Where We Live: NPR Ombudsman
It used to be called “National Public Radio” – now it’s just “NPR”
It used to be called “National Public Radio” – now it’s just “NPR.”
That subtle change is just one of many you may have heard at the network. There’s also a new, punchier style of newscast that reminds some of commercial radio, some tension about “celebrity” news coverage and it’s place on public radio, and a new focus on internet news.
Today, Where We Live, NPR’s Ombudsman Alicia Shepard joins us. She’s is the public’s representative to the network, serving as an independent source regarding NPR’s programming. So, if you get lots of your news from NPR – you probably have questions for her - about story selection, language and choice of guests. Questions about coverage of divides in Washington politics and in the Middle East.
Send to friend
Printer-friendly version
Comments
NPR and art coverage problems
NPR will not talk about the art and media revolution, or any progressive arts, media, art advocacy groups, or the new musicians, writers, painters, filmmakers, etc. NPR's coverage of progressive arts is virtually non existent and it threatens any art coverage credibility. They are quickly becoming THE main promoters of music and publishing through their website and all their outlets. Yet what they cover is mainstream arts only. Most all NPR music and book reviews are puff praise and mainstream promotion. Where is talk about post-bands music, zines and blogs in literature, post modern art, Stuckism, ULA, youtube filmmakers, indie media, etc. etc. Where is talk about those who oppose revenue sharing? This link, talks more about their unfair art coverage.
http://tinyurl.com/2f27dpc (NPR story)
Listener Email from Tony
Where NPR can do better... Accepting or delivering stories which are based perhaps upon a news release or story which has been proffered for the purposes of one's specific agenda or interests which does not have wide public interest...
Last instance: Story about the unmonitored access and extended inspections of mine management staff after the recent mine accident in the southeast after rescuing the bodies and the sole survivor, which cast dispersions about their intent, the potential for altering evidence, the potential for altering the scene. I saw this as an effort by lawyers representing the victims to discredit management and utilize the media to taint the jury pool which NPR swallowed and repeated to the nation. I did not think the story had nationwide appeal or merit, nor did it serve the public interest.
When I heard it I thought "NPR was being suckered". Ask yourself, "Whose interest does this story broadcast serve????
Listener Email from Alex
I would like to say that i often listen to both NPR & the BBC.,and comparing the two i find the quality of on the most part superior on the BBC.for instance i heard a interview with Andre Aggasi on both NPR and the BBC. the NPR interviewer was so impotent to come up with any interesting questions, while the BBC interview was riveting, and i am not that interested in tennis or sport celebs. There are other countless examples where i heard coverage of a topic on both NPR and the BBC.and there was no comparison between the quality of research and general depth of understanding the radio personality had with the topic under discussion. BBC. consistently delivers with the highest quality.
Post new comment