluey. Fairly certain Rick Steves is still kicking around - talk about keeping your political life out of your content. America's Test Kitchen/Cook's Country remain pretty important among home cooks. This Old House is an institution.
I thought Audie Cornish and Robert Siegel were very good hosts of All Things Considered for quite a few years recently, and their comments seemed to me rather centrist/unbiased. However, the hosts more recently have, I think, not been quite as stellar and seem to show a little more bias. But then, the stories they are introducing have had, in my opinion, more leftish bias as well.
Years ago, NPR dropped "National Public Radio" from its identity and Branding. I think it cited the growth and creation of digital media as the main reason.
The tide may be turning, but you still have programs like 1A which are almost nothing but far left nonsense. Weekend Edition Sunday still thinks that 10 minutes of Chase Strangio being dishonest is a good use of public money.
NPR has been unlistenable for years. I recall first having a sense when something was going awry when Terri Gross introduced a writer as a "black author." I've no doubt the author cringed.
So cringe! I grew up on Terry Gross, so I was sad to find her unlistenable. I’m not sure exactly when it started, but to me she exemplifies the biasification of NPR. And yes I’m one of the many listeners who conflate local programming with NPR.
I used to love NPR. I grew up listening to it, and before 2015 used to mock Republicans who wanted to defund it. I’d often end up sitting in the driveway for 10-15 minutes after driving home, just to listen to the end of a story or program.. They were curious, interesting, always teaching me new things.. Then Me Too and Trump happened, and they completely lost their minds, and the plot. They became utterly absurd and unlistenable, shoveling ridiculous agitprop at us, incessantly. There was no interest in being disinterested, not the slightest shred of curiosity as to why half the country was rejecting the status quo. I knew many people who had voted for Trump, and I knew they had deeply held sincere convictions that weren’t based in bigotry or ignorance. But NPR never honored them, instead spewed the same partisan vitriol that MSNBC and CNN did.
Then came COVID, BLM, the riots, and they just went off the charts batcrap crazy. It was non stop propaganda at that point. They completely shredded their credibility, and lost their mandate. They were clearly bought and paid for by their big pharma funded underwriters, the Robert Woods Johnson, Bill & Melinda Gates, Ford foundations, etc. It was nauseating. There was nothing “public” about their reporting, at all.
Rename your stupid network Neo-liberal Plutocratic Radio, or Newspeak Pravda Radio, something more apt, and leave us all unharrassed, already, won’t you? Not only should NPR lose its funding, I think their broadcasting licenses should be revoked given how badly they’ve betrayed our trust.
I finally stopped listening, mostly because my kid is usually in the car with me. I think that there are a thousand lenses through which to view the world and I find the race-obsessed viewpoint reductive and even toxic. Could be my white privilege speaking.
NPR already did careen completely off the activist cliff, are you kidding me? The existence of Maher as their leader is the smoking gun. If they want to desperately claw their way back into being reasonable so more people can consume them, now they can find Jesus(figuratively) without me paying for their journey.
Vis a vis country music is racist vis a vis FILL IN THE BLANK is racist...
I was thinking about what evidence the Trump administration could produce that could convince me that some migrant worker swept up buy ICE was a terrorist. The answer is: nothing. When they say the word "terrorist" I assume they are lying and nothing can change my mind. If someone outside the populist right says "No, that guy actually is a terrorist" I'll take the accusation seriously, but I don't buy it coming from anyone MAGA aligned. They've lost all credibility on that subject with me and will never get it back.
The same with the word "racist" coming from an academic or left-leaning source. I just ignore it. I'll take the accusation seriously if I consider the source politically moderate. (And I'm pretty generous with what I consider moderate.) I'll accept it as an annoyance in a piece that has something else to say. If X is racist is the article's main thesis, however, I ignore it. It's just noise to me. Flat Earth advocacy. I don't have the time.
A quick scan of former avid listeners asking why they no longer listen would be both quantitative and quantitatively helpful here. Though I’m sure that the old canard of those listeners have been duped by GOP talking points or always alt right to begin with would be used endlessly.
It wasn’t just the massive shift in coverage, tone, and theme. It was the inability to take any stock of how much of it was their fault, dripping sneering snobbery at people who weren’t down with their self fulfilling prophecies.
Tracy Chapman (who I have loved since I was a child) has performed the song with Combs (who I have never otherwise listened to), and has said publicly that she's happy and excited for the song to reach a wider modern audience. She's credited on the album and is receiving big royalties, and gave her permission for the song to be covered. Did these people not reach out to the author herself for comment?
They probably did, and that's probably what they heard... so that's why it didn't get repeated.
I have found, when there’s a left-right divide, NPR will reach out to the left to find out what they think - and then reach out to the left to find out what the right thinks. Usually with a biased framing: “Group Left, what do you think about Group Right’s ideas, knowing they come from racists who want to turn women into handmaids?”
It doesn't make sense - aging songwriters love it when their song gets re-recorded for a new generation - there's no downside!
I don't support defunding public radio, because I lived in rural Indiana for a while and the local NPR station was the only place I could follow tornado warnings. I'm too much of a Masterpiece Theater fan to want PBS to go away and I do value the children's programming. Also do not support tearing down so many institutions as this Congress and Administration seems eager to do.
That being said, now that I live in the Seattle area, I can't bear to listen to the local NPR station. The bias during the Summer of 2020 was unreal, and when I do happen to catch a story that bias is often evident. (Katie Herzog has nailed KUOW often).
I'm doing research on the summer of 2020 for some writing I'm doing. Coincidentally this morning, I was looking at the the burning of Minneapolis' Third Precinct, May 28 that year. I compared the MPR version of the story --"Police deserted the station; did not defend the neighborhood, the use of tear gas by the police was primarily the reason the burning happened, etc. (www.apmreports.org/story/2020/06/30/what-happened-at-minneapolis-3rd-precinct") to the local Fox News story (https://www.fox9.com/news/the-fall-of-the-third-precinct-a-timeline-of-events.) Pretty much told the facts, interviewed Mayor Frey, interviewed a representative of the Police Guild. The latter reporting was much more accurate. The whole event was terrifying. And my interpretation reflects my bias; I am writing as the mother of a Seattle cop. But I'm not stupid either, and am self-aware enough to make accurate interpretations of the facts.
One example proves little, and I'm not going to ask ChatGPT what it thinks. I supported NPR most of my adult life and am disturbed on the way it has gone.
you make a good point about the rural support NPR provided to underserved markets. Problem is the leadership never cared. i listened for years back in th e90's and the bias was an amusing quirk because they were desperately trying top act like they werent. But the quality was there. We all could have lived with that.
Interesting you brought up Mayor Frey. you would think if he were in charge of a brutal and racist police force he would be among the first to go but here he continues to sit as well as the guy who was governor.
Gov.Tim Walz. Later gained prominence in an attempt to secure a different job.
was going to mention that but wanted to be brief lol
The local station you hear is not NPR. Yes, they will air NPR programs along with other radio programs from orgs like PRI, and APM, but they pay those organizations for that content. Many public radio stations have their own programing too.
So you are hearing lots of stories and shows on your local public radio station (KUOW) that aren't necesscarily NPR.
It is in fact NPR, to locals most who don't differentiate.
Great report
I listened to NPR for 30 years but I had to stop. The place I diverge from you is at this point I don’t feel bad.
To me the decline to crazy started a long time ago, in the mid 2000s I started to notice the racial obsession.
I don’t tend to think organizations can be reformed and I don’t think it is on balance a positive institution. I hope the cuts really hurt, as I expect they will.
Like you I was an avid listener of NPR for many years and stopped for many of the reasons stated in the post, but I'm not wishing for their destruction.
The issue on bias in public media is both simple and complex. I think we still need public media because the market has done such a poor job of providing quality media for people. The market is not providing good local news and public radio and TV were able to do that. The market tried to start cable channels like TLC, Discovery, and Bravo that were supposed to be educational, but drifted to more popular programming. That's not all bad, but the market isn't going to give us a Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street or Ken Burns. For good or bad, market-based media is going to go for what sells, not what can uplift or teach.
So, yes public media went overboard and became overly biased. But I'm more for reforming than in letting them hang. I want NPR to go back to what it used to be. I'm not cheering its demise. Because without public media, we just become less informed, less uplifted and more dumb.
Substack and (believe it or not) X provide excellent news coverage, covering the full spectrum of opinions, from the tiniest hamlet to the nation-state. And it's all available free on the web ... broadband reached 81% of America's population way back in 2012.
The Market does give us Sesame Street—it’s on HBO. You have to pay for it now.
Also, is there a difference between Blippi or Ms. Rachel and Mr. Rogers? To be succinct, I don’t think there is a market anymore—TV is the old world and it’s dead.
And to put a point on it, this is particularly true for lower class users who are far more likely to use web based entertainment as babysitting apps than a television. This is no longer the 1970’s and PBS cannot compete with.
(Another elephant in the room is how the CBC is 100x worse and many networks are buying up their tripe and rebroadcasting)
Sesame Street is still produced by CTW. HBO had a first look deal, and all episodes also aired, later, on PBS, but the HBO deal is over now. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/hbo-cancels-sesame-street-licensing-deal-show-streaming-service-1235985075/
Ah! Thanks for the clarification!
i don’t agree
but i guess i already said that
There’s a drinking game to play where you have to drink every time race is mentioned on NPR. You can imagine how quickly things get rowdy.
I feel your pain, and share your experiences, however…
I live in Central Texas and make frequent trips to the areas that suffered the worst flooding recently. The nearby NPR affiliate that covers the effected area issued no warnings or reports on the flooding for several hours after the catastrophe occurred. I’m not buying NPR’s claim.
I too miss the days when ‘All Things Considered’ lived up to its promise.
Agree wholeheartedly with this. As someone who has worked in public radio my entire career I’ve watched with dismay as the collective gave increasing signals, including the unfortunate hiring of Maher as CEO, that they gave no fucks about the appearance of bias despite forever having the sword of Republican Damocles over them. Like Pesca I think the vast majority of the work done by public radio is good, serious journalism, often of a kind that might be hard to incentivize in the market. But there have definitely been choices about which projects they put money money into, which subjects are covered, and how they frame those subjects that belie a certitude and moral righteousness that is incompatible with true curiosity about the complexities of the world and those we don’t understand. I think one under discussed cause is not just the ideological homogeneity but elite homogeneity as top tier journalism has become increasingly populated by only the most elite of society, selected only from the most elite universities. I have no idea what do about that. I hope I don’t lose my job and that public radio can persist - because I too believe it does more good than harm. But I also hope public radio can find its way to something healthier. Though whether there are actually market incentives for that - I doubt.
NPR smugly declaring that they wouldn’t cover the Hunter Biden laptop because it “wasn’t a real story” aged extremely poorly, and that kind of reflexive dismissal of a story that voters said would have impacted their choice to vote for Biden is a big reason it’s difficult to feel sympathy for NPR.
They were acting as defenders of the DNC.
In retrospect, I have come to believe that NPR has adopted the Ibram Kendi notion that a news story is either racist or anti-racist. So they had to somehow make every story anti-racist or at least try, and it has degraded the journalism, and invented a new drinking game.
The great sort has left us all diminished. When the classes don’t mingle they don’t have a stake in each other’s lives.
Luke Combs' "shockingly derivative" cover of Tracy Chapman's Fast Car was seen as racist by everyone -- except the people who listened to it, such as Tracy Chapman. https://youtu.be/pLfH9HSUyf4?si=APHRLC_UAcwrUkMG
Also, isn't a cover derivative by definition?
That’s what I was thinking 😆
I am sympathetic to the argument that NPR was getting better--it seems plausible to me because the pendulum is swinging back.
But elementary public relations should have entailed forcing the CEO, Maher, to resign. Her past statements were toxic, and she was far too combative. A new leader who promised moderation and who perhaps engaged in some tactical flattery may have been able to stave off GOP efforts at defunding.
It has been exasperating to watch NPR do itself in, but this is just another case of self anointed social justice warriors coming out of alleged elite institutions, moving into positions of influence, and being counter productive in their over reach. I stopped listening to news some time ago.
And I agree with all his criticisms of specific bias.....I think a lot of liberals would, and that's what's really sad.
As you note, PBS is an unfortunate casualty in all this. Whenever people reference the good things that public media has provided, first among them are Mister Rogers and Sesame Street. Ken Burns - another PBS darling - was out and about extolling the virtue of public media. It is somewhat ironic that the medium that allows for more expression and exposition has been decidedly less biased than the radio.
What happens to the "P" in all these acronyms now? Can NPR and PBS continue to be branded as "public" even if they receive no taxpayer funds?
Do note that the three icons of quality in public broadcasting you name, all made their careers decades ago. Now please identify some present-day winners at NPR or PBS. Even one will do.
Ken Burns is contemporary last I checked. If you have a kid, you know PBS Kids remains full of great content. Daniel Tiger is as ubiquitous as Bluey. Fairly certain Rick Steves is still kicking around - talk about keeping your political life out of your content. America's Test Kitchen/Cook's Country remain pretty important among home cooks. This Old House is an institution.
I thought Audie Cornish and Robert Siegel were very good hosts of All Things Considered for quite a few years recently, and their comments seemed to me rather centrist/unbiased. However, the hosts more recently have, I think, not been quite as stellar and seem to show a little more bias. But then, the stories they are introducing have had, in my opinion, more leftish bias as well.
Bob Garfield...oops.
All the rescission legislation does is remove funding, it does not eliminate the Congressional corporate charters.
Years ago, NPR dropped "National Public Radio" from its identity and Branding. I think it cited the growth and creation of digital media as the main reason.
The tide may be turning, but you still have programs like 1A which are almost nothing but far left nonsense. Weekend Edition Sunday still thinks that 10 minutes of Chase Strangio being dishonest is a good use of public money.
"A few are going to offend Republicans who are primed to be offended."
Do they ever run stories that offend Democrats?
NPR has been unlistenable for years. I recall first having a sense when something was going awry when Terri Gross introduced a writer as a "black author." I've no doubt the author cringed.
So cringe! I grew up on Terry Gross, so I was sad to find her unlistenable. I’m not sure exactly when it started, but to me she exemplifies the biasification of NPR. And yes I’m one of the many listeners who conflate local programming with NPR.
I used to love NPR. I grew up listening to it, and before 2015 used to mock Republicans who wanted to defund it. I’d often end up sitting in the driveway for 10-15 minutes after driving home, just to listen to the end of a story or program.. They were curious, interesting, always teaching me new things.. Then Me Too and Trump happened, and they completely lost their minds, and the plot. They became utterly absurd and unlistenable, shoveling ridiculous agitprop at us, incessantly. There was no interest in being disinterested, not the slightest shred of curiosity as to why half the country was rejecting the status quo. I knew many people who had voted for Trump, and I knew they had deeply held sincere convictions that weren’t based in bigotry or ignorance. But NPR never honored them, instead spewed the same partisan vitriol that MSNBC and CNN did.
Then came COVID, BLM, the riots, and they just went off the charts batcrap crazy. It was non stop propaganda at that point. They completely shredded their credibility, and lost their mandate. They were clearly bought and paid for by their big pharma funded underwriters, the Robert Woods Johnson, Bill & Melinda Gates, Ford foundations, etc. It was nauseating. There was nothing “public” about their reporting, at all.
Rename your stupid network Neo-liberal Plutocratic Radio, or Newspeak Pravda Radio, something more apt, and leave us all unharrassed, already, won’t you? Not only should NPR lose its funding, I think their broadcasting licenses should be revoked given how badly they’ve betrayed our trust.
I finally stopped listening, mostly because my kid is usually in the car with me. I think that there are a thousand lenses through which to view the world and I find the race-obsessed viewpoint reductive and even toxic. Could be my white privilege speaking.
NPR already did careen completely off the activist cliff, are you kidding me? The existence of Maher as their leader is the smoking gun. If they want to desperately claw their way back into being reasonable so more people can consume them, now they can find Jesus(figuratively) without me paying for their journey.
Vis a vis country music is racist vis a vis FILL IN THE BLANK is racist...
I was thinking about what evidence the Trump administration could produce that could convince me that some migrant worker swept up buy ICE was a terrorist. The answer is: nothing. When they say the word "terrorist" I assume they are lying and nothing can change my mind. If someone outside the populist right says "No, that guy actually is a terrorist" I'll take the accusation seriously, but I don't buy it coming from anyone MAGA aligned. They've lost all credibility on that subject with me and will never get it back.
The same with the word "racist" coming from an academic or left-leaning source. I just ignore it. I'll take the accusation seriously if I consider the source politically moderate. (And I'm pretty generous with what I consider moderate.) I'll accept it as an annoyance in a piece that has something else to say. If X is racist is the article's main thesis, however, I ignore it. It's just noise to me. Flat Earth advocacy. I don't have the time.
A quick scan of former avid listeners asking why they no longer listen would be both quantitative and quantitatively helpful here. Though I’m sure that the old canard of those listeners have been duped by GOP talking points or always alt right to begin with would be used endlessly.
It wasn’t just the massive shift in coverage, tone, and theme. It was the inability to take any stock of how much of it was their fault, dripping sneering snobbery at people who weren’t down with their self fulfilling prophecies.
ME ME ME.