I’m far from a news hound. Most of the time I belly up to the pre-digested online troughs of Google News Top Stories and the Dope. I suppliment that with watching snippets of various national mainstream morning shows (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN) a few times a week, and every other day or so I make myself endure some incarnation of the local evening news, mostly for the weather.
For the last few weeks in the car, I’ve gotten into the habit of listening to WABE (90.1 FM), Atlanta’s NPR station.
Brown’s Testimony brought the Katrina aftermath bubbling up on Google News for a few days last week. The Dope has Katrina-related threads and posts now and again.
But NPR has obviously (to me) and considerably more Katrina-related stories than any other news source that I encounter. Often throughout my entire 30 minute commute NPR has Katrina-related piece after Katrina-related piece.
My personal news habits are admittedly far from a statistically significant sample size and empirical research, and I don’t have any cites, but I do find the observation interesting and would like to participate in a discussion about it.
To keep things simple, how about narrowing the comparison between observations on Google News vs observations on NPR.
Google News showcases (within a debatable degree of accuracy) what people are reading. NPR showcases NPR/CPB programming. What are the causes behind the discrepancies in their content?
Google News is based on an algorithm of what people who read news on the Internet are reading. NPR gives news based on what their producers (if that’s the right title) thinks their audience wants to hear and what they think are the most important news stories.
They’re different audiences, although there’s probably overlap.
While Google is continuously updating, the NPR folks are pretty much guessing what their listeners want, and may guess incorrectly.
NPR, being public broadcasting, has a mission to give the news that the public needs to know (according to their judgement), while Google gives what people are looking up.
NPR generates their own news, while Google just links to other stories.
Being radio, NPR has to repeat itself to keep a story in the public eye, even if there’s no new developments. Google can just let a link sit, and devote more space to other stories.
That’s the apparent discrepancy I’m interested in. I’m not trying to propose that Google News to NPR is an apples to apples comparison. I know how Google News works, and I attempted to point that out in the statement that you quoted.
Could NPR be devoting so much programming to the Katrina aftermath in response to how apparantly “unpopular” Katrina news is? Are they attempting to fill the need for information in the Katrina-impacted regions?
I’m used to hearing NPR devote programming to “unpopular” news topics, but it has commonly been subject matter that isn’t always domestic (US). This is the first time I’ve noticed them concentrate such pronounced focus on a domestic issue.
I need to add that I relied almost exclusively on the mainstream media for coverage of 9/11, which I assume NPR covered in a similar fashion, though 9/11 to Katrina is another apples to oranges comparison.
I agree with the observation that there has been a tremendous amount of Katrina-related coverage on NPR. I have attributed it to a decision on the part of NPR to do in-depth coverage of Katrina’s aftermath. I mean, how often do you hear complaints that news organizations do superficial coverage of the news, that as soon as the bodies stop bleeding, the cameras, etc., move on to the next bodly.
I have often found the Katrina-related pieces to be extremely boring, to be honest, but I sort of see what NPR is getting at: the damage from Katrina extends far beyond the superficial stuff you hear on TV news, etc.
I speak as a man who knows more about Katrina news coverage than anyone you’ve ever met or heard of (I’m working on a contract that tracks what sort of coverage Katrina is generating each day…urgh).
Yes, NPR is covering it more than most outlets. But I don’t find that to be a real surprise. After all, we had a major american city destroyed. That’s something that has never happened before. If NPR seems to be covering it heavily it would be because it’s the biggest real story out there. Other stories: Cheney, Angelina and Brad, Olympics and so forth are nice but insignificant next to the Katrina aftermath.
Sticking to the “belly up to the trough” analogy, I’ve always perceived Public Broadcasting news as the organic healthfood options at the news cafeteria…very nutritious and good for you, not always necessarily “tasty”, often with unfamiliar flavors and textures, often composed of unfamiliar ingredients. The volume of such choices available at the news cafeteria is dwarfed in comparison to the volume NBC hotdogs and CNN french fries. Yet at the end of the day the hotdogs and french fries are all gone while most of the healthfood remains untouched.
I think you have it there, risking a bit of a hijack I have to mention that this is an item that makes an outlet like NPR sound liberal when it is actually doing the job assigned to it. Public interests were and are monumentally affected by Katrina. After all, it is the National Public Radio.
