Talk:NPR

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)

I'm definitely confused. Some of the most high-profile programming on public radio stations has been omitted from this list. I know there is a distinction between PRI, NPR, and other producers, but it should be clearly described in the article. The most high profile shows (A Prairie Home Companion, Car Talk) should be listed and their production credits should be explained so people know why they're omitted from this article.

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.

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)

Added section for NPR's censoring of Outrage documentary

On Wednesday, May 13th, 2009, I added a section covering NPR's censoring the Outrage documentary movie on closeted gay politicians. This section does have two references. Allyn (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not particularly notable for a general encyclopedic article about the organization. Creating a whole new section for something that is recentism and is mentioned in a few blogs is undue weight. If it actually turns into a big issue for NPR, we can revisit it, but that doesn't look likely. Also, the language was highly POV. You can't flatly state that they engaged in "censorship." That's opinion, not fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very relevant and highly notable. If you have an issue with the way it's worded, fix that issue, not just totally remove it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just saying "I like it" can you describe why you feel this is highly notable? What is your evidence for such? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I like it.. don't put words in my mouth. I said it's valid and sourced content. As for evidence, pick one. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources, nor do they establish notability. Google search results of a bunch of blogs, even less so. This addition has multiple problems, not the least of which is that, while it is relevant to the film in question, it really isn't notable to an article about NPR, and certainly not deserving of its own section. Beyond this, it is written terribly. You can't state opinion as fact, particularly using inflammatory language like "censored." And finally, it is sourced only to a couple of blogs. You would need several reliable third-party sources, to even consider including it. Please don't add this material again without addressing these concerns here and making an attempt at consensus. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually some blogs are completely reliable, out of tens of thousands of Ghits its a rather reasonable that many can be found that meet our sourcing guidelines. The rest remains rewriting but seriously the entire section needs to migrated into the regular article. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First source instances in that Google search:

• blogs.villagevoice.com is a reliable source.. it's a newspaper, not some kid's little blog home on Blogspot.com.
• www.signorile.com is a reliable source.. he's a radio host and reporter for SIRIUS OutQ.
• www.afterelton.com is a reliable source.. it's part of the Logo (TV channel) news department.
• www.movieline.com is a reliable source.. it's a Hollywood news site.
• nymag.com is a reliable source.. should be obvious, it's a well known magazine
• www.pastemagazine.com is a reliable source.. surprise! another magazine!

Shall I continue? And don't even talk about consensus. Did you get consensus to remove it? Benji, feel free to rewrite the content, but the sources and relevancy is painfully obvious. Either way, it's going back in the article. Either with your re-write or my re-vert. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Loonymonkey about this matter. This is a topic for the Outrage article, not this one. It simply hasn't been proven to be significant enough in the history of the organization (see recentism, undue weight, etc.) to be covered here. Were it part of a larger trend of hypocrisy or bias in covering gay issues, it would deserve a mention as an example of that trend, but relatively minor incidents shouldn't be covered at this level. Every news organization is going to have individual stories that cause controversy every year, and most of them aren't significant enough to receive coverage in a historical overview of the work of that organization. Gamaliel (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also agree with Benjiboi and Gamaliel. Including this would be an example of undue weight to a relatively minor incident. One incident is not evidence of concerted and sustained bias. older ≠ wiser 12:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the section back in, however, I removed the apparently imflamatary word 'censored' and replaced it with alteration without permission. This, I, hope is more factual and less offensive. I apologize for my original wording of the article. Allyn (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I added an additional reference to a major media outlet (Village Voice) on this topic. I hope this assuages the concern expressed here that there is not enough major media reference to this topic. Allyn (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have removed the word "censorship". The news coverage calls it exactly that, so it's not POV. It's sourced. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "censored" to "edited". If we want to say that some have called it censorship then we should attribute that point of view. But we shouldn't say so without attribution because it is an opinion.   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mideast conflict

I know that some have accused NPR of being anti-Israel, but there is an interesting article here that tries to show that the it has also supported Israel a few times. [1] ADM (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NPR Popularity Statement

The article's statement "from 2002–2008 they were the second and third most popular radio programs in the country," regarding Morning Edition and All Things Considered, contains a link to a page about the country's most popular programs. Nowhere does that page mention either of these programs or NPR. It's hard to imagine they could have completely fallen off the list of most popular programs in a year or less.

The references provided for the statement are secondary sources that make the assertion without support. While, as a diehard NPR listener, I can easily believe that these shows rather than Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are # 2 and 3 behind Limbaugh, I'd like to see more solid evidence. (Perhaps someone bombed the "most popular shows" page so that it's all Faux, all the time?)

Javelina13 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate averages

Under Production facilities and listenership, I removed a claim that the average listener is male and college educated. This is a misuse of the term average. Average is used only for quantities, like height or age. An either/or category such as male or college education cannot be averaged. The citation requires registration to see it, so I don't know the numbers, but a correct description of listeners would be something like "57% male, 62% college educated. You can't average sex - you're either male or female.