A little more epistomology, and the evils of NPR

[nancylebov]

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/11/which_is_worse_a_photo_of_an_a.html#more

Here's an example: search your mind for recollections about the Tiananmen "episode" in 1989. Can you remember anything-- anything at all-- other than that guy standing in front of the tanks? Do you remember who was protesting? Why? The question isn't why you don't remember anything, hell, it was 20 years ago and a solar system away; the question is why you do remember that guy. Are you better off for knowing this? Are you smarter? Or do you carry the false impression that you know something about which you really know nothing? That's the Matrix-- not only do you have false memories, but you get to feel good about being a knowledgeable, aware, citizen of the world.

NPR runs a cult this way. It offers an eclectic mix of topics, selected on purpose to allow you to think you are getting depth. You listen to NPR, and you think you're learning, growing, becoming a Renaissance Man. You're not. Sure, it beats CNN, but that's not a battle anyone is supposed to lose. Its target audience is insecurely intelligent people who want desperately to be intellectual and well read but who don't actually want to read too much. What NPR offers is sentiment; the feeling that you know something. That's why when someone asks you a question about a topic you learned about from NPR, you inevitably answer using the same language and words NPR used. Do you understand? Back during the election, I'd bet people at the bar that I could tell them the reasons, using the exact same words, why they'd vote for their candidate.

I don't think NPR is quite that evil, but it can be quite a time suck.

rbh said in the comments, "I used to listen to NPR, back when I was just a poser, but now I, um, read blogs..."

Comments

[bruceb.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting piece, but seems to have more criticism and less mitigation than I think is warranted. And I'm a little skeptical of putting so much weight on claims by Elizabeth Loftus, who's done some very important work with some very significant flaws.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Damn. Speaking of not paying enough attention, I missed that Loftus was part of the story.

All I know about her is that she claims that since memories can be manufactured, all of some inconvenient memories must be manufactured.

Am I doing her justice? What flaws were you thinking of?

[bruceb.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of her turn as Scooter Libby's defense shrink, trying to excuse his lapses in memory and getting herself tangled in a mass of contradictions.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I suppose this could be the case for people who use NPR as their sole information source, just as others use only CNN, Fox, their local paper, Rush Limbaugh, whatever. There are such people, but I don't know them personally. Even my 20-year-old who doesn't like to read uses a variety of online sites--and in fact, often tells me something I didn't know or asks me something that shows he knows more about it than I do.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

My stress level about politics went way down when I stopped listening to NPR. I considered it heresy at the time, of course, but I found I was just flailing around in whatever six political crises they had chosen to cover that morning -- not that I had a real understanding of them, nor any way to impact all of them (nor tried to impact almost any of them), but that they successfully made me on edge and upset enough to Keep Listening.

...and I think that's the problem. Like any other outlet, they need to keep your attention, and barring *extremely* strong pressures to the contrary, media outlets fall into triggering the "fight, f---, or flight" reaction as a way to keep your attention. NPR doesn't use flashing warnings and the constant "LIVE!" banner in the corner, but they do use a steady litany of the world's injustices, calculated to provoke your indignant outrage, to keep you hooked.

I'd like to think that they used to be better "back in the day" but the truth probably is that I was less jaded. Now I prefer to get my news pitter-patter from the people it affected directly, which is a luxury the internet allows...at least their vested interest in making their particular injustice better known is visible and apparent.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

NPR doesn't use flashing warnings and the constant "LIVE!" banner in the corner, but they do use a steady litany of the world's injustices, calculated to provoke your indignant outrage, to keep you hooked.

"If it bleeds, it leads" is an old adage from the news world. I am curious how you select what news to pursue online? Do you have areas of interest and do targeted searched? Do you follow particular blogs?

I have sensed for some time that broadband access will gradually change the way people get news, although the broadcast media still far outweigh any other way in which the majority of people get news and form opinions. But it has always seemed to me that the problem with online news is (a) establishing trust, and (b) screening the data down to something bearable. So I would be interested in how you manage your news intake, if you do not mind sharing.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

1) I happen to know a great deal about Tiananmen, its precursors and its aftermath. But I am unusual because I was an East Asian history major at the time and because it actually impacted my life.

2) I find this criticism rather absurd. For one thing, he is mixing several different topics. NPR offers a number of talk radio shows (as well as music), some on specific topics, some of broad general interest. From his criticism, it appears he is targeting "All things Considered" and "Morning Edition." Possible some of the other general news programs as well.

But this rant applies to all general news programs in broadcast media. There are inherent limits in broadcast media as well as potentially huge advantages. One issue is that because access to the means of broadcasting is a under government control (licensing), and there are essentially no more licenses to be had, you get whatever broadcasters choose to provide. Outside of NPR, the national and international news is even shorter and more eclectic -- unless one looks at certain specialty productions such as Bloomberg Radio (financial news). Taking issue with NPR for offering a particular approach to news not offered elsewhere is ridiculous. While one can legfitimately criticize NPR for a wide variety of things, the fact that it offers a somewhat different set of stories and somewhat longer pieces hardly makes it evil.

3) The linked-to post seems to be conflating several very different things. One is the question of the maliability of human memory and perception manipulation. This has been demonstrated in a large number of experiments over time. Heck, Heinlien dealt with it extensively in a number of his stories -- such as _If This Goes On_ and _The Moon IsA Harsh Mistress_. The experiment itself is useful, particularly in light of the occassional controversy over doctored photos or the selection of images to accompany text. But the broader question of news coverage and how the mass media or print media address the strengths and limitations inherent in a mass medium is entirely different, if potentially related.

[kallisti.livejournal.com]

When I was living in the US, I used to listen to NPR a lot...but got tired of their "non-commercial" commercials. I found that the programming varied a lot as different stations carried different NPR shows at different times. But I do admit, NPR stations can be very political, and "bleeding heart liberal".

Now that I am back in Canada, I listen to the CBC mostly. They tend to be much more balanced and it is liberal in it's tone, but ...and they mostly cover Canada, which again is a much more balanced country. But the one thing that really puts the CBC above NPR is that they don't take themselves too seriously. If they flub something, they will joke about it on-air, later hosts will rib them, and much of the programming is done live, at least during the day. Shows after 6 PM, like "As It Happens" and "Ideas" are pre-recored...although "AIH" is recored throughout the day before it airs at 6:30pm.

OK, I do have to admit, I have some interest in Radio...I write for a science and technology show called "Let x = x" on CKCU-FM in Ottawa. It's on Wednesday's at 9:15 am...so we greatly enjoy when we get to play MC Hawking at that hour...[evil grin]

I write mostly technology stories, with occasional forays into physics and such.

ttyl