[gwbrooks]

PBS is essentially corporate media, getting ~15% of its budget from government. NPR is even less at ~2%.

Corporate vs. public ownership matters a lot less than institutional standards and the org's cultural commitment to a rigorous journalistic mission. BBC has a relatively strong commitment; NPR (my favorite whipping boy for bad journalism packaged as Thinky Stuff) does not.

[tootie]

That's a pretty facile analysis. PBS and NPR both have affiliate models where the dozens of local public radio and tv operate independently and are funded separately utilizing the affiliate network to buy and sell content. They are mostly funded by membership, by government indirectly via CPB grants, and sponsorship.

[gwbrooks]

You're right about the affiliate model. But most NPR stations in all but the largest markets predominantly run nationally syndicated content. Creating and syndicating that content is the NPR mothership's largest cost center, averaging 58% of operating expenses FY18-FY22.

Corporate sponsorships are, at an average 39% during the same period, the largest source of funding. Contributions (what we'd call donations) are 12%.

Put another way: Local donors may (or may not -- I don't know) form the backbone of funding individual stations. But corporate sponsorships fund most of the content that appears on most of the stations, and also funds its distribution.

[gnz11]

Are you implying PBS does not have a commitment to a "rigorous journalistic mission"? It seems quite disingenuous to lump PBS and NPR as "corporate media" in the same light as corporate media entities like Fox News, CNN, et al.

[gwbrooks]

Two different issues, right? Reasonable people can disagree with her PBS and NPR are corporate media.

But I am very comfortable critiquing the consistently low quality of NPR journalism.

That doesn't mean that they're in the same league with the worst of cable news. However, some of the dynamics are similar:

* Journalists interviewing other journalists;

* Stories with no balance from opposing-view sources; and

* Facts regularly asserted by the journalist rather than a credible source.

[gnz11]

Since we are speaking of reasonable people, most reasonable people would define "corporate media" as for-profit entities either privately owned or with shareholders and which rely primarily on advertising to turn a profit. Nothing in that definition defines PBS or NPR as "essentially corporate media". What you are probably angling at is corporate underwriting -- in which case I can only direct you to read their statements of editorial standards and independence found on their websites. Now I suppose you will have to take their word here...but if not, then it's just an endless rabbit-hole of debate.

Now I won't say PBS or NPR are above criticism -- and as the kids say, "there's a lot to unpack here", but let's be honest, is NPR's journalism really low-quality? Or is it more likely you have a bit of grievance with NPR because you feel they do not favor your own particular political bias? Since we are internet strangers and have little context to go on, I can only assume the latter is the most likely.

[specialist]

Totally agree wrt PBS & NPR. To the shock and horror of most everyone I know.

Since you're an expert:

How do you find and consume news?

If you were made King/BDFL, how would you "fix" investigative journalism? A la the documentary "Fit to Print".

[gwbrooks]

I don't know how others do it, but my main tools are:

* Reading rather than watching/listening.

* Going out of my way to consume content from authors/publications whose worldview I disagree with. Ditto for non-U.S. sources.

* Filter based on seriousness rather than passion. The whole information ecosystem is full of people and institutions ready to be passionate about almost any topic; the number willing to be serious is a lot smaller. This, more than any other filter, will improve your news-consuming experience.

* Read what the journalists are reading to get their story ideas. That means niche-y Substacks, newsletters and industry websites.

Investigative journalism: There are some nonprofits doing an very good job, like ProPublica. But too often, those newsrooms are political/cultural monocultures. To use the ProPublica example, you're much, much more likely to see stories about evil billionaires and how government should have done something(tm), than investigations about how, say, government is holding people back.

Some of this stems from hiring trends in journalism, which have skewed more and more to hiring coastal, degree-holding (relative) elites compared to the more blue-collar newsrooms of the past. Hire for monoculture, get monoculture results.

But the other part is funding diversity -- left-leaning donors have embraced nonprofit journalism in a way right-leaning donors have not.

When the right gives to journalistic efforts it tends to take the form of local investigation (and there are some GREAT reporters doing local-market work with that model), open-the-books efforts aimed at government transparency or, these days, own-the-libs clickbait. This reflects the growing delta between how much the right and left trust the press in the U.S.