That's not daring to present a viewpoint at which the show's white bread audience might bristle? What about the show that was generously interpreted as positing that perhaps certain individuals were on disability insurance because they had been left behind by the economy and this isn't a judgment of them but rather of our lack of any other option for those individuals? The not-generous interpretation was that it was shining a light on disability fraud, essentially punching down. I guess that wasn't a challenging issue for the listeners, either.
Or the whole debacle with Daisey. Yeah, they just glossed right over that.
Thats exactly the sort of thing that I imagine NPR listeners would like to hear, so they can nod their heads and feel progressive
Did you bristle at it?
>What about the show that was generously interpreted as positing that perhaps certain individuals were on disability insurance because they had been left behind by the economy and this isn't a judgment of them but rather of our lack of any other option for those individuals? I guess that wasn't a challenging issue for the listeners, either.
Was it a challenging issue for you? I.e., prior to the episode, you believed that everyone on disability insurance was lazy?
Point taken.
> Was it a challenging issue for you? I.e., prior to the episode, you believed that everyone on disability insurance was lazy?
No, but I did generally assume they had something so debilitating they were incapable of working. The show basically pointed out that some doctors in areas of high unemployment were signing off on disabilities for people who basically just had outdated skill sets. My impression was that in lieu of any real progressive safety net (basic income, etc.) citizens have started leaning heavily on disability insurance.
I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do some Googling to see the other side of the argument about that episode.
Also, why is this being discussed at all? This (and shows like it) are basically Chicken Soup for the Soul in podcast form. They're emotional filler but I've fallen for discussing them like they should be some sort of hard-hitting journalism or policy discussions. In a discussion of media responsibility, does Ira really deserve to be the first head on the chopping block?
Generally I find they try to go fairly deep on both sides of topic where they can, or at least put disclaimers in that there may other explanations for what they are reporting. The recent multi-part set on police is a good example, they spent a fair amount of time talking about the police perspective on some recent events, and how and why it diverges from public opinion. To me, assuming it's pandering to a "middlebrow" audience would have me believing in a much more informed public than I think actually exists.
It's interesting that you list those three (excellent) shows as examples. Only Planet Money is actually produced or distributed by NPR themselves. Radiolab and Freakonomics are both productions of WNYC.
I've heard enough of it to form a decent impression. I don't agree with that kind of argument, otherwise no one would ever be able to criticize any piece of media for any reason.