Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

current.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 143 posts

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#21

Post by wyxuan »

diafygi wrote: post #5

I have mixed feelings about this, since on several NPR podcasts Exxon has sponsored and advertised their carbon capture investment, despite it being a greenwashing campaign that comprises such a tiny percent of their overall new investment. How can NPR not ultimately be captured by corporate interests with for-profit sponsorships?

They always preface stories that involve people who have sponsored them in past by stating that they have sponsored them.

Plus, they've been sponsored by many other organization, such as Earth Law Center (something like that). Does that mean that they are captured by them too?

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#22

Post by wyxuan »

alrs wrote: post #18
diafygi wrote: post #5

I have mixed feelings about this, since on several NPR podcasts Exxon has sponsored and advertised their carbon capture investment, despite it being a greenwashing campaign that comprises such a tiny percent of their overall new investment. How can NPR not ultimately be captured by corporate interests with for-profit sponsorships?

Because it's already a state-media propaganda apparatus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...

Doesn't it say that it only happened in the 1990s? Where's the evidence that it has continued?

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#23

Post by sidlls »

gbrown wrote: post #20
alrs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's already a state-media propaganda apparatus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...

NPR is not perfect - in particular, I have some issues with the artifical equivalency between our two major parties implied by NPR interview programs. With that being said, your claim is 100% complete and utter bullshit, unsupported by even your own source.

Claiming they're a PYSOPS unit is overcomplicating the matter. NPR basically practices access journalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism) and claims not to.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#24

Post by wyxuan »

sidlls wrote: post #9
krapht wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professional ethics and integrity, plus occasional review by an ombudsman? Same as many other vocations...

I enjoy their non-journalistic shows, e.g., "A Prairie Home Companion/Live From Here" and "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!", but not enough to donate when I know the money is also going to pay for their "journalism", and especially not when they clearly prefer the (fatter) checks from the corporations. But professional ethics? Fox News, MSNBC, and those other infotainment gutters are bad, but NPR is insidious: it's biased…

Just because they run sponsorships, doesn't mean that they are automatically going to do whatever it takes to make their sponsors look good.

I think they do a good job of being objective and have a good track record for being highly factual.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#25

Post by alrs »

gbrown wrote: post #20
alrs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's already a state-media propaganda apparatus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...

NPR is not perfect - in particular, I have some issues with the artifical equivalency between our two major parties implied by NPR interview programs. With that being said, your claim is 100% complete and utter bullshit, unsupported by even your own source.

I don't think you're disagreeing that it's state media, so at worst I'm at 50%.

BBC, RT, France24, Deutsche Welle, PressTV, and Telesur all exist to promote a state interest. How are NPR and APM different?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/25/npr-the-cia-and-corp...

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#26

Post by alrs »

sidlls wrote: post #23
gbrown wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR is not perfect - in particular, I have some issues with the artifical equivalency between our two major parties implied by NPR interview programs. With that being said, your claim is 100% complete and utter bullshit, unsupported by even your own source.

Claiming they're a PYSOPS unit is overcomplicating the matter. NPR basically practices access journalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism ) and claims not to.

I'm trying to find the old story from when NPR got caught re-using VoA propaganda (which was then a violation of federal law), but instead found this, of a similar vintage:

https://fair.org/media-beat-column/npr-floats-an-ombudsman-b...

EDIT: Ah, here is some remnant of the story. NPR was using a VoA reporter to push the State Department line on Haiti: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Amelia_Shaw

...and here is her LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/in/amelia-shaw-82421a29/

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#27

Post by crispyambulance »

sidlls wrote: post #23
gbrown wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR is not perfect - in particular, I have some issues with the artifical equivalency between our two major parties implied by NPR interview programs. With that being said, your claim is 100% complete and utter bullshit, unsupported by even your own source.

Claiming they're a PYSOPS unit is overcomplicating the matter. NPR basically practices access journalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism ) and claims not to.

Access journalism ??

Oh, you mean Terry Gross' excellent and astonishingly comprehensive interviews with virtually all movers and shakers of the last 3-4 decades?

That's what I like about NPR the most. Prairie home companion, wait-wait don't tell me... BORING. it's time to change the station.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#28

Post by pembrook »

e1ven wrote: post #4

I love NPR. I'm glad they're doing well, and hope they will continue to make quality programs. But one of the major advantages which has set them apart for me is that they aren't as advertising dependent as so many of their alternatives. Avoiding ads makes it easier for them to be independent, and able to report without fear of corporations withdrawing their support. It's also just much more pleasant to listen to. I…

> I try to avoid advertising as much as possible, and it's sad that they are one more place it's invading.

It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid.

Oh, but you will gladly pay for quality, ad-free content, you say?

Unfortunately, based on the numbers I've seen at media companies I've freelanced for, this only works out for a tiny minority of creators. Unless you are the NYT (housing 1000+ journalists) or Ben Thompson (an outlier with a super high income audience), the number of listeners/readers/etc willing to pay is astonishingly low.

When people say they will pay in surveys, most of them are flat out lying. Here's a recent example:

https://tim.blog/2019/07/11/why-im-stopping-the-fan-supporte...

It turns out, a vast majority of people who complain about ads will not put their money where their mouth is.

I say bravo to NPR for looking out for the sustainability of their excellent work. I happily listen to ads to sustain their content. I have full confidence they will continue to report with the same independence they've always had.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#29

Post by makotech222 »

e1ven wrote: post #4

I love NPR. I'm glad they're doing well, and hope they will continue to make quality programs. But one of the major advantages which has set them apart for me is that they aren't as advertising dependent as so many of their alternatives. Avoiding ads makes it easier for them to be independent, and able to report without fear of corporations withdrawing their support. It's also just much more pleasant to listen to. I…

NPR is corporate propaganda for people who think their above the type of propaganda you see on FOX news.

I use to listen religiously for about 3 years, until the 2016 election. The way they talked about the democratic primary, it was very very obvious they were biased towards favoring Hillary. They were telling outright lies about Bernie and his policies. Haven't listened to them since, but I've seen stories about how much worse they've gotten. I think they're mostly funded by the Koch's.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#30

Post by [deleted] »

TylerE wrote: post #15
duxup wrote: post #3

NPR is such a national treasure. Here in Minnesota, Minnesota Public Radio is one of the few places that does detailed stories on rural area outside the cities.

That's MPR, not NPR. NPR is basically just a content provider, much like when you read a national AP story in your local paper.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN