NPR, as most people know, stands for National Public Radio. Many listeners are concerned about how well NPR lives up to its name.
Listeners regularly ask, "How truly national is NPR?"
I think the question also means, "How well does NPR reflect the country?" For others, it means, "How often should NPR air stories that come from the hundreds of member stations within the public radio system?"
It depends on who you are and where you are listening.
Some listeners who live in larger urban areas think that NPR reflects the country just fine, thanks.
How Does NPR Sound?
From their perspective, NPR sounds just like them: educated, middle class and -- mostly -- white.
Those who listen to NPR in rural communities and in smaller towns tend to hear NPR differently. They refer (somewhat disparagingly) to NPR as "bi-coastal" because they hear less about their own interests, concerns, values and culture in their own areas. Their local stations usually do a good job, often better than NPR, they say.
NPR, say these critics, has become like other mainstream media in its reflection of the major population centers. These listeners believe that NPR is too concerned with the so-called blue states -- i.e., the more liberal-voting parts of the country -- and at the expense of covering the red (more conservative) states.
NPR has grown and become more prominent in the American media landscape, especially over the past 10 years. But the irony is that even as NPR has become more successful, it seems to be moving away from its local roots.
Balancing 'Mainstream' and 'Alternative' Radio
792 public radio stations are part of the NPR system of member stations. These stations -- all of them independent -- air NPR programs like Morning Edition and All Things Considered. The stations aren’t evenly spread around the country, but every state has at least one public radio station.
Why NPR doesn't have more reports from all of those stations?
The answer, like the public radio system itself, is complicated.
Some listeners have asked why NPR can't assign reporters in local newsrooms. While NPR frequently collaborates with local news reporters, those reporters, like their stations, are not NPR's. They answer to and are paid by the local station. These reporters are not NPR's to assign.
Many of the public radio stations also have newsrooms that vary in size and experience. The larger stations -- when asked -- contribute to NPR News. Others don't file reports to NPR as often, because they have fewer reporters and the ones they have, have primary obligations to the local station. As a result, listeners to NPR News hear less from some parts of the country than from others.
Reflecting the Country
That many stations -- 792 -- are an incredible editorial resource. How to harness this presence and this deep knowledge of the country into a more accurate and newsworthy reflection on public radio?
Ellen Weiss, NPR's senior national editor, says it is happening:
Since Sept. 2001 -- that's the year my records start -- the percentage of member station/freelance stories has remained fairly steady -- around 30 percent -- some years it is 32 percent -- some 28 percent -- but overall, it has not changed much. This is no small thing since the number of staff reporters we have added to the desk has grown by close to 30 percent. So even with significantly more staff reporters and increased productivity on their part -- we have not diminished the role member stations play in covering the country. This is even more significant when it comes to news-spots, where the member stations are filing almost twice as many spots as staff reporters. This is also significant because news-spots are a gateway for member stations. Given the competition for air - and the growth of our foreign desk and science desk and the stories that we have been covering these past years (wars, national political elections, business scandals) it is great that member station contributions remain strong.
On top of those numeric facts -- there's this. NPR has placed three staff reporters in parts of the country where we (need more) coverage -- the Midwest, the southwest and the interior west. (NPR's) Greg Allen visited some 10 states in his region last year -- from Iowa and the Dakotas to Oklahoma and Arkansas -- places where we previously heard precious little. As I mentioned, (NPR's) Howard Berkes has been our rural affairs reporter for the past two years -- traveling around the country -- often by car because that's the only access -- to bring us the stories, issues, ideas and voices of Americans living in rural places.
Last year (producer) Ken Barcus brought in some 130 stories from the Midwest -- all member stations. He travels the region visiting stations and has helped developed member station reporters in many states. In the past 2 years the National Desk has (hosted) 9 regional... gatherings of member station reporters and news staff from a region and NPR for a day of conversation about regional coverage and issues -- and workshops on skills building. These were conducted in every region -- and we've had about 300 station participates. NPR offers two scholarships per session - often they are given to small stations that can't afford transportation or housing.
In the past year, (NPR created) reporting fellowships for member station reporters -- all expenses paid for a 2-3 month stint in DC with mentoring and participation in the daily coverage. Audie Cornish of WBUR and Charles Edwards of Georgia Public Broadcasting were our fellows. John Dankosky of WNPR in Hartford filled in as an editor -- and I can think of numerous other examples of this kind of collaboration...
I can point to several examples where NPR and the member stations were literally working hand-in-hand to cover stories -- sharing story lists -- meeting to discuss coverage together -- and this is really where the relationship just blows me away. Red Lakes killing -- Minnesota Public Radio was on the scene much sooner than us -- but by the time we got there -- we were sharing tape -- sharing coverage -- and helping each other on a daily basis. Same with the death of Paul Wellstone -- where we worked out of the station and had one of their producers helping us. Same with coverage of the California recall election -- the coverage of the church crisis in Boston.
Is Geography Destiny?
Ellen Weiss is right: there are more reports on NPR from previously little-heard from parts of the country. And these reports originate from both NPR and station reporters.
But at the same time that member station reporters continue to be heard on NPR, they seem to be more prominent on NPR hourly newscasts and less so on the news programs such as Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
Ellen Weiss says the reasons why station reporter have become significant contributors to newscasts are because
...they are usually the ones who are closer to the event and can get to a breaking news story more quickly. An NPR reporter might do it but often he or she could be miles away and newscasts are about being at the scene as quickly as possible.
But is the improved national reach and sensibility that station reporters bring to NPR newscasts being diluted on the newsmagazine programs? Are those programs still able to convey the unique local journalistic knowledge that only station reporters can bring?
In short, will success change NPR News? And is this a change for the better?
Looking Back to Look Ahead
Recently two important and excellent histories of NPR have been published. One is by a longtime public radio veteran, Jack Mitchell, and is entitled Listener Supported. The other is NPR: The Trials and Triumphs of National Public Radio, by Michael McCauley from the University of Maine.
Both books explain -- from different perspectives -- NPR's present relations with the stations by exploring the origins in the public radio system.
When it was formed in the late 1960s, NPR was set up to provide programs to already established stations -- some had been on the air since the 1920s. Most public radio stations operated out of land-grant colleges in the Midwest and the Northeast. The colleges and universities that held the broadcast license from the FCC back then. It's still true today -- two thirds of all public radio stations are licensed to institutions of higher learning.
NPR's roots in college radio have meant that public radio was a bound to be a reflection of higher education in the United States. Wherever you found a college, you would probably hear a public radio station. Many of NPR's journalists are products of that system with its geographic base in the Midwest and the Northeast.
For too long, especially through the 1980s and the early 1990s, relations between the stations and NPR were too often wrapped in an air of mutual suspicion. In my opinion, this tension was due, in part to an unequal relationship: NPR depended on the stations to provide the listeners; the stations depended on NPR programs for their continued survival.
Over the past ten years, that relationship has improved enormously as both the stations and NPR have become more established. NPR and the stations know that they need each other if both are to survive.
Now NPR -- in collaboration with the public radio stations, is initiating an important project that should deepen the journalistic skills of many of the public radio stations. There is a renewed interest around the system in how to strengthen and expand local radio. The result should be stronger journalism at every level.
If successful (and I have no reason to doubt its success) this project will broaden and deepen the ability to generate high quality radio journalism both locally and on NPR from around the country.
Next week -- the question many listeners keep asking: how "public" is NPR?
[Chantal de la Rionda contributed to the research for this column].
A 'FAIR' Question
One more issue from last week: the media watchdog group, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), criticized NPR about a report that aired on Morning Edition on Sept. 15.
The report, by NPR's Corey Flintoff, referred to an anti-terrorism resolution being debated at the United Nations in light of last summer's bombings in London. The report went on to say that:
Some extremist groups say those bombings were a response to the U.S. and British military presence in Iraq.
Hundred of listeners and supporters of FAIR wrote to object to the phrase "extremist groups" to describe those who oppose the war in Iraq.
Paul Fiscella wrote:
Do you believe as [the] Flintoff report implies that only an "extremist" could acknowledge a connection between acts of terrorism and foreign policy? Please encourage NPR to air a clarification of Flintoff's remarks.
Ted Clark is the Deputy Foreign Editor at NPR:
I don't think a correction is warranted. There is no error...just a difference of interpretation... The author of the letter(s) interpreted the sentence as meaning "that only terrorists or their sympathizers perceived such a connection."
The fact that "some extremist groups" perceive the connection does not rule out the possibility that non-extremists also perceive the connection. The sentence can also be interpreted this way: Extremist groups THAT ENDORSED THE BOMBINGS say they were a response to the U.S. and British military presence in Iraq. That is what we meant when we wrote the sentence. If we had wanted to say, "only terrorists and their sympathizers perceive a connection between the bombings and the war," we would have written the sentence that way. I will grant you that our sentence could have been written more precisely.
But the report was unclear and an editor should have caught the imprecision before it aired. I think NPR owes the listeners an on-air correction and clarification. The issue (the war in Iraq) is too important to be bogged down in editorial nuance, especially if the subtleties go unappreciated by the listeners.
Copyright 2022 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.
