Talk:NPR/Archive 1

message: NPR "aired a rather amusing article"? Which article on WP? Or  is it a "amusing segment" on the radio? Why amusing? --Menchi 23:55 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
Is it really correct to describe NPR as "a loosely organized network"?  How is more 'loose' than other media networks? --User:Ike9898
:Yes. Compare with NBC -- with rare exceptions, NBC affiliates must carry NBC programming, in the time slots designated by the network. NPR affiliates, on the other hand, are provided with a cafeteria menu of programs that individual station managers can pick from and insert wherever they please. What time is The West Wing on? Thursdays at 10, 9 Central. What time is Car Talk on? Umm, what station do you listen to? --Calton 23:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a rather amusing article"? 

message: I removed the following:
:The network's relationship with the Jewish community has been poor for many years. Jewish community leaders complain that NPR consistantly slants news programs toward an anti-Jewish and anti-Israel position -- such as referring to Arab terrorists as "militants" -- and refuses to retract factual errors.
While this may indeed be true, I've never heard that such criticisms represent the views of the entire Jewish community, or even substantial portions. Some citations for such assertions would be helpful. older≠wiser 02:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
:but, the text you removed did not say "the entire Jewish community", so why did you reword it that way? I daresay no community would ever be "entire" when it comes to opinions. You have a POV, dude.
:—added by anon 68.174.107.130 on 23 August 2005
::"The Jewish community" implies either "the entire Jewish community" or at least a population which represents the entire community. Without a reference, the contention is unsupported and doesn't belong.--RattBoy 00:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPR relations with Jewish community

message: According to its own website , NPR is an independent, nonprofit. For what it's worth, the CPB website indicates that it is also a private nonprofit corporattion . older≠wiser July 2, 2005 13:50 (UTC)
:I think private in this case means that the corporation does not sell stock to the public. To be fair I have never heard of a public non-profit corporation in the United States. I don't think a 501c(3) can sell stock.--Gbleem 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought the words private and independent are used to dispell the misconception that public radio is directly controlled or mostly funded by the government.--Gbleem 17:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory as it may sound, NPR is a private nonprofit 

message: In IMHO, the recent addition of text merged from NPR and Commercialization has severe problems.
* It cites no sources. Whose opinion are we reading here?
* It doesn't define "commercialization." It appears to be saying that news reporting is somehow more commercial than "cultural" programming. I don't view that as a universal definition at all.
* The "cultural programming" that has been replaced by news over the last 20 years on many NPR member stations was often programming of the "classical music" genre. However, those programs were often generated at the local level. One classic example was WGBH's Morning Pro Musica with the late Robert J. Lurtsema. Member stations did drift away from such programming, largely (I suspect) in response to a public that was more interested in newsy stuff that they couldn't get on commercial radio. But that doesn't support the thesis that NPR has become more commercial.
* If one wants to seriously discuss the commercialization of NPR, one must focus on the greater reliance on corporate sponsors, the resemblance of funding promos to commercials ("Continuing support for Healthiness and You is provided by Doctor Ben's Liver Pills. Doctor Ben. When you want to be better looking, sexier, and wealthy beyond belief, call on Doctor Ben."), and concerns about whether or not the funding sources affect the choice of stories to cover or not.
* It's terribly written. There are sentence fragments, incomprehensible phrases, and spelling errors that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia, NPR, and the American system of public education. ("Weather???")
I'll leave it in place for a day or so, but if nobody steps to the plate and fixes it (my triage corps advises me that the patient cannot be saved, so I'm not going to try), I'll remove the whole bleeping thing.--RattBoy 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge from NPR and Commercialization 

message: I've removed this recent addition:
:Another criticism is pro-union bias at NPR. An example of how much of a “blind-spot” union bias is with NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, is his response to the question; “I was surprised to hear NPR staff members are also union members. Shouldn't they disclose their union membership when reporting on stories about unions?” Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin replied, “No different than if some NPR staffers were members of the loyal order of moose. It is the reporting - not the membership that counts, in my opinion. And yes, I am a member of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.”
:Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin is correct, “it is the reporting… that counts.” Disclosure of union affiliation when reporting on stories about unions is basic reporting integrity.
The first paragraph requires some sort of attribution -- both of where such criticsm has been reported in the media and of the quote from Dvorkin -- where is this from?  The second paragraph simply seems to be POV editorial commentary which is innapropriate in an encyclopedia article. older ≠ wiser 13:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro-union bias criticism 

message: I don't know whether or not the following should be part of the article, but as I read it I have this question:  Given the precise status of NPR -- a private non-profit corporation (possibly receiving
government subsidies) -- are there certain kinds of programs that are not legal for NPR to air?
(E.g., programs that clearly have a specific political point of view (say, even admittedly)? . . . Or programs that promulgate a particular religion?  Etc.)Daqu 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move, although I'm a little in the unknown here. The comments below are slightly confuzzling. —Nightstallion (?) 12:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: permitted programming

message: "together they are a loosely organized public radio network in the United States."
Being an NPR member station is like me being a member of Costco. I pay a membership fee, and I pay for what I buy, I can shop anywhere else, and I can also grow my own food. They are not a network of owned stations like Clear Channel. I think the best description is still to just say that NPR is a creator and distributor of programming for public radio stations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the current phrasing is somewhat lacking.  But I think the relationship is a little more closely involved than your analogy with being a member of Costco. While it should be made clear that it is not a network like a traditional media network, it is somewhat more than a simple buyer-distributor relationship. Most member stations identify themselves as "NPR stations". NPR cooperates with stations in fund-raising efforts. NPR represents its member stations in matters of their mutual interest. Local reports are sometimes picked up as national stories. So simply describing it as a "creator and distributor of programming for public radio stations" doesn't quite capture the extent of collaboration and cooperation that exists. older ≠ wiser 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPR is governed by its members in a cooperative structure as well. As a member of Costco, you have no say in who runs the Board, or who is their president. NPR member stations, through their Authorized Representatives ("A-Reps"), discuss and make changes to NPR policy; work on task forces to consider issues such as online streaming, podcasting, and coverage issues; and vote for and make their opinions known to NPR management. Calwatch 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network 

message: Why was the article moved from National Public Radio to National Public Radio (United States)? We don't seem to have any articles on other National Public Radios. Is every article with the words "national", "federal", or "state"  going to have an unnecessary differentiation?? -Will Beback 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it, if its unreasonable feel free to move it back.   It seemed sort of presumptuous to call it "national" public radio in an international context, but I do not know of any other stations with the same name.  I guess one test is to put yourself in the other guy's shoes -- if I found "national public television" but it was only national if I lived in new zealand it might strike me as a little odd.  Justforasecond 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually we name articles by their subject's formal or common name, and only use additional identifiers when there is the possibility for confusion with another article. So long as the intro specifies the nation in question I think that's sufficient. Since you don't seem to mind I'll move it back.  -Will Beback 05:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Should the podcast section be moved into the programing section?  It is about distribution, but seems too small to be a seperate section?  Maybe it could be grouped together with the info about HD Radio under a section about distribution? --Zach 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with programming. --maru   (talk)  contribs 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast 

message: This is just a reminder that all material must be NPOV and Encyclopedic. However much you hate or lover any given show is irrelevent here. I shouldn't have to say this, but.... Pelegius 18:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. For at least the second time I've had to remove unsupported criticism from the article. For the record, nowhere in the last cite given, ,  does Michael Kelly say that NPR is "a significant participant among news organizations with a leftward slant." The pushing of POV criticism is getting a little too obvious. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the current deleting of criticism is going a bit overboard. NPR has a lot of conservative critics, and throwing away editorial pieces from Brent Bozell and Fox News criticizing NPR is silencing a very legitimate criticism of the network. Calwatch 04:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it is  legitimate criticism is debatable. However, it is undeniable that many pundits (however poorly informed their arguments) do in fact make such criticisms. older ≠ wiser 12:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: criticism is alright but someone was putting in citations that didn't match the text they were next to.   we also have to avoid so-called "weasel" language like "many critics say" and stick to concrete facts, and make sure the critics are talking about npr, not just public broadcasting in general.   Justforasecond 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Would someone add some information about the ombudsman. --Gbleem 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ombudsman