I used to look forward to listen to NPR

What do you expect NPR to do? Hold roundtables on the merits of injecting bleach? An in-depth discussion on the pros and cons of buying Greenland? Republican media isn't media - it only exists to stoke fear and anger. In comparison, any outlet that just reports the world and facts as they are is going to by default be considered to have a liberal bias.

 

This is basically what this is all about:

Employees don't fear their bosses, its terrifying to these sorts of people. They want control. Of course they cant say that, but they can make an argument that appeals to the chuds of the world who never listen to NPR and hate public anything. Even odds the author of the OP has been complained about by underlings for harassment of some sort.

 

I feel like Spotify repeats worse than terrestrial radio. Outside of "Discover Weekly" and New releases the daily mixes are just repeats. What's your secret?

 

Only being able to remember the last 10 minutes

 

This brings us right back to our problem of knowledge. You saw something different than NPR, so therefore NPR is wrong. This logic is only sound if we can assume that your judgement is bias free, and I don’t see why we should begin with that assumption. Why not have this argument run the opposite way? “What NPR saw was almost the opposite of what phatGator had described. phatGator definitely had his preference in the election.”

Not that I am arguing that this is the objective reality. Instead, I think @danmanne65 describes what is probably our best solution: not having any publicly funded media outlet to avoid the problem.

 

As someone who complains about the state of politics, knowledge, tribalism or confirmation bias a lot, you think this is the "best" solution? I'm not sure what media balkanization solves lol. Compounds lots of the problems we already have. We should have more public media divorced of profit motive if anything.

 

I understand what you’re saying, but I never said that NPR was wrong. I merely said what I saw did not match their description.

They were the ones doing the reporting. If my visual fact checking showed something different than what they reported, then I have no reason to trust them in any other reporting.

I would actually agree with Dan on that one, no public money going to any media. I’ve thought for decades that NPR and PBS should not get tax money.

By the way, my preference in the 2016 election was to not vote for either of them.

 

"Visual fact checking"

 

One thing is clear. If we ensure that the only broadcast media are those that can draw sufficient private funding that approve the output, it’s sure to be more factually accurate.

 

I make playlists obsessively. Hundreds of them. The more you give the algorithm the more it gives back.

I also like to listen to albums in their entirety. Like I gave dark side of the moon a spin on Monday. I also do a lot of deep dives where I’ll listen to every album an artist has released - like last week I did an Etta James deep dive.

I also listen to a lot of genres. I like to listen to a lot of ambient/ethereal/downtempo music when I work. I also listen to a lot of jazz. Spotify radio is great for both - I’ll put on Brian Eno radio or Thelonius Monk radio for a few hours while I’m working. Stuff like that.

It’s really engaging. Some people just want to listen and not think about what to listen to and I get that. I just like to choose what I’m listening to as much as possible.

 

Also the more value you are adding to their product without getting paid

 

What else they gonna say? Yes, we are liberal AF? NPR is striving for Diversity of race and race but not diversity of thought. Big difference there.

 

I think Fox News should have the same access to government funding as any other for-profit media source. But you're ignoring a critical distinction. NPR is a non-profit created by Congress (just like PBS).

 

A Fox more accountable to serving the public vs a less accountable Fox. Tough call! (Not)

 

Anyone who references Rodney Dangerfield cannot be all bad.

 

Did some visual fact checking on this and you are correct

 

I pay for Spotify and only hear songs I want to hear.
Endless playlist recommendations…

 

I think your quotes are well placed, as I don’t think any of our options are beautiful. Indeed, much of the media today seems to attract clicks by eliciting our rage, which I abhor.

That said, offering state funding brings with it its own grave risks. First, who decides who gets the funding? If NPR, why not Fox News? And if Fox News, why not Town Hall or Nazi Daily? It seems we either have to have an all-or-none policy or have some state committee that determines what kind of outlets deserve the funding, which would almost necessarily end up being a kind of thought police. Second, I wonder if a release from the profit motive should be expected to improve media on average. A company will say now that we don’t need to attract viewers/listeners, we can finally do X! What will X be? Maybe it is nuanced reporting that respects a pluralism of perspectives, but maybe it will start to focus on pet projects that no one cares about. Or even fuel division regardless of the lack of profit motive because they have righteous minds.

 

Sorry I didn’t mean to suggest that NPR has no historical legal right to its public funding. I was mostly thinking about the ethical justification for public funding of media today. If congress can create an NPR, should a Republican controlled congress be able to create a Fox News? Or even MAGA Public Radio? Or what if the actual NPR evolves into a Fox News over time? Does it always deserve its public funding regardless of the nature of its reporting?

I haven’t listened in a long time, but I personally liked NPR. However, my personal views should obviously be of no consequence. Any question of state funding needs to instead engage with the issues above.