Talk:NPR/Archive 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 ; 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 (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". 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)

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
 * 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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903205828/http://www.current.org/pbpb/documents/GAOonNPR84.html to http://www.current.org/pbpb/documents/GAOonNPR84.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914013054/http://www.current.org/history/timeline/timeline-1980s.shtml to http://www.current.org/history/timeline/timeline-1980s.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110322154055/http://www.current.org/npr/npr0409krocgift.shtml to http://www.current.org/npr/npr0409krocgift.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912105801/http://www.current.org/pbpb/documents/NPRpurposes.html to http://www.current.org/pbpb/documents/NPRpurposes.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/pollsummary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704115001/http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/06/26/02 to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/06/26/02

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

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

External links modified (February 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320101744/http://www.current.org/pbpb/documents/NPRbylaws99.html to http://www.current.org/pbpb/documents/NPRbylaws99.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623081629/http://cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2009PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf to http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2009PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301170647/http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2012PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf to http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2012PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415200228/http://www.current.org/web/web1105pi.html to http://www.current.org/web/web1105pi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706190523/http://www.mta.ca/news/index.php?id=3518 to http://www.mta.ca/news/index.php?id=3518
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515032437/http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/104499/carvin-facebook-lets-npr-empower-those-who-love-us-listen-to-those-who-dont/ to http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/104499/carvin-facebook-lets-npr-empower-those-who-love-us-listen-to-those-who-dont/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007171220/http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/attack52.htm to http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/attack52.htm

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

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. 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)

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)


 * I think thats fair Dy3o2 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit requests

 * In the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#2000s, the original URL is dead for ref "nprwest2002". There is an archived copy in the Wayback Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20190107232455/https://www.npr.org/about/press/021016.nprwest.html.


 * 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.

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

Reply 03-JUN-2019
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&#124; 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)