Talk:NPR

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)

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)

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)

Contradiction

"Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors, and annual grants from the publicly funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities. NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content."

Now, English isn't my mothertongue, but isn't this a contradiction? If NPR receives money from sponsorships, doesn't that mean that they're dependent on corporate donations? If they are at least partially dependent on corporate donations, they're by definition usually not "independent of any government or corporation". NeutralerNutzername (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Observers agree that NPR retains full and independent editorial control despite their funding sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)