The Center for American Progress reports:
NPR has gutted its staff dedicated to covering environmental and climate issues. Given the nation's and world's renewed focus on the threat posed by unrestricted carbon pollution, this baffling move is already receiving widespread criticism from scientists and media watchers. It is "a sad commentary on the current state of our media," as one top climatologist told me.
Katherine Bagley broke the story[1] for InsideClimate News. She reports that earlier in 2014, NPR "had three full-time reporters and one editor dedicated" to cover environmental and climate issues within NPR's science desk. Now, shockingly, "One remains--and he is covering it only part-time."
[...]Climate communications expert Robert J. Brulle Ph.D of Drexel University [says]
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that led to the founding of NPR had as one of its goals that public broadcasting would serve as a "source of alternative telecommunications services" that would serve to "address national concerns." This latest announcement illustrates how NPR has lost its way. The level of coverage of climate change by NPR has not served to increase public knowledge of climate change any more than any other commercial news outlet. Its coverage has returned to the levels seen around 2006. Reducing the environmental staff will further decrease its coverage of climate change. I would have thought NPR would take a proactive stance toward the coverage of climate change, given its charter to address issues of national concern. Sadly, it seems that instead of being part of the solution, NPR has now become part of the problem.
[1] Duplicate link in article.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Sunday October 26 2014, @11:37AM
It is perplexing to me why, but the media do take their lead from the Whitehouse. If the president is not talking about something, they don't talk about it. Obama has done zero and said less about climate change. I think even W talked more about the environment than Obama has. I can recall Bush speaking about how our society is "addicted to oil." I can remember no such thing coming from Obama.
The only environment news coming out of Obama has been his steadfast support for the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil down from the Canadian tar sands.
I used to love NPR, but they have lost their way. For me, it started when they were cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq. It does not surprise me at all that they're falling down on this topic, too. The only halfway decent news in the English language left comes from the BBC or Al Jazeera. German has Der Spiegel. French has Courier International. But how long will they all last?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by pankkake on Sunday October 26 2014, @01:37PM
> French has Courier International
...they're translations of foreign articles.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:38PM
I quit listening too -- for me, it was their seeming unwillingness to criticize Obama when it became apparent that he was nothing more than GWB II.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Monday October 27 2014, @02:37PM
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Sunday October 26 2014, @08:18PM
Canada's CBC seems to be pretty good. They aren't as internationally focused as the BBC, but still interesting to look at.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday October 26 2014, @11:27PM
It is perplexing to me why, but the media do take their lead from the Whitehouse.
Criticism means you lose access to the White House news feed and get harassed and spied on by various federal agencies.
Obama has done zero and said less about climate change.
The EPA has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. There was a lot of funding sunk into green technologies such as electric cars and renewable power. And he's been talking about climate change for years (although talk is an unusually inflated coin for the Obama administration). As to his supposed support for Keystone XL, it hasn't happened yet due solely to federal government interference. The problem here is what is a US President supposed to do about climate change, if virtually none of his schemes are supported by the US voters?
Having said that, I'm quite content with a president too incompetent to do anything about climate change. The alternative would be some sort of suicide pact like what the EU is doing.
(Score: 0, Troll) by fadrian on Sunday October 26 2014, @12:40PM
Funded and run by your oligarchs for you, the more discerning of the hoi polloi. That they have more full-time national security staff than environmental staff tells you everything you need to know about what your betters think are important. Are you listening, citizen?
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:13PM
Let's keep the Betas happy - we need 'em to subvert their own interests and stay reasonably docile.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27 2014, @03:38AM
Previous poster isn't talking politely, but he is right. NPR presents an educated, liberal, alternative-sounding voice FOR THE STATUS QUO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @12:43PM
...I actually listened to NPR the other day.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @01:01PM
Notably Poor Radio. There's a reason its on the low end of the band.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by caseih on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:10PM
Traditionally, despite its corporate donors, NPR has had quite high quality reporting and programming. I'm sure that shows like Science Friday would appear to many folks here. Their news shows (Morning Edition, All Things Considered) are still quite excellent and beat the heck out of many other talk news radio stations that seem to be a blend of equal parts advertising and propaganda, often called "news radio;" barely qualifies as talk radio. Though at least with those kind of stations (the kinds that air Rush Limbaugh), the bias is easy to detect in just a few minutes. But for just plain news in audio format, with analysis but not a lot of posturing, NPR still comes out ahead. In fact it beats Canada's CBC by a long margin I think, in terms of depth and breadth of coverage. After moving away from the US I still regularly listen to NPR. Will be a shame when its finally gutted. Sad to see its decline. And once it is gone, it will never be back ever. But hey, that's the American way.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:20PM
NPR is propaganda. It's just crafted to the needs of the Dept of State.
You know. NATO expands, and all the NPR reporters refer obliquely and consistently to the "new Russian threat to NATO" in any question they pose in a story about Germany or gas transmission.
Listen how often that an NPR reporter or interviewer injects editorial context statement in their speech - "this is what educated, reasonable people of soft-liberal leaning know to be true of the world." Those are programming statements. Believed by the "reporter" and soon believed by "you".
There's a word for them: "FNORD"
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1) by goody on Sunday October 26 2014, @04:48PM
Citation for the quote, please.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 26 2014, @11:05PM
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday October 26 2014, @05:49PM
not all govt is automatically propaganda, but with enough confusion all that is needed is the doubt.
NPR is a BBC wannabe, everyone knows that. But NPR is also pretty strong on domestic issues, as is exhibited by the local shows that are rebroadcast all over the world. This American Life is brilliant radio, for example.
We all need to listen to many sources, because when they are all talking the same, something is being missed.
We all need to listen to many sources, because when they are all talking different, something is being hidden!!
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday October 26 2014, @09:23PM
This American Life is syndicated, and NOT an NPR show - tho' carried by NPR affiliated local public radio stations.
TAL has collaborated for resources with NPR - and notably spun the team that covered 2008's banking mortgage 'crisis' out as teh basis for NPR's "Planet Money".
This is just bad reporting and spin stories to limit the damage done to Goldman and cohort. Prime examples:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/08/17/at-npr-you-can-take-money-from-banks-just-dont-protest-them/ [fair.org]
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/unfit-to-report/ [nsfwcorp.com]
http://boingboing.net/2012/03/17/a-day-of-reckoning-for-this-am.html [boingboing.net]
http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/09/08/new-npr-boss-were-going-to-be-talking-about-brands-that-matter-a-little-bit-more/ [fair.org]
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/this-american-life-on-guatemalan-genocide/ [fair.org]
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @03:31PM
Well, you can tune into sports radio instead, where you get to hear three middle aged white guys (a different group show after show) gab about ex-Seahawks star player Percy Harvin might have meant when he may have complained that Seahawks QB Russell Wilson "wasn't black enough".
(Score: 1) by theCoder on Sunday October 26 2014, @03:59PM
Most NPR stations are non profit, which is why they are in the non-commercial educational [wikipedia.org] part of the FM spectum - anything below 91.9 MHz. It has nothing to do with (perceived) quality.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @03:25PM
And from you, our listeners.
But guess which one gets to call the piper's tune.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday October 26 2014, @03:26PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @04:00PM
> I doubt any other scientific subject at NPR had the sort of focus "climate change" did.
> My take is that NPR no longer has funding to do so much environmentalism propaganda
It is very interesting that you equate "focus" with "propaganda."
Yet again a poster reveals everything about himself and nothing about his intended subject.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday October 26 2014, @10:41PM
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday October 26 2014, @11:15PM
I would have thought NPR would take a proactive stance toward the coverage of climate change, given its charter to address issues of national concern. Sadly, it seems that instead of being part of the solution, NPR has now become part of the problem.
A "proactive stance", eh? Well, googling for Brulle, I see he's one of the people obsessing over the Koch brothers [drexel.edu] while ignoring the tens of billions that various national governments chuck in on the other side.