Jump to content

Talk:NPR/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

NPR Names new President

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/02/140994384/npr-names-gary-knell-as-new-ceo-president?ps=cprs --Javaweb (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Juan Williams Firing

As most observors don't believe NPR stated reason for firing Juan Williams we should give equal weight to Williams claims especially with the Tottenberg Double Standard.Basil rock (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accord equal weight to all viewpoints; it accords due weight to viewpoints based on the sources. siafu (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

advertising

In the Underwriting spots vs. commercials section it states "they cannot advocate a product". How does this claim square with the Carbonite adverts singing the praises of and pushing their shoddy, unencrypted storage solutions on me? These are not mere "statements" from an advertiser and are clearly positioned and worded as such to advocate for and sell me on this commercial product. They "advocate" the services features and sometimes even mention the pricing models for their services. 71.100.153.243 (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How does this improve the article? This talk page is not a forum for discussing NPR in general. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not discussing NPR directly. Rather, I am pointing out dubious statements and poor wording in this particular section and offering a real world example of commercial adverts for why such unsourced claims are dubious at best. They (NPR) clearly have commercial advertisements which are contrary to what is currently written. Section needs clean up and expansion with neutral, verifiable sourcing. 71.100.153.243 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sponsorship by ADM

AFAIK, one of NPR's bigger sponsors was/is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). This was even broadcast on air. Tabletop (talk). 08:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

idealogical bias

references seem to be a mess - if you are gonna cite UCLA or UMiss study, shouldn't you ahvet the right rev ? also, what about many studies, eg FAIR, showing strong conservative bias on NPR, eg % of speakers. Even more biased is selection of guests that favor the mainstream media thought ecosystems. (as a liberal, I find the idea that NPR has a liberal bias laughable) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.51.31 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'Underwriting' is clearly a loophole for financing ads. The promotion of financial services and vehicles is blatant with breaks disguised as 'news' breaks there is always an ad at the back end. Its amazing they get away with it. I feel sorry for people who are sponsoring them. How commentators like Larry Mantel can say without laughing 'We dont have commercials' is bizarre, I have been in advertising 30 years and they are ads with loaded copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.41.228 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It says "ultra-liberal" news organization in the opening paragraph. First that violates Wikipedia's NPOV. Second of all, as the comments above say, NPR's corporate as much as it's "liberal" (whatever that's actually supposed to mean). I suggest an editor tag this as violating NPOV. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Many of the programs are pretty unashamedly liberal in their themes. If they cite any conservative source it's because they believe the source will sound foolish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.246.144 (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

APM & NPR & PRI et c.

Show Lists should separate production and distribution. Histories for all three entries should concur.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Slogan: This is NPR????

I removed the infobox claim that "This is NPR" is the slogan of NPR. First, I can't see how that's a slogan at all, though of course they repeat it often. Second, the "reference" was to an NPR webpage that uses the phrase, but makes no claim that it is an official slogan. Phiwum (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think by the very definition of slogan, it stands. It's a memorable, short catch-phrase repeated often. Officialism is irrelevant, but it's culturally well-known to be their sort of motto.--174.17.91.185 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Formerly" National Public Radio?

Although the sourced link from 2010 says that NPR will no longer stand for National Public Radio, as of February 14, 2015, npr.org still refers to itself as "National Public Radio" in its website title. --23.28.84.205 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

  • FCC restrictions apply only to radio broadcasts and not on the internet, their website,[34] podcasts, or mobile apps[35] where NPR is free to run traditional commercial spots.

An editor has added information regarding FCC restrictions that isn't directly supported by the two Adweek sources being cited, and appears to be synthesized. The problematic edit also replaces the sourced term "underwriting" with "advertising" which may seem inconsequential to the layman, but they have distinct meanings. The edit also removed responsive wording to an interview question about concerns regarding journalistic standards and independence from underwriters. I've reverted the edit pending justification here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the objections. I have reworded/organized the content in question so that it is less contentious and easier to read. I have also removed the advertising initiatives mentioned by Jarl Mohn from this section and have given them dedicated mentions in the funding section above as it seemed more appropriate in retrospect. I would also like to include in the article somewhere content on efforts by NPR to advertise and bring awareness of themselves but, am unsure where to insert such content. Mayhaps broken up in the 2000s, 2010s etc sections or something like a new Outreach section?
Also: the Programming section seems to include some programs which the network no longer carries; mayhaps it would be appropriate to introduce a sub-sub-head within the categories with something like "Past programs" or w/e? -- dsprc [talk] 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, I am not entirely sure what the objection is to the term "advertising" as it is used extensively by NPR to sell these spots to advertisers, third parties and is common parlance for radio spots. There is only a differentiation if you are playing the Public Relations/propaganda game. While Underwriting is advertising, it is indeed different from commercials but, that isn't your argument here. -- dsprc [talk] 01:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The current CEO of NPR is Jarl Mohn, has been for almost a year. Needs to be updated on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.68.154 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversies / Ronald Schiller comments

James O'Keefe was described with the pejorative term "provocateur" so, I changed it to the more neutral "activist". It was quickly replaced by "political activist and provocateur". I take issue with this, not because I care one way or another about O'Keefe specifically, but because the term carries a negative connotation. It's not used anywhere in the Ronald Schiller article (the only mention I could find is the title of a New York Times article used as a reference). If Michael Moore isn't described on Wikipedia as a provocateur, why should O'Keefe be? Sperrfeuer (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(old) conservative political provocateur → (present) conservative political activist and provocateur
Both descriptions (activist & provocateur) are in reliable sources already present in the O'Keefe bio and appear accurate (this heavily cited article is just one example). They are not replacements for each other, as one refers more to 'what' as opposed to 'how'. And neither is a pejorative, although you are correct that such terms can carry negative connotations. But positive and negative descriptions, when conveyed by high quality reliable sources, are not precluded from NPOV inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That NYT article is the only place in the O'Keefe entry where "provocateur" is mentioned. It's not in the body of the page itself. Sperrfeuer (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-NPR content in the NPR article

An editor recently added the following text (cited to this FTC press release source):

In January 2016, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced it had reached a $2 million dollar settlement with NPR advertiser Lumos Labs over deceptive claims made by the company in radio promotions for its product Lumosity.

First, that isn't content about NPR, so this isn't the right article. And second, the misleading text says it is about a settlement with "NPR advertiser Lumos Labs", which is not what the source says. The source mentions NPR only once, and actually says: Lumosity has been widely promoted though TV and radio advertisements on networks including CNN, Fox News, the History Channel, National Public Radio, Pandora, Sirius XM, and Spotify. The defendants also marketed through emails, blog posts, social media, and on their website, Lumosity.com. I've removed the sentence as it isn't appropriate for this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It would be just as inappropriate to mention this on the articles for CNN, Fox News, the History Channel, Pandora, Sirius XM, and Spotify as it is for NPR. older ≠ wiser 00:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The section and content are relevant to advertising on NPR and claims of false advertising. The FTC and others specifically mention NPR by name. The statement "NPR advertiser Lumos Labs" is backed by the source which states "Lumosity has been widely promoted though TV and radio advertisements on ... National Public Radio..." so it is an advertiser on NPR. The rationale for "not NPR content" is bullocks as section has nothing to do with that and the advertisements in question ran and were broadcast on NPR's network for at least the last two years. NPR have also ran stories about this class of product not living up to claims and continued to run the ad spots anyway (even as of yesterday). -- dsprc [talk] 00:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the NPR article. The content you added is about the FTC and Lumos Labs. The single source you cited says nothing about NPR. (Please re-read the one sentence in your source where NPR is mentioned with all the other media networks.) What information about NPR are you trying to convey to readers? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If it is "NPR content" then we can let them report on it themselves [1]; where the NPR author states, in part: "Lumosity is a sponsor of NPR programming. NPR's principles are clear: There is a "firewall" separating NPR journalists from those who fund its operations." Science Magazine [2] (paywall) also specifically mention the carriage of this deceptive advertising being run on NPR and the false claims therein; SciMag even claim NPR listeners being "barraged with ads for Lumosity". -- dsprc [talk] 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've looked at your two links. One commentary piece from an author from UC Berkeley, and the blurb from science mag which says only that if you watch or listen to cable and radio news (including NPR), you've likely heard of the product - neither say anything specific about NPR. I'll repeat my question from above: What information about NPR are you trying to convey to readers? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
This section is about advertising; the content is to expand the coverage of advertising. The section and sub-section specifically have language speaking to advertising, deceptive advertising, governmental oversight, differentiation of this platform from other broadcasters, advocacy and related subject matter. We've numerous sources including the subject itself speaking about advertising on this platform related to these topics. You have previously objected to and made difficult expansion of this topic area previously. Your initial objection was "not NPR content" however, when it is broadcast over their network for years, it is de facto NPR content, especially when advertisements are delivered by NPR presenters; so that objection does not hold water. -- dsprc [talk] 14:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe my question wasn't clear. I'm trying to understand what information about NPR you are attempting to convey to our readers with your most recent content addition. Could you explain that to me? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(←) It was just explained to you. -- dsprc [talk] 15:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Except it was no satisfactory explanation at all. The content is about an advertiser that incidentally advertises on NPR among numerous other prominent media outlets. Why is is important that the problems of this advertiser (which have nothing to do with specifically with NPR ) are described in the NPR article? older ≠ wiser 19:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

source? re HRC support

" its sole support of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election. " -- Such a claim needs documentation. Kdammers (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing Issues

After reviewing the article, I found numerous sourcing issues within its contents.

First of all, there are multiple references throughout the article to a 2010 "Public Radio Finances" report, appearingly sourced from the NPR itself. Am I the only one that questions the validity of these reports, based on several instances coming to mind in which companies have fudged their finance reports. Especially considering, the NPR is not in fact a wholly public enterprise. Not only is the verifiability of this link to be questioned, but it cannot even be investigated further, as the link is actually broken. 'Page Not Found' the NPR site simply displays. Therefore, I would propose that this reference be updated and perhaps referred out to a more public analytic process/agency, vs the company itself.

Following the trend of potentially biased information, the article makes several references to both press releases (footnote #19), and statements by the company's public relations rep (footnote #63). Arguably, these are not exactly neutral, unbiased sources to be referencing regarding audience rates and statements on controversial issues involving the NPR.

Furthermore, the most recent information provided under the "Funding" section dates back to 2014. It ends on the note that "In 2014, NPR CEO Jarl Mohn said the network would begin to increase revenue by having brands NPR views as more relevant to the audience underwrite NPR programs and requesting higher rates from them"[1]. Considering we are now in 2017, this section may call for some updated recent information, and a follow up to the final statement regarding future financial intentions of the company.

All this being said, in the interest of maintaining an even handed approach, I would also like to note the "Controversies" section as an area where the article does provide a more neutral viewpoint. The section provides varying opinions and criticisms of the NPR's actions, along with relevant and working links to original sources and authors.

Lhalas (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hart, Peter (8 September 2014). "New NPR Boss: 'We're Going to Be Talking About Brands That Matter a Little Bit More'". FAIR. Retrieved 10 February 2017.

Where to add a new section to NPR?

I have a new "==Books==' section ready to add to NPR that will list 12 different titles published as official NPR music reference books. I used as a template the same section found at Brian Rust. Where is the most appropriate location in the article to add it to NPR? Doug (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Henkle (Doug) - henkle@pobox.com

Due to no response from anyone, I just added the section before "Further reading" assuming if it is in the wrong place some editor will move it to its better appropriate location. Doug (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Henkle

Doug: Not sure where/how to incorporate into article but, that's as good as any. Please also see WP:Indentation for tips on formatting and threading talk page comments. When signing your signature, simply use four tildes (~~~~). -- dsprc [talk] 19:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on NPR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on NPR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ombudsperson

Elizabeth Jensen was appointed to a three-year term as public editor/ombuds in January 2015. She is still writing online articles, nearly four years into her three-year term. If her term was extended, it isn't mentioned on her web page. So I am deleting the reference to the term of her 2015 appointment. If someone deems it sufficiently important, they are welcome to find out what happened and include it here. But more useful will be something substantive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:100:71C0:F80D:E63E:A5C5:FEB0 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Outbox" in Article uses unquoted text

The box that contains this quote: "September 11th made it apparent in a very urgent way that we need another facility that could keep NPR going if something devastating happens in Washington." (bold mine) is posted without quotes, making it a statement from Wikipedia about itself, rather than a statement from NPR about itself. Wikipedia is not NPR, and NPR is not Wikipedia. I also don't appreciate the use of Wikipedia being used as a platform for NPR to promote itself. Tying NPR to 9/11 in order to explain some "great action" is not noteworthy, and certainly not noteworthy enough to merit this sort of special feature. 9/11 happened to a lot of organizations, and more importantly, to people, and to my knowledge none of them are afforded an opportunity to use Wikipedia as a platform to first attach itself to a deeply significant American tragedy in order to then virtue signal how critically important to the American People that NPR survive terrorist attacks, nuclear warfare and armageddon, particularly when one considers that there is a significant percentage of the American electorate that would like to see NPR defunded by the Public sector.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence Tweets

I'm going to add the controversy of the latest tweeting of the Declaration of Independence to the controversy section. It has received plentiful coverage from major news sources. Please voice any complaints below. --Peapod21 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not complaining, but essentially you've made the determination that a "twitter storm" has become noteworthy enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. I think in order to meet that standard, it needs something more than just the fact that it occurred. For example, if someone noteworthy thought that the twitter storm was somehow noteworthy enough to publish something concerning it. The fact that it simply occured is not enough. Twitter storms happen every day and frequently they are deliberately provoked in order to create an intended reaction, which may have been the case with NPR. I don't know. The Reader doesn't know. The encycolpedia should know and provide some substantive context for it, because as it stands right now it looks like an ad hominem attack illustrating the stupidity of Twitter Users who are in some way in ideological opposition to NPR. I think it needs the additional endorsement of someone to underline it's importance.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose adding Euphemism for Abortion debate

I propose adding the following section:

NPR has a long-standing practice of instructing journalists which words to use and which to avoid when discussing abortion. NPR suggests replacing the terms "partial-birth abortion", "abortion clinic", "unborn baby", and " pro-life" with "intact dilation and extraction" , "medical or health clinic that performs abortion", "fetus, and "abortion rights opponents" respectively. They also instruct journalists to not use the terms "fetal heartbeat" and "pro-abortion rights" but that "anti-abortion rights" is acceptable to use. [1][2] Dy3o2 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagree - I believe Talk:NPR controversies may be a better place to propose this addition. Orville1974 (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. The National Review article is of limited value for multiple reasons. Ponnuru produces a dozen of these short opinions pieces in any given week, and there is no indication that this has lasting encyclopedic significance. Since that is the only WP:SECONDARY source being proposed, this seems like trivia, and doesn't belong here. It doesn't seem likely to belong at the NPR controversies either, but that would have to be discussed elsewhere. The careful use of loaded wikilinks in the proposal is also inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ MEMMOTT, MARK (2019-05-15). "Guidance Reminder: On Abortion Procedures, Terminology & Rights". NPR. Archived from the original on 2019-05-28. Retrieved 2019-05-29. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Ponnuru, Ramesh (2019-05-20). "NPR's Abortion Rules". Archived from the original on 2019-05-24. Retrieved 2019-05-29. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I can remove the wiki links and leave in the rest of the mentions. I just want to know, why is the section on “enhanced interrogation techniques” / “torture” considered worthy of being mentioned but the use of fetus instead of unborn baby/ baby isn’t? The abortion debate is very contentious right now and using alternate words are becoming controversial. Dy3o2 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sez who? "The abortion debate is very contentious right now..." yes, and it was in the past, as well, but what, exactly, does that have to do with NPR? A news organization is, almost by definition, going to cover controversial issues. If sources say this is controversial in relation to NPR, let's see those sources, because the lonely one you have presented does not demonstrate encyclopedic significance.
As for the supposed comparison: which issue are you discussing, torture, or abortion? All content is judged in context. I agree that the section is bloated, but your removal was obviously WP:POINTed. If you want to discuss removing or trimming that, go right ahead, but you must realize that the time-frame, the sources, the topic, and the context of the torture issue are all different from the abortion issue, so this is a false comparison. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Recommend moving the controversies content by reducing the controversies section to a link to NPR controversies and shifting the actual details in this article to that one. Since there is a separate article that specifically addresses controversies with NPR, the inclusion of anything more than an acknowledgement that they exist and a link to the separate article seems like giving undue weight (dual mention in two articles). A quick comparison between the two reveals that they don't line up with each other either, demonstrating the difficulty in maintaining the information in two separate places. As for the actual move details and the inclusion of NPR's style guide, that would seem best discussed on the NPR controversies talk page to make sure the editors there agree. Orville1974 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit requests

  • In that same section, I suggest adding the author= parameter to the quote box so that it's clear that an NPR representative is speaking. The correct attribution to Jay Kernis is already there, it's just that the author parameter is missing. Perhaps this will address the concerns of User:Tym_Whittier.
  • In the caption of the image of the new NPR sign, there is an error. The address should be "1111 North Capitol Street, N.E." sted "Capital".

Dgorsline (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply 03-JUN-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Flaws That Need Addressing

There are a number of flaws in the article that seem to stem from a misunderstanding of what NPR is, and how its member stations relate to the organization.

1. The article seems to suggest that NPR's member stations are part of the same organization. This is false. Member stations are fully independent. I think this needs to be made clearer.

2. "National Public Radio... is an American privately and publicly funded... organization". NPR is not publicly funded. Member stations (which are independent and not part of NPR - they just use its name) are in part publicly funded, to the tune of about 4%. NPR itself receives no public funding.

3. "NPR... was established by an act of Congress" This is wrong. CPB was the organization set up by this act (as the citation says). NPR was not. NPR/National Public Radio is not once mentioned in the act.

I think someone needs to address these issues Ianbrettcooper (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of ideological bias

I am glad this section exists and is placed high among the contents.

The sources in this section are also embroiled in the same question about bias, so should probably not be used in the discussion - or at least, an equal number of sources from the opposite viewpoint should be included. I located it up specifically because the viewpoints heard on NPR sounded repeatedly left-leaning, so was curious as to other findings on the topic - and am surprised to see the first source cited on wikipedia as a WNYC (NPR station) source. I don't think it is appropriate to cite an NPR station's story on whether NPR stations have a bias, and not as the first sentence in the section.

The second source, the Current (newspaper) is also created by the same creators of NPR, so is also an unconvincing source.

This section needs articles stating both viewpoints, from sources that are considered left, right and those that attempt to be unbiased (which is arguably difficult/impossible to find). Currently (in my quick uneducated research) it looks like left-leaning sources state NPR is unbiased, while right-leaning sources say it is left-leaning.

A quick google search for "NPR bias" shows numerous viewpoints opposing this section's statements, some from interviews and others from review sites. I think it would appropriate to, without opinion, simply state the various viewpoints from different sources on both the left and right, such that wikipedia looks more neutral and factual by stating the arguments/articles on both sides.

DeminJanu (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've been listening to her on Morning Edition all week, and she pronounces her name FAH-dil, not FAHL-den. I suspect the confusion is where the tongue strikes the palate for the 'D' sound in Arabic, which is a little further back on the palate than in English. 38.21.221.73 (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How old is the current logo?

The article should state clearly how old is the current logo, it has pictures of old logs but the reader is left wanting for the information when the current one was introduced. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I would assume sometime in the early 2000s or late 1990s based on the dates of the old logos mentioned in the article but not sure Lunacats (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The article should state clearly how old is the current logo, it has pictures of old logs but the reader is left wanting for the information when the current one was introduced. I would assume sometime in the early 2000s or late 1990s based on the dates of the old logos mentioned in the article but not sure

  • the logopedia says its from the 1998

What's the Difference between "National Public Radio, Inc." and "NPR Foundation"?

I see these entities have two different tax ID numbers--52-0907625, and 52-1795789, respectively. NPR.org's Individual Giving lists the *625 tax ID and the other ID is buried in PDFs.

[Later] NPR replied to my inquiry: "... the NPR Foundation was established as a type I supporting organization, with the express purpose of supporting the work of National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR, Inc.) through the NPR Foundation Board of Trustees." "We encourage you to make your contribution to National Public Radio, Inc. (Tax ID Number 52-0907625)."

User5910 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 26 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoenaylor47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

Version 01:51, 19 October 2022‎ X-Editor of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article there.--Wing (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

NPR or National Public Radio

From their website in 2010: " Our legal name remains National Public Radio, as it has been for more than 40 years, but our trademarked brand has long been NPR. " 164.47.179.32 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Funding in the 2020s

The article currently says "NPR receives receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce.[27][better source needed] This funding amounts amounted to less than 0.1% of revenues, according its IRS filing". (I changed it just now from claiming that this is according to ProPublica- the reference is actually to NPR's IRS form 990, hosted on ProPublica's site, but is not a statement by ProPublica).

The form itself does not contain the "less than 0.1% of revenues" claim. This number seems to have been derived by taking the line item for "Government grants" (Part VIII, 1-e) - 210,000, and dividing it by total revenue, yielding ~0.07%. But I wonder if this is permissible without the source explicitly saying so. Especially when we have addiotnal line items (such as 1-d, for "related organizations") whose definition is not clear. Red Slapper (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Basic arithmetical calculations are allowed on Wikipedia, per WP:CALC. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:CALC, only if "there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" - that bolded part is what I am questioning. Do you have a clear idea what the "related organizations" are (as just one example)? If not, this is not a meaningful reflection of the source. Red Slapper (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
NPR gets a very small amount of direct federal money. Indirect federal money is about 9 percent. Generally, the media are in agreement that somewhere around 1 percent of NPR's income comes directly from federal grants. Forbes said "NPR gets roughly 1-2% of its funding from the federal government". The New York Times said "About 1 percent of its budget comes from federal money". Politico said "less than 1 percent of the news outlet’s annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies and departments." The Boston Globe quoted Influence Watch saying "Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1 percent of its budget directly from the federal government", but added that NPR gets "almost 10 percent of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly." Note that ProPublica does not need to be involved for access to filings. NPR hosts its own income tax filings at this webpage, and they state "On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments." Of course they mean "directly" from the federal government. They don't chart out the indirect paths. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

State-run media note

There's a big kerfuffle about Twitter posting misinformation, so I added this line to the lead, but I think it's also useful framing long-term due to the peculiar way it was founded and funded. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing NPR in an article about NPR is rather silly, and against Wikipedia guidelines, no?
This whole situation is hilarious, US media hates being held to the same standard as foreign media. 88.91.75.12 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on State media defines it as:
State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly.
NPR is not under the financial control of the United States government.
Per InfluenceWatch (a conservative leaning site), NPR receives 8% of its funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which itself receives government funding) and 4% from federal, state, and local governments via member stations. Together that's 12% of its funding.
Compare that to 38% from individual donations and 19% from corporate sponsorships.
If they lose that money, it would be a significant hit to their budget, but they could continue operations after cutting overhead.
In my read of the situation, that's in opposition to true financial control where if the org lost government support, they'd lose the majority of its operating funding.
-- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not, no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The nonsense about NPR being "state-run media" should be dispensed with in the lead section using clear language. Such a statement doesn't need attribution because NPR has never, ever been controlled by the government, despite Elon's right-wing Twitter exertions. Hundreds of WP:SECONDARY sources describe NPR as independent. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
every statement that has been challenged needs attribution or a citation. If Hundreds of WP:SECONDARY sources describe NPR as independent, just add one of them to the statement. Red Slapper (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. The fact that IP addresses remove it proves my point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
It is interesting for sure. But "Twitter posting misinformation" is an opinion and not a fact. Did anyone not notice that YouTube has provided labels similar as:
  • "NPR is an American public broadcast service."
  • "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
  • "CBC/Radio-Canada is a Canadian public broadcast service."
"National Public Radio (NPR) is a national nonprofit media outlet created and funded by the federal government. Though the organization claims to strive for objectivity, many media watchdogs consider NPR to have a left-of-center bias. 1
NPR’s funding has been a point of controversy since its founding in 1970. NPR is officially a private company, but up until 1983, it received over half of its funding from the federal government through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)."
(https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
How is this a fact: "NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content" citing a book originally published October 27, 2010. -jim 08:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs)

I pruned some details about funding from the lead section, and shifted all of the funding statements downward to the bottom of the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should emphasize the most important points about the topic, which it had been pulling away from recently. Too much WP:RECENTISM in the lead section is not suitable for a long-term, established, stable article like this one. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Lmao this thread. To say that NPR isnt state run media is hilarious. They have an obvious political slant, and they take taxpayer money. It doesnt get much more state run than that. 2600:6C64:78F0:8000:BD88:4B81:1CFB:C92 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It does get more state run than that: e.g. by actually producing the content or censoring them. Also, was their "obvious political slant" pro- the last administration? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Holy moley this article needs to be corrected right this minute. This absolutely needs an admin to step in and resolve. "NPR claims it's not state run media" is at the top of the page, which links to the Wikipedia page for state-run media, which says at the top of the page "...media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government..." Someone source me something from any reputable source that breaks down how NPR is under control by the government. Tons of corporations receive public money and subsidies and are not state-run, and even more make a majority of revenue from state contracts. This is an obviously biased statement that is equating NPR with outlets like RT. Saying they "take taxpayer money" is absolutely reductionist. SpaceX has billion-dollar contracts with NASA, are they state-run? Bayou Tapestry (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you are 100% correct: not every company that gets a grant from the feds or an SBA loan is "state-owned". This is so stupid. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
As someone mentioned earlier, this absolutely offends WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV. I'm reverting the page to a previous state before the edit war and elevating page protection. If anyone disputes this then we're getting a mediator involved. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I dispute that it offends WP:NPOV. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
To back up that claim, I would point to the [false balance] section on the page. That being said I mainly want to support my reasoning for reverting the page and requesting protection, and then a mediator or admin can decide if my point is fair. If I was trying to make my own edits on the page then I'd rather cite some actual journalism on why NPR is not state-run media and not just a WP policy page. At this point I just want to stop the edit war immediately. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, well I'm just responding to your solicitation. I in no way think this contravenes WP:NPOV. Agreed that edit-warring is not constructive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe the section about the controversy can be trimmed per WP:RECENT, but removing it altogether seems like a wrong option given the abundance of mainstream coverage. Pizzigs (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Not having anything during discussion would be better until consensus is reached. The controversy is handled with nuance in its section and all the information provided in the lead of NPR’s percentage is better in my opinion than saying in a strong statement “NPR is state sponsered,” “NPR claims it’s not state sponsered,” or “NPR is NOT state sponsered” Nithin🚀 talk 01:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly the way the article reads right now seems perfect in terms of NPOV, etc. What changes do we want? Nithin🚀 talk 02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems User:Bayou Tapestry wants it removed or trimmed. I think the current version is fine but open to discussion. Pizzigs (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Nithin, your viewpoint is wildly out of balance with the published literature about NPR which emphatically states that is independent from state interference. No, we are not going to let the reader decide after reading a few sentences about funding. Those sentences are intended to cast doubt on NPR's independence, which is completely inappropriate. If we keep those sentences, we must have a solid statement representing decades of scholarship about NPR, which is of course that NPR is independent, not state-run. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this Point Nithin🚀 talk 06:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
What point of view is being pushed by providing reliable information showing that NPR gets a substantial portion of its funding from the federal government and that it claims that said funding is "essential"? GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Is "less than 1 percent", as NPR claims, really a substantial portion? Even if you accept the InfluenceWatch calculation of 12% from federal, state, and local governments, is that really a substantial portion? Is that truly such a large ampunt of money that the government could exert financial control on NPR? Likewise, could NPR calling "less than 1 percent" of its funding "essential" simply be puffery to help secure support? RickyCourtney (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:DROP. I highly suggest we leave the article the way it was before the edit war. A random fight with Elon Musk is not particularly notable (people fight with NPR all the time) and certainly not enough to change the article introduction. At the very most, it could occupy one or two sentences in the 2020 section. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of information on a subject, not a place to air out grievances. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The controversy is covered by major news outlets that qualify as RS per WP:V. "A random fight with Elon Musk is not particularly notable (people fight with NPR all the time) and certainly not enough to change the article introduction." is clearly your opinion, so that cannot be used to justify the content's removal. Pizzigs (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
We can both cite Wikipedia policy pages forever. The truth is this was added to the top of the page explicitly as a response to Musk. This will have to be mediated, I just find this unacceptable vandalism of an article classified as vital. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not think it has anything to do with vandalism. Removing funding from the lead and creating a separate section discussing the Twitter controversy seems like a compromise option to me. Pizzigs (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pizzigs, Koavf, Bayou Tapestry, and RickyCourtney: I don't know how useful this message would be, but me and Codyave were (I believe) the first ones to add information about NPR's decision to pull out from Twitter, starting from here. Any decision you'll take for the lead section will be fine to me, since I wouldn't really know what to do there. However, I believe we need to create a separate section specifically for the Twitter controversy, since it's likely the first time a news organization has ever left the platform due to a mistake by... the platform's owner himself, who is also a very highly-influential person in the current world. Plus, Wikipedia (or at least, one of its pages) literally got involved in this messy situation, so I think this is an extra reason to cover the news... Oltrepier (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, having already proposed that to User:Bayou Tapestry. "Creating a separate section discussing the Twitter controversy seems like a compromise option to me." I also believe the last paragraph of the lead should be preserved, but that's up to the community to decide. Pizzigs (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
"...extra reason to cover the news" I just disagree with this sentiment. Wikipedia is to cover historically relevant information and I'm dubious that this is all that relevant. However I agree with Pizzigs that it seems like a good compromise to have some sort of other section for the controversy just to end the edit war for now.
1. I'm going to remove the "state-run media" portion from the summary.
2. I'll pull the relevant info that other users have collated into a separate (short) section. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pizzigs @Bayou Tapestry Good, thank you for chipping in! Oltrepier (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NPR/Archive_5&oldid=1288558559"