I'm sure Uri himself did this elsewhere, but it didn't seem like they ever addressed the "public" part of NPR. If the New York Times or whoever else wants to adopt a ridiculous editorial view with a political slant, that's one thing, but there does not seem to be much concern at NPR that they are funded publicly and should be geared towards the public in their mission, yes?
Very good point. When someone raises this question, they are easily dismissed as a right-wing troll. (The headlines date back to the 1990's: "GOP congressman wants to abolish the Corporation for Public Broadcasting").
Because of this simplistic framing - the issue never gets meaningfully addressed.
Unfortunately it seems the ship has sailed. And with the explosion of listening/viewing options, there will never be enough public outrage.
I always find it interesting when people say that Trump was the reason media became so divisive but that is not true. I remember distinctly the Bush bashing to the point I wanted Bush to loose because I couldn’t take all the constant bashing.
I started listening to talk radio and started watching CNN after 9/11. It was back then when the media became so polarizing. I’m sure the oldies reading this will remember Chris Mathew’s comment about Obama causing a thrill running up his leg.
I think Fox News and Trump were the result of the absolute failure of the media to be fair and balanced. Not to mention the vitriol half the country felt from the media for 15 years.
You're generally correct about the roots of polarization. But I think the difference with Trump was that 2016 was the first election after the explosion of social media. Moreover, Trump himself is a social media addict.
I stopped listening to NPR during the early years of Obama, and tried again just before the Trump election.
When Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I remember that NPR was elated. I recall thinking that Obama had done nothing of note internationally at that time - he came into office Jan 2009 and won the prize in October 2009-- and yet there was no criticism about the decision. It was all vibe.
In addition, a few years later when Obamacare was being passed, there was no discussion about why health care was expensive. Why was a law necessary to make healthcare more affordable? How is a law going to make it more affordable? Instead, NPR was a cheerleader in their coverage. As we all know, it did not, and the consolidation of health care into large corporations and increasing costs could have been predicted 14yrs ago.
Years later before the 2016 election I listened briefly, and all I heard was arrogance against Trump.
In the end, I wouldn't care so much about NPR if there wasn't any public funding. I think it is best to remove pubic funding from journalism.
And yes-- Meg is too generous to the news side. It is in the construction of headlines, the choice of words, and the way facts are woven together to create a "narrative" that fits a certain point of view that the news are slanted. The Israeli-Gaza conflict is a contemporary example-- did hostages die or were they executed? I call it "fictional reality"-- the attempt to fit the rubick's cube of life into a narrative that fits what suits you.
During a time when I had a long-ish commute, a colleague pitched me on carpooling. I hesitantly accepted. She drove, but she didn’t have the address in her phone or something so I plugged in mine for navigation. The last album I had on spontaneously started playing, and neither of us could figure out how to stop it, so it just played through and then started repeating during our drive. And we were in our 30’s. Thankfully we both liked the music.
This was great. I still occasionally listen to the Fresh Air podcast, but these days the newsmaker she has on often is someone I've already heard on another podcast.
Thinking back, I think the book publishing model started to shift after Tim Ferriss was mega successful promoting the Four Hour Workweek through SEO and reviews by bloggers.
One positive takeaway is that Uri seems not to have gotten much blowback from friends and former colleagues. Even their criticisms of Bari Weiss sound very minimal.
Maybe you could have David and/or Nancy French on sometime to talk about their experience as heretics.
I’d love to hear more about the (what I believe to be the fundamental problem) of too many “voices”.
We are finding ourselves in this technological space where everyone has a voice. . . . And too many believe what they have to say is worthy of hearing.
I know it’s controversial to say, but not everyone’s thoughts/opinions on all subjects is worth hearing.
We used to trust platforms like NPR to amplify those thoughts and ideas worth hearing; this is no longer the case.
I'm sure Uri himself did this elsewhere, but it didn't seem like they ever addressed the "public" part of NPR. If the New York Times or whoever else wants to adopt a ridiculous editorial view with a political slant, that's one thing, but there does not seem to be much concern at NPR that they are funded publicly and should be geared towards the public in their mission, yes?
Very good point. When someone raises this question, they are easily dismissed as a right-wing troll. (The headlines date back to the 1990's: "GOP congressman wants to abolish the Corporation for Public Broadcasting").
Because of this simplistic framing - the issue never gets meaningfully addressed.
Unfortunately it seems the ship has sailed. And with the explosion of listening/viewing options, there will never be enough public outrage.
I believe he addresses it on the Gist with Mike Pesca, haven't listened but its in the summary notes.
I always find it interesting when people say that Trump was the reason media became so divisive but that is not true. I remember distinctly the Bush bashing to the point I wanted Bush to loose because I couldn’t take all the constant bashing.
I started listening to talk radio and started watching CNN after 9/11. It was back then when the media became so polarizing. I’m sure the oldies reading this will remember Chris Mathew’s comment about Obama causing a thrill running up his leg.
https://youtu.be/9y8AxjJJOuQ?si=8DRR1xxdAbJuJynu
I think Fox News and Trump were the result of the absolute failure of the media to be fair and balanced. Not to mention the vitriol half the country felt from the media for 15 years.
You're generally correct about the roots of polarization. But I think the difference with Trump was that 2016 was the first election after the explosion of social media. Moreover, Trump himself is a social media addict.
First?
YOU DID IT!!!!
One more item to scratch off my bucket list.
I stopped listening to NPR during the early years of Obama, and tried again just before the Trump election.
When Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I remember that NPR was elated. I recall thinking that Obama had done nothing of note internationally at that time - he came into office Jan 2009 and won the prize in October 2009-- and yet there was no criticism about the decision. It was all vibe.
In addition, a few years later when Obamacare was being passed, there was no discussion about why health care was expensive. Why was a law necessary to make healthcare more affordable? How is a law going to make it more affordable? Instead, NPR was a cheerleader in their coverage. As we all know, it did not, and the consolidation of health care into large corporations and increasing costs could have been predicted 14yrs ago.
Years later before the 2016 election I listened briefly, and all I heard was arrogance against Trump.
In the end, I wouldn't care so much about NPR if there wasn't any public funding. I think it is best to remove pubic funding from journalism.
And yes-- Meg is too generous to the news side. It is in the construction of headlines, the choice of words, and the way facts are woven together to create a "narrative" that fits a certain point of view that the news are slanted. The Israeli-Gaza conflict is a contemporary example-- did hostages die or were they executed? I call it "fictional reality"-- the attempt to fit the rubick's cube of life into a narrative that fits what suits you.
Meghan accidentally revealed the number one disadvantage to being childless: there's nobody to operate the moden car radio.
After seven years I still need one of the kids (ages 24 and 25) to access the features.
True story: Within 15 minutes of leaving the dealership the first day, my daughter had her phone connected and was blasting some crappy pop music.
During a time when I had a long-ish commute, a colleague pitched me on carpooling. I hesitantly accepted. She drove, but she didn’t have the address in her phone or something so I plugged in mine for navigation. The last album I had on spontaneously started playing, and neither of us could figure out how to stop it, so it just played through and then started repeating during our drive. And we were in our 30’s. Thankfully we both liked the music.
This was great. I still occasionally listen to the Fresh Air podcast, but these days the newsmaker she has on often is someone I've already heard on another podcast.
Thinking back, I think the book publishing model started to shift after Tim Ferriss was mega successful promoting the Four Hour Workweek through SEO and reviews by bloggers.
One positive takeaway is that Uri seems not to have gotten much blowback from friends and former colleagues. Even their criticisms of Bari Weiss sound very minimal.
Maybe you could have David and/or Nancy French on sometime to talk about their experience as heretics.
Seconding David and/ or Nancy French. That would be interesting.
Third
Twelfth!
I’d love to hear more about the (what I believe to be the fundamental problem) of too many “voices”.
We are finding ourselves in this technological space where everyone has a voice. . . . And too many believe what they have to say is worthy of hearing.
I know it’s controversial to say, but not everyone’s thoughts/opinions on all subjects is worth hearing.
We used to trust platforms like NPR to amplify those thoughts and ideas worth hearing; this is no longer the case.