Talk:National Public Radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] archive

Archive 1 (July 2003 - June 2006), Archive 2 (June 2006 - July 2006), Archive 3

[edit] Criticism needs rewording

THe section that covers accusations of liberal bias needs to be rewritten with less bias. Combat52 6 March 2007


You hardly need to be a "rightist" to conclude that NPR is biased and liberal. NPR always tilts its reports in favor of kneejerk liberal ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.151.35 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For instance? 130.134.81.16 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how it was on March 6th, but on July 25th there are elements of the "criticism" section that seem POV. "Criticism from the right allege that the network tailors its content to the preferences of an audience drawn from a liberal "educated elite." Maybe it's just me, but this unreferenced, uncited sentence is an unfair portrayal, firstly, of the right's criticism of NPR, and secondly, that there is some suggestion that the right is undereducated, or anti-education. It may be the authors personal belief that the right is both anti-education and/or uneducated, and while evidence may suggest otherwise, it still has no place in this article. That educated elite is in quotes would suggest that it is a quotation or commonly made sentiment amongst the American Right, which it is not, and if this is a straight quotation, then it should be referenced. If the quotations were removed, and the word eduated were removed, it wouldn't read as POV as it does now. One section of Criticism also has it's reference in a ridiculously POV piece published by the Socialist Worker, which is filled with half-truths and innaccurate representations of the American media. Finally, the PIPA study has been heavily criticized for what it considers myths (specifically, the link between Al Qaeda and Pre-Invasion Iraq) and the sorts of questions that it asked. For instance, had similar contravercial or semi-mythical questions been asked regarding NPR listeners -- but those myths that chiefly pervade the left -- it is likely that the numbers would bare out similarly. Essentially, the U. Maryland PIPA study has a lot of challenges surrounding it
I would make these changes, but I do not want to get into an edit war with somebody who does believe that the right is undereducated, that The Socialist Worker is a NPOV publication, and/or that the PIPA study did not have some underlying agenda. Mike Murray 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but I think you're selling the Wikipedia community short in your second paragraph. If you have changes you think are appropriate to make the article more NPOV, I would hope you would make them. If the sources are completely unreliable or there's no source, scrap the material. If the source is just somewhat biased, try to balance out the article accordingly. --Evil1987 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, where is the reference to a Socialist Worker piece? I can't seem to find that.--Evil1987 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation 07/26

Just moved some of the archived section up to the top here so I can better follow the discussion and comment. David L Rattigan 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are now two issues under consideration:

  1. The NPR survey and whether it should be included
  2. External links and whether they should be included

My thoughts on these are as follows:

  1. There does not seem to be any question whether the survey can remain. It is a verifiable source from an academic institute (PIPA). The only evidence presented against it has been on the basis of Wikipedia:Original research, ie there has still been no verifiable source presented that argues against the survey. Formulating original arguments against contravenes policy.
  2. The discussion above seems to have clarified what constitutes an acceptable source, ie it was agreed that the Anti-Defamation League criticisms were acceptable. This seems to have been to everyone's satisfaction.

When folks return from the hiatus, it would be good if we could get some consensus on the following:

The PIPA survey stays unless:
a verifiable source is presented (not OR) to demonstrate why it does not belong (then it can be removed)
a verifiable source is included in the article itself to challenge it.

What has emerged from this mediation for me so far is that

  1. The PIPA survey, whether or not you agree with it or not, is a verifiable source that belongs in the article
  2. All attempts to remove or challenge it have been original research

Fair enough? David L Rattigan 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me.--RattBoy 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you don't even need OR to challenge the survey. The survey contradicts itself. It states that while there's "some evidence" for some meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the "correct" answer is "no contact whatsoever". Or as Inigo Montoya said, "I do not think that means what chu think that means." AFAIK, there's no wikipedia policy against quoting a source accurately. Wkerney 19:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you conclude that the "correct" answer for the survey is "no contact whatsoever"? I do not see how you construe that is protrayed as the "correct" answer in the survey. In the section discussing the perceived relationship between Iraq and al-Quaeda, the report states Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.” -- this in relation to what is described as . In a separate section addressing whether clear evidence of such a link had been found, at the time of the report, no such evidence had been found. So, what was your point again? Oh, something about quoting a source accurately. Yes, it would be nice if you would do so. older ≠ wiser 20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you're someone different, I'll copy and paste the quote again. Quote: Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.” Just 7% chose the option, “There was no connection at all.” Since the war has ended this perception has been essentially unchanged. Despite the fact that no evidence of any links has been found, the percentages choosing each position have remained statistically constant, varying only within a few percentage points. (Source: http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf page 5) The contradiction is obvious: it claims there was indeed, quote, "some evidence" at the time for one of the "wrong" answers, but then went ahead and claimed, quote, "no evidence" has been found. I'm curious to see how that could at all be condensed into the kind of summary that we currently have on the page. Wkerney 09:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's quite obvious that the writers of this report don't consider "a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials" to be "links". The survey is primarily concerned with the 35% of respondents who believed "Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks", and the astonishing 22% who believed "Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks." Those are the "links" this survey is speaking about. In any case, this entire discussion is irrelevant according to the opinion of the mediator. --Ideogram 10:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A mediator holds no special authority to determine either the content of an article or to restrain discussion on a public talk page. Other options are available if a more controlled environment is needed. However, I think I largely agree with Ideogram's interpretation of the quote. The report is attempting to examine somewhat subtle differences. The text quoted by Wkerney straddles two paragraphs. The first portion is the end of a discussion examining other polls which offered only simple binary options. The question in the PIPA poll attempted to gauge the relative strength of opinions regarding the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The next portion quoted by Wkerney begins a new paragraphs discuss the stability of responses over time, despite no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The response "a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials" in context of the entire section is not contradictory with the statement that there was no evidence of any links. older ≠ wiser 12:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Bkonrad. As mediator, I am here to enable discussion, but I don't have any authority other than what others in the mediation allow me. In any case, the discussion really is irrelevant, but not because of my opinion - but because of Wikipedia:Original research. I've been trying to move the mediation forward by getting a consensus on this, and most people seem to have agreed, even if the discussion keeps somehow slipping back into formulating arguments for and against. It's just not what Wikipedia is about. We don't need a genius to come along and make great arguments, because no matter how convincing the arguments, they will still be OR. What we've been trying to get all along is some sources, which it seems someone has finally done below. Yay! David L Rattigan 14:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend what I said as any slight against you. I had been responding to Wkerney's claim that OR wasn't needed because the survey contradicted itself. In any case, I agree that things are moving in a better direction now with specific sources criticizing the survey. I still stand by a point I made long ago that the report is really inconsequential for encyclopedic coverage of NPR. IMO it adds little to the article aside from inciting controversy. older ≠ wiser 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No worries; didn't take it as a slight in the, um, slightest. :) David L Rattigan 09:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox Controversies

The PIPA study debate is elsewhere on wikipedia as well. It's possible we might just want to link to the Fox Controversies page for readers who want to read more about it. ("However, the findings of this survey are disputed by some, as noted here")

Here's the quote in question:

Many conservatives have criticized the PIPA poll. Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll". [16] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap". [17] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda." [18] According to two sources, although not confirmable on the PIPA site, PIPA issued a clarification on Oct. 17, 2003 in response to the misuse of the poll's findings, and to criticisms spawned by that misuse. The reports say that PIPA stated that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks," and that PIPA also noted that the results of the poll were intended to show correlation, not causation. [19][20].

You can dig up those references here: (Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias) Wkerney 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, without passing judgment on whether Coulter and O'Reilly would know journalism or fact if it walked up to them, whispered in their ears "Hi! I'm fact-based journalism—pleased to meet you!", and bit them on their collective as2, yours looks like a very constructive contribution. It would be better if there were an academic study challenging the PIPA poll, but referring to prominent conservatives' criticism of the poll is quite reasonable.--RattBoy 12:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. David L Rattigan 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have a long list of sources that combat the PIPA study on its very foundations, per the terms of the medation agreement, can we now agree to place this information into the criticism section of the article? - MSTCrow 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I'd like to see those sources. The only objections to the PIPA study are wholly partisan. Partisan criticisms will need to establish that they're relevant and notable within the terms of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV first. FeloniousMonk 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think a paragraph such as the one quoted above from the Fox Controversies article would be fine. David L Rattigan 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-paragraph

Perhaps someone could write a paragraph containing criticisms of the PIPA poll, and post it here, then we all could discuss it and get some consensus before putting it in the article. David L Rattigan 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how are clearly biased comments from partisan pundits like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and James Taranto relevant to this article? Coulter's comments "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and "hoax poll" and Bill O'Reilly's "absolute crap" are hardly legitimate criticisms of a scholarly and technical study published in Political Science Quarterly. FeloniousMonk 18:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The quotes don't need to be academically relevant. They may not be good arguments, but surely coming from conservative pundits as famous as Coulter and O'Reilly, the criticisms are of some historical and sociological interest, no? David L Rattigan 20:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We can't put their views in just because they're famous pundits, they have to actually be *relevant*. As the PIPA study is currently presented, their criticisms are just not relevant. FeloniousMonk 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. "Punditry" =/= "expertise". What gives their words any more weight than the proprietor of Joe Blow's Bitchin' Blog or Crazy Guy with Sandwich Board on 5th Avenue, other than appearing on TV? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following paragraph:

A 2003 study, by the polling firm Knowledge Networks and the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes, showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets, including cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media. In particular, 80% of Fox News viewers held one of three common misperceptions about the Iraq War; only 23% of NPR listeners and PBS viewers were similarly misinformed.[15], [16] The poll has been criticized by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and James Taranto.

Ideogram 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's, O'Reilly's, and Taranto's comments are just that comments, not criticisms. I've yet to see a legitimate reason for why such comments are actually relevant here. Lot's of conservative pundits have made many more equally biased and self-serving comments about NPR itself... Are they relevant? Should we include them as well? FeloniousMonk 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We're trying to compromise here. I'm sure MSTCrow and Wkerney are going to blast me for reducing the mention to a single sentence. --Ideogram 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. I simply think the reference should not go in unchallenged when the entire poll is a fraud. Even just a reference to the Fox Controversies page would be enough, in my opinion. Wkerney 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Fraud? Hmm, have you contacted the local DA's office or the University of Maryland with your evidence so charges can be filed? Or, maybe, you ought to consider the actual meanings of words you use. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much bias as it is relevance or standing to make their comments. The undue-weight provisions regarding balance still apply, and throwing in their comments to provide a false eqivalency would be wrong. --Calton | Talk 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not our job to judge the relevance. The fact is they made the statements, and they are notable people. --Ideogram 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly it is. Read WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's not get confused here as to what their inclusion signifies. It does not mean their opinions are correct. It does not mean that the article gives equal weight to the survey and to the pundits. That the quotes are politically charged and biased should be obvious to anyone reading it; while it does not make the point that the survey is wrong, it does make the point that the survey angered some (very famous) conservative pundits who disagreed with it. Is that not worth noting? David L Rattigan 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it depends on how you phrase it. "The poll has been criticized by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and James Taranto" implies they said something substantive, something more than outraged bluster. "Conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and James Taranto were outraged by the conclusions" would be more accurate, unless they've actually said something that actually rebuts any points in the study. PIPA's own clarification, if it actually exists from a reliable source, seems much more on point. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The poll was patent nonsense, and it compromises the neutrality of the article. The paragraph should be removed. Longshot1980 14:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Patent nonsense" has an actual meaning other than as a random insult phrase. Care to offer the slightest indication that you're using it correctly? --Calton | Talk 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You give no reason for your opinion, nor for the NPOV tag that you unilaterally affixed to the article. I respectfully suggest that the NPOV tag be removed unless you can give verifiable sources for your POV.--RattBoy 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an article about NPR, not about Fox News. The perceptions of Fox viewers are not relevant. IMO, labeling Fox viewers "misinformed" is a plain violation of NPOV. Let's not use this article as an excuse to nurse a grudge against Fox! I recommend removing the sentence: "In particular, 80% of Fox News viewers held one of three common misperceptions about the Iraq War; only 23% of NPR listeners /PBS viewers were similarly misinformed." --Herb West 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
So when you say "I recommend," you mean that you're going to unilaterally do it, right? I applaud you for a creative use of the term.
If you'd read the Talk Archive, you'd understand that this criticism has been addressed. I'll save you the trouble of clicking your mouse a couple of times: in Archive 2, it says "Contrasting NPR's audience with that of Fox News might appear to be a gratuitous slam at the latter, but that's not the intention. The poll found NPR/PBS at one end of the spectrum, and Fox at the other. The gross disparity between the news consumers' overall knowledge about key current events is relevant and encyclopedic."--RattBoy 10:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The perceptions of Fox viewers regarding the Iraq War is clearly not relevant to an article about NPR. That's fairly obvious. --Herb West 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Herb about this, and if you look into the archive where Rattboy pulled his quote from, I disagreed there as well. The criticism wasn't really "addressed" there so much as that we agreed to disagree about the relevance. older ≠ wiser 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course the criticism was "addressed." Maybe you didn't agree with my reasoning, but the criticism was answered—a synonym for "addressed." Perhaps it's time for those who feel that the invocation of the name, "Fox News," in an NPR article is somehow inappropriate, to step up and contribute: what verbiage would you support to put the survey into context? The survey has quantitative data on the consumers of various news outlets and faux news outlets. How would you summarize the report?--RattBoy 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, your dismissive tone implied that it had been resolved and that Herb West was somehow remiss for raising the issue again. As I said before, the entire survey could be omitted with no real harm to the encyclopedic quality of the article. The survey did not directly evaluate the quality of the news reported by the networks, but only examined one aspect of how well-informed listeners/viewers of the networks were about a controversial and politically charged issue. While it is an interesting data point, it is also just a little misleading to present this limited study as as if it were conclusive evidence of anything. It is, in my opinion, rather tangential to the presentation of encyclopedic information about NPR. older ≠ wiser 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If there was a "dismissive tone" on my part, it was in response to Herb's unilateral editing out of a sentence which had been discussed, without checking to see if there'd been any discussion of it, and to his saying "I recommend…" and immediately taking the action which he "recommended." That struck me as disingenuous. If he were recommending a change, he should have submitted it to discussion prior to implementing the change. (Edit added for clarification by RattBoy, 9/13/06)
So, in order to be encyclopedic, you'd recommend removing an "interesting data point" which is quantitative and verifiable—while leaving in the broad, sweeping generalizations made by people with a political agenda? (See, for e.g., the previous sentence in the article: "In 2003, some critics accused NPR of being duplicitously pro invasion of Iraq."—no numbers, nothing objective, just unsubstantiated opinion.) How bizarre.
Other than removing the entire paragraph, I take it that you have no constructive suggestions about how to improve the sentence. Pity. I was hoping we could make progress here.--RattBoy 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I said nothing about retaining other unsourced commentary. My point is that the survey is 1) entirely tangential to the article; and 2) requires careful qualification so as not to misrepresent what the study actually meant. The study was NOT focused on NPR or the quality of its news. That it found NPR listeners tended to be better informed than other networks about a fairly limited, rather controversial and politically charged issue is somewhat interesting, but as far as using it to draw any broader conlusions regarding NPR specifically would require other studies and analyses. Mentioning that study in this article, even when carefully worded and qualified, represents an implicit assertion that NPR is somehow better than the other networks. Now, I happen to agree that NPR is at present among the highest quality news sources available. But that is not what the study was about. Using this limted study to draw conclusions that are not explicit in the study itself is tantamount to original research. For example, the curent version of the article claims the study showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets, including cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media. Is this really what the study showed? At best, one could state that the study showed NPR listeners were better informed about those specific aspects of the Iraq invasion which the study examined.
To reiterate, I don't feel the study is particularly relevant to this article. If the only rationale for including it is as a rebuttal of other unsourced or poorly sourced criticisms, then remove both. older ≠ wiser 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, BK, for giving a clear and reasoned rebuttal to my argument. I've come to expect no less from you.
It won't surprise you that I found your response not entirely convincing.
By far the most important news topic of the year 2003 was the Bicentennial of Ohio's statehood American Invasion of Iraq.[1] With respect to that news item, which dominated the news, analysis, and commentary for the entire year, three issues were discussed, dissected, and dissembled: Iraq's pursuit/ possession of WMDs, Iraq's connection with al Qaeda and 9/11, and the rest of the world's opinion of the US government's pursuit of the war. Objectively factual answers were available for the central questions concerning all three of those topics. So why, in Hume's name, would those issues not be appropriate for a survey which would assess the public's understanding of current events vis-a-vis their consumption of media outlets?
I grant that the Iraq War is/was controversial, and that invoking its reality may invite the occasional reversion by those who question some of the facts referenced in the survey; however, facts are facts. It is unencyclopedic to flinch from reporting facts merely because they are controversial.
Finally: does the survey say something relevant about NPR? I still contend that it does. While the survey does not address cause-n-effect, it gives strong evidence that the NPR/PBS audience is better informed than those who get their information from CBS, CNN, or…you-know-who. Whether public broadcasting better informs viewers/listeners, or whether better informed viewers/listeners naturally gravitate to public broadcasting, the survey cannot say. But it is a strong indication of quality, in any interpretation.
Wikipedia is full of partisan or opinionated reporting of subjective assertions in a "he-said, she-said" manner. Here, we have the rare opportunity to present an objective study—and I'm bemused that you'd rather see it simply ignored.--RattBoy 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
My primary objection to using it in this article is that it is essentially a misrepresentation of what the study was about. The study was NOT about NPR. It was NOT even directly about determining whether the listeners of one news service were better informed than another (that was only an incidental observation). As with many such studies, selectively quoting can misrepresent what the survey was designed to analyze. It is misleading and tantamount to OR to state, as the article currently does, that the study showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets, including cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media. Sorry, but that is a misrepresentation of the study. While you suggest that this is a "rare opportunity to present an objective study" -- that is in fact at odds with what the article actually says. older ≠ wiser 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it is OR, as the statement gives two references which interpret the survey that way. However, if you believe that the current terminology does misrepresent the study, I invite you to make a constructive suggestion toward rewording the paragraph.--RattBoy 10:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Rattboy, I support removing the irrelevant reference to Fox News viewers and their perceptions. To that end I support removing the last sentence of the article. For guidance, I have looked at the entry of each other news network (other than Fox) included in the PIPA survey: NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS and CNN. Of these 5 entries none make reference to the PIPA survey nor to the perceptions of Fox News viewers. --Herb West 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Herb, I'm looking for constructive suggestions for reporting the quantitative results of the survey without offending Fox News consumers. Do you have any such suggestions?--RattBoy 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA has such a low opinion of NPR that they must be at least attempting to do a good job. However, I am seeing a gradual subtle shift in NPR using words to describe Hezzbollah, etc - ie terrorists - that must be helping the funding problem. The funders - corporations, ethic groups ( gotta be prudent here ) eventually get their way - then we can have a new NPR and they can finally go commericail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 12:59, August 10, 2006

I'm sorry, is there an English translation of that comment available? --Calton | Talk 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing mediation

There has been no activity here for over a month. I will close the case; if anyone objects I can reopen it. --Ideogram 02:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

There should be some mention on the demographics of NPR's audience -- Who listens to its programming? Any statistics or published research out there on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.116.110.154 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Robert Conley as founder?

There's been a mini-edit-war going on lately, with Jimborus (Talk | contribs) deleting text which said that Robert Conley was the "founder" of NPR. One of his edits was summarized by claiming that "Robert Conley (was not the) founder. He was only the first anchor and he did not last in that role." In response, Emerson7 (Talk | contribs) has twice reverted Jimborus' edits, once admonishing "rv unsourced edits. please do not delete date without providing citation." (That's a bit bemusing, as I can't see that Emerson7 has provided a citation which supports the view that Conley was the founder.)

I haven't found a reliable source which says that Conley was a founder. See three typical links, [2][3] [4], which resulted from Googling "'Robert Conley' NPR". None supports Emerson7's viewpoint, as far as I can tell. (Perhaps Googling "'Robert Conley' NPR founder" would be more enlightening. When I have a moment…) It seems that the burden of proof here is on Emerson7. If s/he can't find a citation which supports his/her POV, the "founder" language should be removed.--HughGRex 10:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

my entire point is that if there is a specific claim, that claim must be supported. jimborus makes a specific, unsupported claim, and deletes information based on that unsupported claim. it's my belief that it is protocol is to place a {{Fact}} tag for challenged data....not delete them. his first removal was completely without comment, and just taking a look at his user page, calls his neutrality into question. --emerson7 | Talk 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the specific claim that is wholely unsupported is that Conley was the founder. It is entirely appropriate to remove unsourced information that one has reason to believe is incorrect -- it is the responsibility of those who want to add such information, once it is challenged, to provide a reliable source for it. older ≠ wiser 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
NB, here are some sources about NPRs early days, not one of which mentions Conley as founder, only as the first announcer/host for ATC. older ≠ wiser 00:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
...so, am i understanding you to say that i can go into any wiki article, select any statement, declare it untrue, and delete that statement without comment or anything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
woops! thanks hagarman. --emerson7 | Talk 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you do so frequently without any basis, other editors might no longer assume good faith of your edits and start treating you more like a troll or vandal. If you honestly have some basis for thinking that a particular unsourced assertion is incorrect, then go ahead and remove the statement. If you simply are uncertain about a relatively innocuous statement, there is {{tl:cn}} and similar tags. older ≠ wiser 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I might add that, while any editor has latitude to remove a statement that s/he believes to be untrue, such latitude is very limited if the statement is backed up by a reliable source. (I wouldn't remove a relevant, properly sourced statement unless I found a counter-citation which refuted it.) If the statement does not have a citation (as in this instance), it's fully appropriate to remove it.--HughGRex 12:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPR Bias Whitewash

The so-called 'Independent' bodies that evaluated NPR all have liberal biases themselves.

How childish and cowardly that NPR (and this article) can't just be honest about their biases.

Facts (about these 'independent bias evaluators'):

'Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting'-- Is a Liberal Watchdog Group

'UCLA' Is a far-Left dominated academic institution

University of Missouri: Ditto

So WHAT REAL, truly independent analysis of NPR reporting has occured? NONE!

128.138.173.224 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm…FAIR criticized NPR from the left's perspective. Criticism has come from both the right and the left, as is evident from careful reading of the article. Your criticism of UCLA and the University of Missouri is barely worthy of comment, since you give no source for your claim that they're "far-Left" institutions.--HughGRex 10:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FAIR, being a self-described "progressive" organization doesn't qualify as being a neutral evaluating party-- therefore it's motives are suspect. FAIR could just as easily be helping NPR to cover it's tracks. It certainly has a motive for aiding a political ally.

Your comments dismissing the overwhelming liberal bias at those Universities are about as compelling as the Vaticans case against Gallileo that led to his house arrest: arrogant dismissal of the obvious.

71.208.226.116 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way-- I have good friends who listen faithfully to NPR. I respect them because they are honest people. And they tell me they love NPR because "It's a professional Left-oriented news source." That's much better than lying about it-- which is disturbing and creepy.

71.208.226.116 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What is odd is that the study by UCLA and UMC concludes that NPR on par with Newsweek, TIME, and US News and World Report. Yet, at Newsweek's article you read, "Newsweek is generally considered the most liberal of the three major newsweeklies, an assertion supported in a recent UCLA study on media point of view." So one study by UCLA says that NPR is as balanced as 3 periodicals, while another study concludes that one of the three periodicals is the most liberal... Isn't that inconsistent? -Atamasama 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And they tell me they love NPR because "It's a professional Left-oriented news source." Then it's either that your "friends" are yanking your chain or that they don't exist at all - no one actually talks like that. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not very thorough logic there. What that really reveals is that a number of other news outlets also have a Left-bias. No surprise there. With the exception of of FOX (clear Right-bias), most of the other major electronic outlets are dominated at the executive level by former 60's Leftists.

The fact that there has been a Left-wave in electronic media (with the exception of FOX) in the last 20 years could honestly be called generational. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Telling me you know what my friends said / didn't say when you have never met them is intellectually pathetic. Consider: Ideology erodes rational thought. Any kind of ideology, Leftist or Rightist.

71.208.219.6 05:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Offering the option that "your 'friends' are yanking your chain" was actually being kind to you, since it assumed you were telling the truth and not -- as I actually suspect -- it's a complete pile of bovine excrement you made up. This being based on the fact that the statement is nonsense on its face, that no one sincerely talks that way.
Consider: Ideology erodes rational thought. Any kind of ideology, Leftist or Rightist. Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle: your whole "argument" is nothing BUT ideology, no matter what coating of pseudo-intellectual rhetoric you put on it.
But unless you actually have some actual suggestions for actually improving THIS article, you're in the wrong place: USENET is that-a-way. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.173.211 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are saying a lot about yourself by what you post.

1) Nasty personal attacks. Hallmark of a bully and someone without a lot of intellectual confidence.

2) Accusing people of lying based on observed generalities rather than facts. Hallmark trait of a malignant narcissist (adult bully of the socially manipulative variety).

Sean7phil 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I offered the "lying" explanation as an alternative to "completely gullible" explanation, since I know complete bullshit when I read it. Kind of like your made-up "hallmark trait" amateur psychoanalysis. Or can you point me to the part of the DSM-IV that covers it?
So was there an actual point to your sputtering, or have you mistaken Wikipedia for {[Free Republic]]? --Calton | Talk 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This article serves as a prime example of why Wikipedia is not to be trusted when it comes to politicized and controversial subjects. --71.232.157.145 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPR v. RIAA webcasting conflict

I'm thinking that there should be a section dedicated to the royalty conflict between NPR and the RIAA. NPR is posing this as a major issue towards their future and I believe it is important that it at least be mentioned. Greg 03:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public radio programs not affiliated with NPR

what an odd section. it's like having a section in the General Motors article called "Automobiles not made by GM." --emerson7 | Talk 04:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the list - it's there because people FREQUENTLY confuse ALL U.S. public-radio programs with NPR. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if you need evidence of that, try:
  • Google News search for "'This American Life' [a Chiacgo Public radio/PRI show] +NPR". Note the many references to "NPR's This American Life".
  • Google News search for "Keillor [host of the Minnesota Public Radio/APM show "A Prairie Home Companion] +NPR". Note the many references to "NPR's A Prairie Home Companion".
It doesn't matter when you click the above links, the mix-ups WILL be there, I guarantee it. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Calton -- there is considerable confusion about this. older ≠ wiser 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of non-NPR public radio shows needs to be prominently displayed in hopes that uneducated conservatives might realize that they are mistaken. If there really were a liberal bias to NPR, the demographics show that NPR listeners earn more money than the conservative opponents of public radio. Therefore, NPR listeners are probably paying more tax dollar to fund the war in Iraq, the imprisonment of alleged terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, "Creation Science" in public schools, etc. than those conservatives are forced to pay for "liberal-biased" public radio.


[edit] additional sourcing needed

Both the funding and criticism sections has more than a few potentially controversial facts that are uncited. Rather than use {{fact}} tags for every single uncited claim (which would look disruptive), I placed general tags. The article lacks general sources, but even if it didn't, controversial facts need to be specifically cited with footnoting or Harvard referencing. I'll do a bit of hunting for reliable, independent verification of the facts that are uncited, but if I or another cannot do so after a reasonable amount of time passed, I will be removing unverified assertions. Thank you, VanTucky (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been quite some time since then, so I have removed several sections of unverified accusations and statistical claims. VanTucky (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)