General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs NPR a reliable news source?
I'm curious because every now and then I see folks criticizing it and dismissing it for bias. But in general it seems to me to be one of the more unadulterated sources of news in the US. Curious what the general view of NPR's reliability is here. Is it, in general, a reliable source of news?
| 31 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes | |
25 (81%) |
|
| No | |
6 (19%) |
|
| 1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
underpants
(187,707 posts)IMHO
trotsky
(49,533 posts)They veer a little too much toward "both sidesism" on a lot of topics. I'm guessing this is partly to keep a lower profile so Repubs don't threaten funding more but it's something to keep in mind when listening to their reports.
When it comes to their overseas reporting in particular, they too often tow the neocon line.
Coventina
(28,055 posts)A lot of their day-to-day programs suffer from "both-siderism" though.
They treat the insanity as a "balance" to sanity, therefore normalizing insanity.
That's why I no longer donate.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)They as most other news outlets has fallen into the reporting from both sides issue that has invaded American news since the dawn of Fox and the right wing echo chamber. They want to be seen as objective so they fall into the trap of reporting the conservative perspective as if the actual news is from the Liberal perspective. Sometimes they mix commentary with reporting which is not great. They are however, still a good news source. If they were the only outlet, people would be pretty well informed.
getagrip_already
(17,611 posts)Then no, they don't.
They do have a decidedly right wing viewpoint however, and a lot of their news is filtered through that prism.
It started with the great purge that tossed out reporters like cokie roberts and decimated the editorial staff to make room for more gop friendly voices.
It continues to this day.
Reliably conservative? Yes. But fox?. no.
mitch96
(14,815 posts)My "reliably conservative" friends would disagree with you... I think they try... try to present the truth in the news. If your on one side or the other you can find fault. I don't see a conservative bent to their reporting... YMMV.
Also being PBS they have very few commercials.. Yes I donate to them...
NPR junky that I am..
m
getagrip_already
(17,611 posts)And they were my go-to radio station both in the house and car. They were very, very good at progressive news and were leaders for news on impeachment and all the administration antics after.
Up until the great purge. If you never listened to them before, you might not notice a change in coverage and perspective, but it is very decidedly more conservative than it was. Pretty much right of center on all issues now.
For example, to this day, they will carry a sound bite of trump lying, and not correct or fact check it. Just let him speak and then they move on to something else.
That isn't reporting. It's genuflecting. Maybe in a literal sense they just reported what he said, but without fact checking it comes across as true and that is unacceptable.
If you listen to impeachment coverage, it's all about how the dems are hurting themselves. How he is being hounded. Sure, they will cover what schiff or pelosi say - eventually. But most of their coverage is talking to conservative voices like christie, or sanders, or other zealots no longer at the wh.
So yeah, they have a conservative filter, and the net is a conservative reporting outlook.
rurallib
(63,323 posts)Been listening almost from the get go. The reporting early on was focused on reporting reality. In recent years you can tell they have been cowed by so-called "conservative" leanings. The day they let Bob Edwards go was the day things changed.
Two things really bug me about NPR these days - ones that they often leave out significant details. The story isn't wrong, just not fully complete. Often the details they leave out would be counter to the conservative view.
Secondly, the "experts" they have on to comment on stories seem to be almost always from conservative think tanks such the American Enterprise Institute or the Manhattan Institute or the Hoover Institute. There are so many that they are impossible to keep track of. When these "fellows" are introduced there is never a mention that their think tank is conservative, they just use the name. Those think tank names are chosen to make them sound very neutral.
So I will agree - they lean conservative. They skip or gloss over details that would let the bias be known.
I have pretty much quit listening to anything but their. top of the hour reports and that only because the rest of the American radio industry news is so, so, so fucking bad.
We even bought an internet radio so we can get news from Canada and Britain.
You nailed it! Well done!
Scoopster
(423 posts)Uhh, the only event that ever managed to do that was her death. She was a regular on the network's flagship news programs for decades.
getagrip_already
(17,611 posts)She was forced out with the likes of juan williams, nina totenberg and robert siegel.
She went to ABC news and found a home there. But she kept doing pieces on NPR as a freelance journalist.
That purge, which she largely blamed on the clintons, is why she had an absolute hatred of hillary as a candidate.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/01/National-Public-Rodeo
Some of the story is there. But it isn't hard to find if you look for it.
Coventina
(28,055 posts)I quit listening for a long time specifically because of her.
WhiskeyGrinder
(24,185 posts)
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)I have noticed a gradual shift or leaning and I think that they also tend to report from and too a certain tier of our culture that restricts and colors the content increasingly. There is some kind of a superficial, popular focus at NPR at times, as well.
So, it depends on the show, the time, the subject and the context, but I no longer give them a high rating across-the-board.
I find better and more in-depth reporting, on some topics, from Democracy Now, Abbey Martin and others.
jcgoldie
(12,046 posts)...but I also feel as if many stories fall prey to excessive both sidesism which they bend over backwards for trying to seem more objective.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,619 posts)
Leith
(7,856 posts)As long as you throw a grain of salt in when they interview a conservative or hear a report on what the tRump maladministration is doing.
NPR does stories on things you will never hear anywhere else (that is available over the public airwaves). And I try to catch as much of the BBC newshour as I can.
bullwinkle428
(20,644 posts)comes from the fact that some of the hosts seem to bend over backwards on occasion to push the "both sides" meme.
Kind of like, is the NY Times a reliable news source? you could say yes, but there are problems.
uponit7771
(92,119 posts)greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)Apparently, they're not allowed to say that Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives (spoiler alert: he was). Instead they say that 'House democrats voted for the articles of impeachment." Well, shitheads, when a majority of the House votes for articles of impeachment, the President is impeached. It's not a question of nuance. Fucking dipshits.
0rganism
(24,793 posts)it's challenging to find American news that beats NPR for accuracy and reach. they do have some fail, and seem to default to whatever position is likely to benefit their organization most at pledge time (usually some variety of "both-sides-do-it" nonsense), but overall a decent source of news.
La Coliniere
(1,129 posts)I haven't listened to NPR much since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003 when they refused to present alternative viewpoints and pushed the weapons of mass distruction lie. When I do periodically listen to All Things Considered I'm easily frustrated by their both-siderism and the way they assuage the conservative point of view of their corporate paymasters. I have to turn it off because the announcers all have this particularly annoying cadence when they read the news and those voices drive me crazy and remind me of why I stopped listening in the first place. BBC, Democracy Now and many online sources too numerous to mention are where I get my news. And I still get the Buffalo News, my local daily, delivered everyday which I read cover to cover. It attempts to represent a full sprectrum of news and opinion, but alas, they also have a somewhat corporate bias IMHO.
tblue37
(66,043 posts)alwaysinasnit
(5,281 posts)Snip...
When public broadcasting in America was first established, the intent was that Congress would provide funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which would in turn divide that funding up among the various public television and radio stations across the country.
This worked great for years.
The Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio brought educational programming, and independent news and political analysis to millions of Americans.
But, with the onset of “Reaganomics” 33 years ago, federal funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been slashed.
As a result, public broadcasting institutions now rely more and more on corporate and billionaire cash to operate, which is probably why PBS and NPR now filter what they play on their airwaves, so that they don’t anger their wealthy backers.
Snip...
obnoxiousdrunk
(3,054 posts)Buzz cook
(2,633 posts)While they do get things right, you should always double check because they also get many thing wrong.
They are well known for both siderism and using the word misstatement instead of lie when speaking of Trump's lies.
On edit here's an example .
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121605.shtml
uncle ray
(3,205 posts)they also explained ad nauseum why they avoided the word lie in many cases.
Buzz cook
(2,633 posts)And a google search just came up with a 3027 article on why they don't use the word.
maxsolomon
(35,452 posts)Or engages in Both-sidesism about politics (I'm looking at you, Mara Liason and Cokie Roberts).
Not when it tells you that there was a tornado somewhere.
Or Terry Gross, who is a saint.
Beringia
(4,715 posts)I don't think they try to cover things in a progressive way, certainly not for instance hunting in America which one of their reporters did a story on, giving hunters a very nostalgic, traditionalist take.
I will watch Amy Goodman when I want to find a news program.
tandem5
(2,077 posts)that they're acting or reporting objectively. As an example pay attention to how they report on Trump. How often do they literally read one of his unstable tweets verbatim? You'll notice often times they'll gloss over it, paraphrase it, or completely ignore it. NPR values the appearance of rationality over actually behaving rationally -- It acts to pacify. If you're a news reporter and a madman said something insane the rational action is to report exactly what happened and to present it as objectively not normal. The appearance of being rational, on the other hand, is to assume that anything that appears alarming or improbable must not actually be happening as it appears and therefore it is best try to reinterpret it in familiar terms.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)
hunter
(39,113 posts)Their coverage of the economy is entirely corporate. They are never going to bite the hands that feed them.
I do support my local public radio station, but sometimes I feel like I'm doing it just to keep the channel clear of non-profit crap I find especially offensive, things like "Christian" radio. (Prosperity gospel Christians are riding a rocket sled to hell. It says so in the Bible.)
Our public radio station has local news done on a very tight budget, but that it exists at all is reason enough to support them. Back in the stone age I remember many local radio stations had their own news people. That was better than silence, even if it was WKRP's Les Nessman.
The larger problem is that broadcast television and radio are obsolete. Radio and television channels have become artificial monopolies. They used to be natural monopolies owing to the limitations of twentieth century technology, but that's no longer the case.
All wide area syndicated content, from NPR to Rush Limbaugh, should be broadcast from space, and all terrestrial radio and television stations should be locally owned and operated, one owner, one station, no more, no less; a single owner responsible for all content broadcast on their single radio or television outlet.
With modern digital broadcasting technology, especially in radio, it ought to be possible for nearly anyone to open a radio station to the extent they are willing to pay for electricity and meet minimal licensing requirements. "Smart" broadcasting equipment and receivers would handle all the other details, from channel settings to power outputs.
We also ought to be striving for universal internet coverage in the same manner we did with rural electrification and telephone service.
In some ways that too would make traditional radio and television broadcasting obsolete. I've noticed my own children are indifferent to radio and traditional television. They listen to their favorite podcasts and music via the internet, and the television they watch is on-demand and streamed over the internet.
Turin_C3PO
(16,223 posts)but they do succumb to “both siderism” on occasion.