Much the same.

I've listened to NPR for some 30+ years now, and there's been a shift, either in the network or myself.

I'd trace it to the late 1990s and the Elian Gonzales story -- a non-story, ultimately, though a political shibboleth, which NPR, as the commercial media, pounded the drum on continuously. Bob Edwards' firing was another watershed.

The network has been under political attack, and I'd argue those attacks have been successful to a large extent in changing and weakening the network -- it doesn't have the spine it once did.

Some of the change is technological: NPR used to pre-tape much of its material, and in particular there was very little (if any) live content on its weekend programmes. This has shifted to the point that much or most of the programming is now live.

The flagship programmes are now bi-coastal, with two anchors in two separate locations. There are exceptionally strong arguments for doing this, and the experiences of 9/11 directly influenced the decision. The day-to-day-result for the programmes themselves is negative, though. There's more inter-host banter, and an annoying focus on having the hosts read alternate lines of copy within the same story. Again: technically impressive, but ultimately for product delivery, a gimmick.

The other change is that I've found additional sources of information, and broadened my own knowledge of history, technology, institutions, and more recently, media. The result is to clearly point out the holes and limits to NPR's coverage. The network has a different Overton window, but it most certainly has an Overton window.

In particular what's somewhat shocked me has been the lack of intellectual depth or presence on NPR. Again: a "stable" of voices, but a quite limited one, with highly notable exceptions (Noam Chomsky comes to mind particularly, he is only one of numerous instances).

Since Jarl Mohn's taken the helm (and after a period in which the CEO position had come to remember Al Qaeda's 2nd in Command or Hogwart's Instructor in Defence Against the Dark Arts), what I've noted has been a fragmentation of programming. Whilst the total "sponsorship spot" time may not have changed, the distribution of same seems to have, and the result is that the flagship programming (ATC & Morning Edition) have a rather shattered-and-crazed sense to them. I don't sense the rhythm which permeated those programmes in the early 1990s. And it destroys continuity.

The focus on everyman -- and uniformed -- voices in programming also has a profound effect. I can understand the drive to expose such viewpoints, but ... well, they're simply so wrong.

(Mind: the suppsed NPR stable of experts seems also to have become detached from either reality or any interest in taking a critical or incisive perspective on it.)

Neal Conan's sign-off message at Talk of the Nation (where those voices should be given air, or a format similar to it) has stuck with me. And I'm afraid NPR has been wasting my time with stupid stuff.

Long and short: NPR doesn't deliver.

And the problem strikes me as structural. Charlie Pierce, regular on "Wait, Wait", is presented as a funny guy. If you read him at Esquire, though, he's got stuff to say. Maybe a comedy panel isn't the place to go for that, but as has been noted in criticism of that show, it goes more for fart jokes than real commentary, where it's got an opportunity to do so. Colbert, Oliver, Bee, and other commercial commedy programmes are beating NPR handily at its own game here.

Which is to say: the jockeys (management) are restraining the horses (guests and commentators). That's really bad.

For all that: yes, NPR is better than mainstream commercial news programming, and by degrees which frankly shock me. Having traveled by ground through "flyover" country, I can attest that there's a lot to be said for plotting a route by NPR translator stations. (Or by having a good supply of podcasts loaded in your mobile.) And so far as truckers-as-listeners go, that's a Good Thing.

But it could be so, so much better.